From: Rick McCallister
Message: 57666
Date: 2008-04-19
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallisterYour astrology and alchemy have verified nothing
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I think it is time we maintain some decorum on
> this
> > > group and ban
> > > all non academic issues such as abusing others,
> > > discussing
> > > personalities, questioning the credentials and
> so
> > > on.
> > >
> > > Let us assume that I post on dating on MBh,
> saying
> > > that the event
> > > has occured in 3000 bce, there is not a single
> post
> > > that logically
> > > discusses the acceppted main stream thoughts -
> no
> > > one even discusses
> > > the language and dating of composition of MBh
> (which
> > > is obviously
> > > much much later to the event itself!)
> > >
> > > Similarly, there is a huge difference between
> the
> > > original Mbh
> > > (called Jayam) and the Mbh of today's version,
> > > compiled mostly by
> > > Ugrasravas,a bard of probably south India.
> However,
> > > linguistically,
> > > there is no post discussing the difference.
> > >
> > > Instead of writing nonsensical rebuttals, which
> will
> > > not take us
> > > anywhere, I expect academic rebuttals, which
> > > certainly require some
> > > kind of patience and hard work on the part of
> the
> > > linguists here. I
> > > crave such obligations from my friends here.
> > >
> > > i am appalled.
> > >
> > > Kishore patnaik
> > >
> > If you write something claiming the Mahabharata
> was
> > written 3.000 BCE, then you're guilty of violating
> the
> > non-academic policy --
>
> Non-academic policy of this list which is limited to
> discussion of
> linguistics only. There are other sciences like
> astronomy and
> aracheology and geology that have independently
> valided the
> traditional date.
>
>__________________________________________________
> since the only basis of
> > postulating such an idea is irrational blind
> faith.
> > It's like the science of the tooth fairy, nothing
> to
> > it. So lets us be appalled when you violate the
> rules
> > of common sense.
>
>
> When you make such statments as a linguists you are
> in fact assuming
> that linguistis is the be all and end all of all
> sciences on earth.
> And that violates the rules of common sense.
>
> M. Kelkar
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>