Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote:
Your problem was of your own making ,you introduced an implication that was not only not there but doesn't exist apart from in your imagination .
On the contrary, the implication in your post that the springs were (primarily) linked to Minerva in her manifestation as a goddess of healing was most certainly there (and I am not the only one to have read it as such). I’m sure you didn’t intend to imply that impression but it remains, nonetheless, apparent.
There was no implication , it was a product of your imagination .
For some reason you imagined that Roman temples might have been dedicated to deities other than in their primary manifestation ,where did that come from ? If this was normal practice then you might have a case but it isn't , it's fantasy . That is your problem and is unrelated to the content of the comment .
You recently suggested the simple comment was unclear , if so , why didn't you ask for clarification ? , instead you asked for evidence and at one point asked me to "categorically state " ...the comment , are these the type of requests from someone who is unsure of the meaning of a comment ?
|