god(s) and gods

António Pedro Marques · 30 Nov 2010, 12:00 · from 2010-November.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: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:00:22 +0000
Subject: (urth) god(s) and gods
In-Reply-To: <4CF440AB.4080705 at gmail.com>
References: <4CF1C33F.9020801 at sky.com>	<AANLkTi=3kJgND5TgU20LaYZwg7i8e5JVbcZC2p7yR4aJ at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF43A31.70601 at gmail.com>
	<4CF440AB.4080705 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF4E756.4010907 at gmail.com>

James Wynn wrote (30-11-2010 00:09):
> On 11/29/2010 5:41 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> A little too straightforward to be true, inn'it?
>> To this day I haven't found an explanation I like for Pas. At the same
>> time, the name makes an enormous amount of sense to me. I can't help
>> thinking there must be some obvious association we're missing completely.
>
> I really don't understand why some people have a problem with Pan = Pas.

As I've said, I find it too simple. Gerry find it good on those grounds, I 
don't. I feel everyone's overlooking something. Which may be brutally simple 
as well - but only once you think of it, which nobody has.

Which is not to say that Pan isn't an association - and afaict especially on 
sexual grounds -, the more since the text itself almost spells it out. But I 
feel that's deceptive.

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