|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:28 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:36 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai JulieDoc I tend to agree with that insight. After all, I don't think inspiration is a process that stopped with ancient people. I think new interpretations of any ideas are always there for someone that might be inspired to pursue them. With that in mind though, how far are we from Fluff? Look at the invention of the Blank Rune for example- and the implications there of?!
I honestly don't know how far that is from fluff. Who would be qualified to decide the standards of whether someone's inspiration would be valid or not? I am certainly not sure.
:headdesk:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:01 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai JulieDoc I honestly don't know how far that is from fluff. Who would be qualified to decide the standards of whether someone's inspiration would be valid or not? I am certainly not sure. :headdesk: Myself I would start with someone who had a working understanding of the runes in question already. Mayhaps someone with a respectable understanding of symbology and modern culture.
That sounds reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|