What are you talking about? I’m refuting your assertion by providing a simple example. Look I understand the sentiment that only a deranged mind could create certain types of art, but your example is very flimsy. I interpreted his muse story to be like folklore; tragic and cautionary.
I didn’t say that. I, in fact, specifically stated otherwise in a further comment you might have had a chance to read if you wanted to see what the discussion was before butting in with a “contribution.”
That’s just what you and other people of dubious insight decided it meant.
You don’t even know what my user name is, maybe stay out of discussions that require reading comprehension.
I imagined that the wyvern was a dragon but the precise etymology is dubious at best, as some traditions would call it a drake or a wyrm.
Which are all dragons so it’s not vague at all. If you weren’t confusing me with that Drag guy based on your sentence choice I’ll retract my comment.
What are you talking about? I’m refuting your assertion by providing a simple example. Look I understand the sentiment that only a deranged mind could create certain types of art, but your example is very flimsy. I interpreted his muse story to be like folklore; tragic and cautionary.
It wasn’t the sentiment at all.
That’s just the meaning great minds decided to apply to a simple and objectively correct statement.
Which objectively correct statement? That writing the muse story proves he assaults women?
I didn’t say that. I, in fact, specifically stated otherwise in a further comment you might have had a chance to read if you wanted to see what the discussion was before butting in with a “contribution.”
That’s just what you and other people of dubious insight decided it meant.
You could clear it up by explaining yourself
I
Did
You
Just
Didn’t
Bother
Reading
It
Which
I
Also
Already
Said