Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 2114208" data-attributes="member: 10201">Anchored to, yes; functional without, yes--the trunk has no bones within it, which was my point, and most of what it does is relevant without the leverage that the rest of the elephant supplies. But now we're really digressing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It was both in jest and serious. Analogies are wonderful tools--but that doesn't always mean that analagous terminology is unambiguous or desirable. On compound fracture: a compound fracture is one that is so severe it deforms the surround tissue, piercing the skin. If rules are analogous to bones, and background to flesh [meat], then a compound fracture is analagous to one where the rules break so badly as to break the background, too. Your example of bending/breaking the rules to match the setting would analogize to... building your muscles up disproportionately, so that you dislocate a joint trying to lift something to heavy. (yeah, i'm stretching.)Oh, but the ossification you bring up is an easy one: it's when the setting is warped by the rules into something that is no longer part of the setting, but is instead part of the rules. IOW, when the rules *don't* bend to match the setting where they should.</blockquote>