posted on May, 24 2008 @ 12:27 AM
Amusing. Seriously. You know what's really the most funny thing about this thread? How each person so repetitively calls Prince Dracula a dictator,
then claims to know so far back in history. Laughable. Extraordinarily laughable. He was a freak! Oh, no! A dictator! No, no no no. This all fails.
Failure. Listen to the truth. It deserves to be told.
Vlad Dracula was not a "shunner" of the light (and for that matter, those who are photosensitive aren't making a choice! They are pained by
sulight! What do you expect them to say? "Serve me up some more radiation?" or "oh yes, more burns please! What pleasureful sunlight!")- anyway:
even if he did happen to have the 'condition' known as photosensitivity, and even if he did so horribly, so awfully drink blood, what of the
In times passed, those with the blood affliction- paleness and such, whatever it's called- were told to drink blood, and these people were
commonly nobles who inbred, causing the affliction. There were people like the 'lady' Bathory, who indeed were crazies to be polite; who didn't
have any sort of difference about them beyond the "oddness" if you will, of fetishist behavior, which she took to most cruel extremes.
He was not a dictator. He was not Transylvanian. Vladislav Dracula was a Prince of Wallachia, taught at young age by his own father that his own
life was close to worthlessness, an escapee from the enemy captivation, and later the warrior ruling. He impaled the enemies on poles to frighten
enemies away, and the same with the blood. In the area, there are still many who view the prince- not count- as a hero, and certainly no dictator.
Just as a note, i did not take this information from any one site, but this is a bit of knowlede from all my reading (actual books I might add, not
radom net sites-), which i would encourage those making such rash allegations to do.