> From: Lars De Richter [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> This was actually meant as an oversimplification.
The problem with oversimplifications is that they are frequently
inaccurate--as yours was--and simply reinforce misconceptions.
> This is quite the opposite of what Cross & Slover say.
Please quote them. I would prefer to read their statement rather
than your (perhaps) oversimplification.
> But I like your proposition more. Do you have some more information on
> this? (there was also some confusion: I meant modern pagans, sorry, my
I meant pagans in all times and places--and qualifying your
statement in this way does not make it accurate, IMHO.
> I never read the book and I did not claim it was any good.
If you have not read any of his writings, how can you claim to be
able to summarize them?
> (Although I do like some of John Matthews's book, in reply to one of your
> other mails; esp. his "Encyclopedia of Celtic Wisdom" and his "The Celtic
> Reader") I have read some part of it today and I have to agree with you
> that he doesn't know very well what he's talking about. Sorry Kitty and
> Francine. I was also not very sure why Kitty asked, I included it in case
> she asked out of some pagan interest.
Not all pagans are content to quote inaccurate sources simply
because they "like" them. A number of pagans, in fact, prefer to consider
accuracy very important..
> (Most people, who visit my website about Celtic Mythology (in
> Dutch, I'm sorry, new version with translation on its way) do so because
> they are interested in some form of Celtic Paganism and they mostly are
> very much interested in the Tuatha De Danann).
And apparently you are reinforcing misconceptions which is very sad.