Dear Mario, First of all, loved the smileys. Secondly, I have been informed that the original thread has been closed. I also appreciate the prudent decision and offering me an opportunity to present my thoughts again.
To clarify, my response was to an earlier post by the writer -- which I consider to be absolutely appropriate -- seeking clarification on the word origin from possibly on a feminine sounding name. In a sense it was a rhetorical question, but I responded since it allowed me to spell and dispel certain notions -- not on the part of the questioner, but as we see ourselves. Furthermore, the name would work well if a part of it did not implicitly stem from a crude sexual expression, and as such is misogynistic. Now some broad reflections on my thoughts -- or rather, their "tangentiality." I try not to get into issues that I am not sound in. Issues, which I consider myself to be reasonably good at, include ideas that intersect through religion, sexuality and consciousness (a very large area, and includes the whys and meanings of thoughts, ideas, as well as the denotations and connotations of words). When things of such nature crop up and are worthy of the little time that I have, I say my piece -- well, only when if I can get my thoughts together. Quite often the ideas or notions that I pause to look at are very tangential and certainly appear to have no bearing on the discussion at hand. This is patently true, but my seeing those tangents -- in no way disrupts the precise thoughts that others have to offer on any given discussion at hand. A few examples that I am glad I was drawn towards are -- pointing to interpretations of texts from Old Testament (I believe it was forwarded by Mr. Sabnis, and none appeared interested to touch it); posts that I respectfully term as stemming from the Hindu way of being; a couple of translations of Aitaracheo Kaskutleo by Lino Durado (since I like the appreciate the makes between events and glimpses of lived realities -- perhaps someday, someone may attempt to analyze them from a historical perspective); and the recent post on frotteur/frotteurism, frottage (nothing against Cecil). Certain areas interest me, and I like precision in meaning, particularly when it helps at the very, very least -- for me to see the depth in those realities, however graciously or poorly they may be received by Goanetters. In this, I am quite sure that I do not disappoint too many, hopefully none. So, thinking tangentially gives me visual cud to mull upon, and through that what we all look for -- a cogency in body, and mind. But I also believe that, "We do not come by our thoughts; they come to us." I think you will allow me that vantage. Besides, its a precarious edge that I walk on, and if I fall (by saying something crude or silly) its only I who will be hurt. Continue keeping your end up. You do well in tackling the topics you take on, and in doing so allowing us to see yet another aspect of collective Goan thinking. Bye now & take care. venantius j pinto