That's the thing, folkloric zombies aren't cannibalistic at all, but ghouls do eat flesh. Even though that flesh usually comes from the dead. I'm still not satisfied by the term zombie used in that way.

Doc's right though - by the classical definition, zombies don't want flesh at all. That was born with Romero, more or less.

I see his points though. You see these zombies limping around slowly detereorating. At what point do they rot too much and just collapse? You never see living skeltons in zombie movies, in theory you could. Or is it just when their heads eventually fall off?

Also, Romero himself didn't use the word zombie.

i think one key distinction is between biological zombies (like romero or 28 days) and 'magic/voodoo' zombies

I long for another film with Magic Voodoo zombies. Too often a film with have "infected" people. NO! I just want reanimated corpses! Or go for the Romero/Shaun of the Dead approach and not explain it at all.

Romero hinted at an explaination- something about rays from outer space. Flash eating zombies may have had their genesis with Romero, but why hold that against them? The distinction between a craving for living or dead flesh still marks the difference between a ghoul and a zombie for me.

Like this guy?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i9...lack-flash.jpg

It's not that I have anything against them. It's just that things like that drive me nuts. Like how we say panini. And you can buy one panini. Can you buy one pizzas? Can you buy one hotdogs? You cannot. You can buy one panino or multiple panini.

The one thing that still unifies pre and post Romero zombies is that they're reanimated corpses. This has nothing to do with ghouls. So, to say that a reanimated corpse is actually a ghoul because it eats flesh doesn't make sense to me. It's still a reanimated corpse, and therefore a zombie.