On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:17:58 GMT, "AC"
 blethered:

>
>"Jani"  wrote in message 
>news:fvh74u$2qpt$1@energise.enta.net...
<snipit>
>The context of the question was not neccesary for me to reach that 
>conclusion. That said, the conclusion is not definitive as it is only a 
>conclusion based on the totality of knowledge of those willing to post a 
>response in a small reaching newsgroup.
>
>So, I can now say in my writing that the following statement - the context 
>that bothers one person and a referee - is probably pants:
>
>"Black swans are profound occult symbols used in rituals"

I agree - sounds like pants. 

>
>To which I can now write: "there is no known evidence supporting such an 
>assertion" and in that, my goal is achieved. 

Ah, that's dangerous[1] in itself - as knowledgable as a lot of the
folks hereabouts are, URP will still not know all sources and all
available evidence, so that's a bit of a sweeping statement to make
from a small sample. :-)

>Again, I'm grateful to those 
>who gave help freely without judging my wish to learn or labelling my 
>deliberate choice to hold back the context.

Labelling?

>
>I can continue to look up those paths of query opened up by others which may 
>still provide material which has been misunderstood by the author of the 
>sentence I am looking to critique.
>
>I hope that's all okay by everyone?
>
>Sheesh!
>

Here, this is your umbrage, take it by all means.

>No wonder so many of the old regulars only lurk in this newsgroup. It seems 
>to have maintained aspects of the attititude shift that drove out most of 
>the old community. 

Ah, so you *are* from round these parts. You seem more at home than
newbies usually are, so I suspected you'd been here before - have we
met previously? 

>That said, there appears to be a lot of nice new faces, 
>and I will feel confident asking questions of such people again in the 
>future. I also have an indicator of who to say "internet attitude" about. 
>Just because people have a keyboard and define as pagan doesn't make them 
>hospitable to those desiring to expand their knowledge. Which is a shame.

Isn't it? Also the people who make snide remarks about other posters
without saying anything definite, then say it's because they don't
*actually* want to cause any disturbances, that can be sad too. 

>
>Anyway, 'an it harm none'...

Heh. 

[1] Which I originally triped as 'dangerpus', which then made me
giggle. :-)


-- 
Henceforth I ask not good fortune. I myself am good fortune.
 -Elizabeth Watson