Re: [tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian)

----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:49 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian)
Langauges


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > It was obviously written by persons who have great knowledge and
> > love for their own culture;
>
> Well I have to say that I've yet to see anything
> even remotely resembling "great knowledge", of
> anything, ever coming from Mayuresh Kelkar or
> Srinivasan Kalyanaraman, much less of their own
> culture, about the history of which they seem
> to have very little factual information. In fact
> I truly have to wonder to what degree it is that
> jealousy motivates their great hatred for those
> Western scholars who are so much better informed
> about their culture than they themselves are?
>
> If it's not on the internet, then neither "Dr."
> Kalyanaraman nor Kelkar is likely to have read
> it, and both have proudly admitted more than once
> that they have no knowledge of linguistics and
> moreover despise it, so then how much time should
> we waste debating such individuals?
>
> Most on this list may not know, but I spent years
> on "Dr." Kalyanaraman's own list debating both
> him and his student Mayuresh about linguistics,
> including the 'daughter-in-law' word and what
> McWhorter _actually_ said about it (Mayuresh has
> the habit of constantly, I would almost say
> "methodically" misrepresenting the actual position
> of his sources), after which even a moderately
> intelligent person would realize that he was in
> error. I must add that during much of my time with
> that list I had also to endure the most vile abuse
> from list members, including Mayuresh himself who
> made the most obscene comments about my mother,
> all with Kalyanaraman's full knowledge and blessing.
>
> Piotr too spent much time and effort trying to
> illuminate that list, but all to no avail, as "Dr."
> Kalyanaraman and Kelkar have no interest whatsoever
> in the truth, but are no more than propagandists for
> the Hindu equivalent of Christian creationism. They
> even uphold and cite creationist "scholars" such as
> Nicholas Kazanas and David Frawley (a.k.a. "Vamadeva
> Shastry", also a fortune teller and internet peddler
> of quack cures). Kalyanaraman himself has repeatedly
> insisted that a species of horse that went extinct
> ten thousand years ago is still living in India today,
> and that agriculture was practiced in India during
> the last ice age. How are such claims any different
> from those of the Christian creationists who insist
> that man and the dinosaurs walked the Earth at the
> same time?
>
> > and I cannot fault anyone for this in any way.
>
> So then you wouldn't expect to be faulted, Pat, if
> you were to claim that the Anglo-American culture
> of the U.S. was the oldest in the world, and the
> source of all advanced culture everywhere, or that
> English was the original language of the Earth from
> which all others sprang? Personally I wouldn't accept
> a claim of "great love for [your] own culture" as
> an excuse for such public masturbation. Personally
> I place love of the truth far above love of country
> or nation, for the latter which in fact I have no
> love at all, as such things aren't proper objects
> of love.
>
> Surely too, "love" tends to get in the way of one's
> objectivity, though I think that the true motivation
> here isn't love, but hate.
>
> Kalyanaraman banned me from his list, and others as
> well, for no more than telling truths that he found
> unflattering to his own personal and idiosyncratic
> view of Hinduism. Given that, and the policy stated
> on this list's homepage "to discourage crank scholar-
> ship", I don't see why Kelkar's and his nonsense need
> be tolerated.
>
> Would this list tolerate a fundamentalist Christian
> repeatedly posting that man and the dinosaurs walked
> the Earth at the same time? If we don't tolerate
> domestic lunacy, then why should we tolerate that
> imported from Asia? Personally I'm not interested
> in reading nonsense of that sort.
>
> In any case, let list members at least be aware of
> just what sort of bottomless pit it is that they're
> trying to fill when they attempt to correct Kelkar
> and his ideological fellows.
>
> David

***
Patrick:

Sorry if what I wrote was upsetting to you.

Perhaps because my knowledge of India is fairly shallow, I was impressed by
things that more knowledgeable people would find rather pedestrian.

I do think that Kelkar is entitled to his opinion; and to suppress it on
this list would be to make the same mistake that was made with you on
another list.

You are, however, quite right in insisting that the major focus of
contributions be linguistic rather than archaeological or cultural.

***