Well, then why bring it up?

Mostly because I'm incapable of just letting something so wrong (or so I think, obviously) become the standard accepted opinion without saying something about it, really.

No ureil is the one who told him to be wk methinks. Lasciel tried to kill him three times in that book i believe: once on the ladder, once with the words, and a third time with stevie d. Shes one ticked off chickie.

How was Lash responsible for the ladder?  Also, and I know you'll never agree, but the words made Harry become the Winter Knight, not that they got him dead.

Lash was the parasite that kept Harry's heart beating while Demonreach kept his body "fed" and Mab kept him on the porch of death, but not yet through that door.

It would have been only maybe 1 or 2 years or so for Lasciel to get a new host, which seems fairly quick as such things go.  Especially since Lasciel can't tell anyone where she is, that she's back on the market, as it were.  Nic thought Lash was still in Harry, if getting rid of the coin would have eliminated that temptation and link, he wouldn't have tried to speak with her still.

There is certainly something going on about the Denarians that I don't understand because I am unsure how Lasciel could have wispered to Harry in Changes...  Jim's answer to AA's question at last years BBB Q&A only served to confuse me further.

My personal theory is that as Harry never took up the coin, he has not had the opportunity to truly cast it aside, so he's the closest thing to a bearer Lasciel has right now, thus, she can whisper at him now that he's taken her out of the circle.

Given something someone (either Bob or Harry, maybe Thomas) said about love, sex, making a whole new soul from the merging of two souls, and how powerful it is, I would think that souls might be needed for reproduction.  So something genderless, something that doesn't procreate, would have no soul.

This is, of course, probably entirely unsupported and even contraindicated by the rest of the series though.

Or we might have to wait until we get more info in the books

Well yes, but that's like finding out who lives in the white house third from the end with what kind of pet and what they do by knocking on the door and taking a census.  No fun at all.

It's always possible that I'm right about the prehistory, and that it's from a time when humans had writing, or at least pictographs for recording information/warnings, and that they were still put there by some non-human entity.

Another question though, if the runes are prehistoric, that means the Lighthouse is prehistoric.  So who made that?  The earliest recorded evidence of a light house is the Pharos, but even that was only built in 300 BC (or so).  We'd be looking at something probably 2-3 millenia older than that if it's prehistoric.

So in the earlier discussion we were talking about how Jim has said that the runes were prehistoric,^woj#1 which strongly implies that they ain't human (being writing, and prehistoric meaning before written history), and DominicJ made this comment:

Not... quite.  There have been glyphs and other forms or writing that predate a written history as we understand it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_signs for example.  Since they're runes on the building, it's entirely possible that they were just symbols of warding and protection, carved by humans, but not necessarily the same thing as spoken words like we'd understand them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiahu_symbols also has similar symbols from an even earlier time period.