When you disagree with someone, and you call them names? Yeah, it kind of mocks you more than the person you're insulting. We can disagree - but you, sir, reduce this fandom to a foaming, nerd creature that people avoid. And intelligent insults aside (kudos on word choice, btw), I would have rather appreciated an intelligent counterpoint. But if it suits you fine to insult everyone, go ahead. I'm really not bothered by your remarks, sorry! (Unless you were being "funny" or "ironic". I don't know. Your lack of words make your intentions as unclear as your remark. But if you're curious - the quoted word choice is by Jay Sherman! ) Duke: "Didn't you say it was a mixture of fantasy and crap?" Jay: "YES! I dubbed it, 'Fanta-crap!'" I don't disagree the dragon concept is interesting... but MOST KIDS? You may be right... but without actual studies or numbers to back that up, it's mere opinion. The fantasy aspect of fiction... does it really outsell other fiction? I'm just saying there are other things to transform into, and thus far, the dragons feel shoehorned and unnecessary (as you mentioned in Prime). Dinosaurs, I submit, are far more popular with kids: because they actually existed! They have a mythic, real life quality. Anyway, let's just see these dragons sell - because the lot of you are WRONG! If the dragon TFs sold so well in the past, tell me why we haven't seen more! Common logic dictates they had low to moderate sales, forcing Hasbro to move onto other toy ideas. Again, there haven't been too many dragons sold in the 30+ yrs of TF history... is that mere coincidence? Everyone keeps telling me kids love dragons, but the sales history doesn't seem to match that at all. And for the record: someone please elaborate how many dragon toy lines we have right now. Either we have a lot (and I missed them in the toy aisle), or we need a lot more (to match how popular dragons are). OR, maybe I'm right: maybe dragons are kind of lame, and the sales data will match that?