Re: Positioning Priyadarsi

From: tgpedersen
Message: 59506
Date: 2008-07-10

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
<kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:
>
> > > It is linguistic experitise which came into play here.
> >
> > What does that sentence mean?
> >
>
> Samudragupta is a king of gupta dynasty of 4th century (as per main
> stream thinking- it differs as per Non jonesian thinkers) He is
> supposed to a great lover of arts, as evidenced by his inscriptions
> and his coins.
>
> In this back ground, a kavyam or a work of verses by name Krishna
> caritam was floated, claiming that it is the wrok of Samudra gupta.
> There is no evidence or counterevidence to prove that it is in deed
> written by SG but the sanskrit experts have finally diagnosed it
> and on the basis of the language, grammar and other aspect, came to
> a conclusion that it is a fake.
> If not for such expertise in languages, there is no other way of
> cattching it.

So why didn't you say that?


> > Where? In linguistics?
> > If so, don't you find that a handicap when arguing against what
> > linguists say?
> >
>
> I am a layman. But instead of it being a handicap, it is a
> blessing in disguise for me.

Not for your audience, I'm afraid.


> I think differently than all of you, infusing a fresh bout of
> thinking.

But not of anything linguistic.


> Sometime, no doubt I may be wrong but often, I feel that my
> argument is not dismissed so easily.

It is not easy to dismiss something that's irrelevant to one's field
of interest.


> In fact, some of our group members get frsutateed that they are
> totally dismantled based on simple logic and they get frustrated to
> come back and call me names.
> is there one instance when I was the first one to call the other
> names?
> None.
>
> My fight with one person can not make an enemy of the group.

Your own words declares you to be an enemy of a large part of the
group, as Arnaud pointed out in cybalist_admin:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist_admin/message/366
'
[Kishore:]
> Exactly, this is what I have feared would happen. I have not said
> something is wrong with you being an European. I only said
> something is wrong if you are racist.

===========
What you wrote is that being "western",
that is to say either European or American,
entails that you are racist.

Mail 58651
> Time we arrange a bonfire of western racists.
> I will certainly inform you the schedule
> and promise you that I will personally throw you into the fire.

Mail 58644
> I can show hundreds of such incidents happening
> in Britain and other racist European countries.
> Blacks, Asians and Moslems, who have migrated to Europe are always
> treated as second rate citizens.

You explicit state that European countries are _racist_'



> while some of the people are inded more personally biased than
> making things issue based, (who I personally condemn) I I have no
> hesitation to say that most of the people are not so.
>
> Then how come my fight with one person makes me an enemy of the group>
> please explain.

You started a long thread in cybalist_admin titled 'Is Piotr really a
racist?'
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist_admin/message/376
which also contains this paragraph:
'Will you, as the group of a civil and well educated people, who have
no such biases, please raise your voice against such certainly
condemnable brashness? Or, will you be just the onlookers, allowing
the posterity think Europeans are more represented by Arnauds and
Piotrs and little else??'

from which one learns that you consider Piotr to be, as far as you are
concerned, in the same category as Arnaud, whom you claim above to be
the only member of the group you have a problem with.
>
> You are mistaken if you think that Indians are natural enemies of
> Westerners, please think again. You are grossly wrong.

I certainly do hope most Indians are different from you.

> In any case, I have not threatened anyone, much less some
> memberS(plural) that I will put fire to anyone.

That is a lie.

> You are mistaken.

I wish I was.


> Please think again.

In this matter, I don't think that's necessary.


Torsten