> > It wasn't me, Vishal, so I leave it to the author of the message to
> defend himself from your accusations of "Witzelism".
All right, it was me, and I accept the mud. I stated what I believed to be
true - namely that the publishers of the claim that a city from before the
Ice Age had been found off India, had also been involved in previous
excessive claims about the antiquity of Indian civilisation. I did more
than "merely" report what was in The Times, I actually believed it, and
repeated it in language that, I admit, may have been intemperate.
Incidentally, I now have a dilemma. Do I continue to believe The Times, a
generally reputable newspaper with no bias on this issue, or do I believe
Vishal, who seems to have an interest in the matter? I've not kept track
of this discussion. Didn't someone else on this list say that the
publishers had made other claims for the antiquity of India? Is, perhaps,
the unbiased "Times" right after all?
Peter