My apologies, I think I just realized where our communication has failed.
I have my everyday life in (or on the border of) the scientific community (Physics, Semiconductor/ material sciences). In this context, it is inconceivable that you would make a statement like
Ghostwalker and Dunklezahn are brothers, hatched from the same brood of eggs.
without providing either a motivation for your statement, or a referance to someone else providing the motivation. It's the sort of thing that costs you grades in larger projects, or problems when publishng articles. When I see a statement like that, so very bold and and definate, I
know there has to be valid reasoning immediately afterwards, or a referance as to why. So if my request for a source seemed aggresive, it was not meant that way.
Second of all, I don't need to refute your theory, or provide another one.
According to how I'm used to evaluating theories, you don't actually argue for your theory, simply state a possibility and declare it to be true unless proven false. This without any significant (not sure what you'd normally call it, a direct translation of what I'd usually call it would be 'burden of evidence').
What you deposit is conjecture at best, nothing that cannot be explained away with coincidences (or, more likely, given the context, some guy who really liked the idea of a Great Dragon with this secific sort of behaviour!). I agree that there are similarities, but because they are nothing more, I refuse to give them any more credence than that, especially because it leaves me with free-er hands in case I'm ever to use something like that as a plotline. My players might well suspect what you clearly believe, but because it is not proven or a matter of record, I can easily spin a twist on it, and make it different.
I can do so too ofcourse, even if it's been printed a thousand places with font-size 48 that they indeed are the one and same, but in that case I'd prefer not to, for certain reasons having to do mostly with the detail that so very many of the people I play with (though not all) score so amazingly highly on
this.
But please note that
Their implicit natures lay proof to a theory which substantiates the theory over any other.
is not a valid proof, merely a point of argument, and that I need not present a counter theory to pick your theory apart, simply to point out that it is build on sand.
I will accept it as a possiblity, certainly even a strong one, assuming that the 2 worlds (Sr and ED) haven't been torn apart irrevocably with the end of FASA, but it is not the only possible solution.
