[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD on Reorgn of SRH (response to V K Rao)
In article <4cgd32$jgu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Vidhyanath K. Rao <vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>don't follow news.groups.
>Shrisa Rao followed up on that, editing out part of the definition. All of
>a sudden Gopal started posting articles based on the >mutilated< definition.
>[In <9601011158.AA11281@qasid.cc.iitk.ernet.in>, sghosh@iitk.ernet.in quotes
>> gopal@ecf.toronto.edu wrote:
>>> (2) Belief in Vedas as infallible and their acceptance as
>>> (i can not speculate on the continuation of the clause(2) if there is
>>> any, as it was not given in VK Rao's post)
>
>Note that Gopal simply refers to `VK Rao's post', and has removed the `>'s
>that would allow the reader to make the suitable attributions. This makes
>it appear that the root article itself is being quoted.]
you are blaming others for your mistakes. you are using sghosh@iitk.ernet.in
post to claim i did some mischief. you see my posting, wherein i clearly
mentioned that excerpts from your post are preceded with *. the article
i used in responding was your post in which YOU INCLUDED your earlier post
with S Rao's questions and your answers. The reason was simple, i did
not simply respond using a news reader like trn, rather, i saved your
article, and responded at my leisure. so even though ">" are missing, i
made sure i included * before every excerpt.
>Gopal has made no attempt to obtain the text of the root article. Ignoring
>that fact the original definition explicitely said ``accept Vedas as part
>of their scripture', he claimed that the original definition said no
>such thing. This sort of misrepresentation is the guilt I referred to.
i have responded to the post you made obliquely addressing it to me, and
you must have courage to accept that you made errors of omission instead
of blaming me for any missing portions.
in fact you clearly mentioned that you are including the posts for
giving me historical discussion to which i am not privy.
