On 5 April 2012 23:28, Parks White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > > On 6/04/2012, at 1:17 AM, Ray Chiang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 4/5/2012 6:06 AM, LAR wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Stroup, Shelley A CIV SWOS N61 >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> S >>>> P >>>> O >>>> I >>>> L >>>> E >>>> R >>>> >>>> >>>> S >>>> P >>>> O >>>> I >>>> L >>>> E >>>> R >>>> >>>> >>>> S >>>> P >>>> O >>>> I >>>> L >>>> E >>>> R >>>> >>>> S >>>> P >>>> O >>>> I >>>> L >>>> E >>>> R >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Back to the topic: >>>> >>>> 1. Pug's parentage is currently "unknown". >>>> >>>> While it currently may seem just an offhand "throwaway" comment, and >>>> eliminating the lesbian bargirls and iincestuous time travellers as >>>> serious parenting options, I still think Kalkin is a good Candidate for >>>> Pug's father. it would be his greatest trick yet. It explains Pug's >>>> magical abilities and special relationship to Kalkin rather nicely. >>>> Perhaps this may be revealed in future publications?(or not) >>> Ray has made it clear and often, Pugs parents are non-entities. A >>> tavern girl and a passing soldier. >> >> Just to be clear, REF's answers over the years: >> >> http://www.crydee.com/raymond-feist/faq/2620/who-were-pugs-parents >> >> -Ray >> > > >> Thanks for the reference, dealing with newbies must be tiresome. Any chance >> the solider was Kalkin in disguise? :-)
No. No chance. Not a single one. There was nothing special about Pugs parents whatsoever. Ray has said so over the years. Pug was born of common parents. Neither of them was a magical being, a demon, a god in disguise, a mutant rabbit, or anything else outlandish or fantastical. Simple, normal people. So Ray has said! > Parks3 Anestis. -- Anestis Kozakis | [email protected] | http://www.akozakis.id.au/
