[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH-reorg.. No basis for accusations
In article <4cvjbp$4g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>
>Namaskar,
>
>Those who have followed SRV and SRH debates for a long time would readily
>recognize the word "proponent" not strictly in the newsgroup creation
>terminology "proponent", but as a "staunch supporter".
I guess, you have missed my point though. i was trying to argue that
the people who participate in a debate on one side carry no greater
stigma than those who argue on another side. IFF merely (howsoever
vehemently) arguing in favour SRV can make them to be the "people out
there to take control" of SRH, then so does arguing against SRV make
the other group to be the "people out there to maintain status quo at
any cost"
If on the other hand if can forget the people and their history (how
better or worse it might be) and discuss the RFD as to how best to
improve apolitically as interested parties to promote academic debates
on matters of hindu-religion, we can probably satisfy both the parties
as well as complete newbies like me.
For instance, you might consider listing out your expectations, and
ideas for improving SRH in whatever manner. Even IF you are averse to
V Pai (i am not implying you are averse to him) it would be useful if
you attempt to answer his questions. Ofcourse, you may also put any number
of questions in return. let us see if that leads us somewhere from this
(apparent) stalemate.
regards
Follow-Ups:
References:
