We ARE NOT talking about Hancock. Please refer to your original post
at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/13883
In this message, you say:
"Unfortunately the evidence for this "city" comes only from Indian
scholars
with a reputation for - and interest in - these fairly extreme "India
first"
ideas..."
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE 'INDIAN' SCHOLARS that you are so
trigger happy in characterizing them in an unfair manner?
The frequency with which you make these racial slurs against scholars
of Indian origin, to deny their obvious import later on, is quite
disturbing to me. I wonder if you are making just too many Freudian
slips.
I again ask you not to become another Witzel and comment on matters
of which you do not have any knowledge. It is not the prerogative
scholars of a particular ethnicity to make such prejudiced remarks
against people of Indian origin. Such erroneous remarks only tend to
expose subliminal biases and do not credit to Indo-European studies,
whose origins and EVEN current patronage are intermeshed with racism
to a great extent, as we all know.
Sincerely,
Vishal
--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
> Hancock, for one, is not an "India first" ideologist, but he has a
penchant for early dating in general: he has already proposed much
earlier dates for Tiahuanaco and the Sphinx. His talent for
discovering artificial structures in unlikely places is also
remarkable (pyramids on Mars, for example). Hancock's eagerness to
play a role in the Gulf of Cambay affair is probably the worst thing
that