>Sorry. Article read years ago. Do not remember in what >publication. Sorry doesn't cut it, friend. If you can't even remember the article or te publication, how can you possibly expect anyone to rely on your memory for its contents. >But I think that the encyclopedia article >another tech posted, very understatedly mentioning >that the "sexual descriptions" in Vespuccis' pamphlet >made it most popular is validation enough. Your concept of "sexual descriptions" is sorely distorted. Based on that alone clearly shows discrepancies in your interpretation of the definitions of words. >Search on >your own and I'm sure you can find the actual texts (if you're >really that prurient)....Gordon Stetler Ah, prurient. Kudos. You use the means by which a scoundrel would scurry to hide from the light that has exposed him by attempting to cast aspersions in another person's direction. Nice ploy, but absolutely useless rhetoric in the context of this thread. In case you missed it, your the only one that brought matters up. Seems like simple math to me who the prurient one is. References, Mr. Stetler, or just own up that you are doing nothing more than operating from a highly personal sense of literary license, or possibly even worse, just plain want to believe what you want regardless of evidences presented. Regardless, unless you can offer something concrete concerning your claims, what you have said thus far about this individual is fairly useless other than the dramatics of it all. I do thank you for the exercise, however. There is reward in that. From one dirty old man to another, Keith McGavern Registered Piano Technician Oklahoma Chapter 731 Piano Technicians Guild USA
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC