Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Prototype X Really Is Nearly Ready

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    It's a bloke called Jerry something-or-other actually...

    Comment


    • #17
      Silly boys. The reference is to Cornelius Jansen, who strongly urges that Prototype X return to the literary principles laid down by St. Augustine of Hippo.

      Buncha bleedin' Pelagians all!

      LSN

      Comment


      • #18
        Or perhaps it was Jansen Cornelius... J. Cornelius... Hmm.

        LSN

        Comment


        • #19
          I'm quite pelagic.

          Comment


          • #20
            Are you insessorial as well as aquatic? he vocitated.

            LSN

            Comment


            • #21
              Mostly. I have been known to be occassionally littoral-minded*, but never benthic.

              *I'm using that in a story. :roll:

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Perdix
                I'm quite pelagic.
                damn. so much for my theory.
                this definitely rules out mustela putorius furo.

                let's start over: we can probably take animalia / Eukarya and even chordata for granted.

                I suggest we rule out Urochordata and Chephalochordata as insulting. A being with enough brain to appreciate our outstanding talent has to have some proper place to store it, and therefore belong to the Craniata subphylum.

                Actually, I remember DCS complained about being bitten. This would indicate Gnathostomata as a possible working theory. Hyperotreti and Cephalaspidomorphi aren't very likely anyway.

                mmm. We need more evidence. and we have to consider the possiblity of Perdix not fitting in Linnaean Taxonomy at all.
                I'd like to have our expert's opinion.
                Er, no wait. Our expert is him :lol:

                Comment


                • #23
                  The only way we can be certain is by sequencing his DNA.

                  Let's see, where did I put that needle?

                  LSN

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Perdix
                    Mostly. I have been known to be occassionally littoral-minded, but never benthic.
                    I'm with you. I always thought Bentham's ideas were but a watered-down version of Pelagius.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Maybe british thinkers are just too deep for me, though.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I'm inclined to agree with the Perdix not fitting in Linnaean Taxonomy theory. It's highly likely that he transcends conventional definition. We might be doing him a great dis-service by trying to pidgeon hole his mercurial mind, when he can feasibly be by turns benthic, littoral, natatorial, nautical or aeronautical as the mood takes him, what to speak of the soaringly cirro-cumularical or the world-embracing astronautical.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          And don't forget his bouts of earthy flatulence.

                          LSN

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            That's remarkably close to the reality of my existence, today. Too much fibre. :?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X