[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <4shpc2$bn7@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Ramakrishnan
Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
> Shrisha Rao wrote:
[*chomp*]
> > I beg your pardon; it would be more fruitful if you could state the
> > reasons, or give a pointer to wherever you stated them before, rather
> > than re-state your dissatisfaction at not having received answers.
> > Otherwise, some might be inclined to ask if you were really serious
> > about getting answers in the first place. Just a thought.
>
> Please refer the archives, if you never read my replies in srh. Just a
> thought. I am not keen on reposting my entire objections and answers to them
> and the counter objections to them each time. Also I remember posting this to
With all due respect, I find that a highly unconvincing position on
your part. For one thing, you _are_ posting hundreds of lines on this
issue, and it isn't as though we're avoiding anything unpleasant by
your not bringing up specific objections. Second, and more important,
your argument is inappropriate, because it is like my saying: "Look in
the Vedas for proof that Advaita is wrong, Ananda Tiirtha is Vaayu,
Hari rather than Shiva is Supreme," etc., etc. That sort of argument
just doesn't cut the mustard with any reasonable person, and you
yourself have criticized others in the "moon landing" and other
threads for attempting to use such. In fact, I am certain that had
our roles been reversed, you would have summarily dismissed any such
statement on my part.
I don't have to read the archives, because I _lived_ through them, and
I do not recall a single instance of anyone, including yourself,
making an objection and not seeing it answered. Besides, what you ask
is quite unfair -- you expect someone to pore over about 5-6 Mb of
text files, looking for a paragraph or two of unanswered objections;
and to make sure that they are indeed _unanswered_ objections, one has
to look at all subsequent postings and make sure no answers occur.
And if it could be that answers were given but did not satisfy you for
some reason, then whatever you have in mind will not be found even
after all that effort.
Why not merely re-state whatever the objection was? If you don't
recall it, but just have a feeling that you had some objection in the
past, that isn't a very strong case, because such an approach can
dismiss anything at all. If the objection was really unanswered (and
unanswerable, by implication), then it should not lead to much
discussion, unlike what you say -- if you had the last word then, it
surely follows that no one can respond to your objection, and that
will be it.
In summary, I'd like to ask again -- state your objections, or accept
that you have none -- or that you are not confident of the strength of
your objections.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Ramakrishnan.
