(urth) Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy

[Gerry Quinn]

From: Lee Berman 

> > Gerry Quinn: What you seem to be saying here is that anyone who disagrees 
> > that lianas and inhumi are biologically connected is lying or stupid or both.  
> > That says more about you than about me.
 

> It isn't really your disagreement which I would consider playacting. It is more your
> assertion that such a clear and understandable idea as James' is so ridiculous as to be 
> out of the realm of possible interpretations. 
That lianas are inhumi?  I’m sorry, but while I find it understandable as a logical concept (that any A could actually be a form of any B) I don’t find it at all clear as a biological concept.  Nor do I see why it is necessary.
> There is a little part of your brain which 
> knows that is a clever and insightful idea and that it may well represent what Wolfe intended.

I don’t think it can represent what Wolfe intended.  In SF a creature may well be both plant and animal, but I don’t see the evidence that Wolfe is using such a concept here.  
And what exactly is this “tracking” between the various plants and animals that you are proposing?  
- Gerry Quinn
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111117/f83b19bf/attachment-0004.htm>