[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The definition of HINDU (Was about VK Rao's def) .. very long
In article <4cgcps$jar@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana <gopal@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>(1) I did not take any post from S.Rao. What i responded to was YOUR
>OWN post on the net obliquely addressing it to me as a "certain netter"
>so before making allegations, check what you have posted.
Let me repeat myself once again: I posted an article in which I proposed
a definition of Hindu. S. Rao followed up, to which I answered. Now which
of these is being referred to by `YOUR OWN' post? If it is the last,
clearly, the quotation from the root article had been subject to editing.
My claim is that criticisms of the definition must be based on the root
article. Otherwise, it is based on secondhand information.
--
Vidhyanath Rao It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341 [as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
