Seawrack's name

António Pedro Marques · 29 Aug 2010, 23:27 · from 2010-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:27:08 +0100
Subject: (urth) Seawrack's name
In-Reply-To: <C16BA9CC-987B-4AFA-9E52-F9185CFDD1F7 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32A00468A26E297D7082C0CF880 at phx.gbl>
	<C16BA9CC-987B-4AFA-9E52-F9185CFDD1F7 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C7AECCC.8010204 at gmail.com>

No dia 2010/08/29, ?s 16:16, entonio at gmail.com escreveu:

> No dia 2010/08/29, ?s 04:27, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
>> Apologies for redundant posts, but for me the even closer similarity of
>> "shipwreck" to "seawrack" gnaws at me as an intended association.
>
> I got that, but I don't find it logical (of course the name itself makes
> sense, but not to me the way

Argh.

...the way one gets to it). Everything is fine, except why the shipwreck
maiden would be called 'shipwreck' or why 'shipwreck' would become 
'seawrack'. I mean, of course one can find a connection, I just don't think 
it's a polished one.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net