[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH reorg by who ?
In article <ghenDv34FJ.Gq4@netcom.com>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>: In fact, this claim was a lie repeated ad nauseum by the opponents of
>: the reorg, despite all evidence to the contrary. I have said before
>: and I will say it again - I am a Hindu. If you are unwilling or unable
>: to understand that, and you want to insist that your faulty memory is
>: correct, I have little hope that you'll do the honorable thing and
>: apologize for repeating the lie once again.
>
>No Vivek. Not that easy. Did you or did you not say
>that Vaishanavism was atleast 600 yrs older than
>Hinduism.
You're not answering the question - the claim is that proponents have
stated that they are not Hindu, which is an obvious lie. Now you are
trying to come up with some parallel argument which you hope to win,
but there's no contest here - I've stated before that I am a Hindu,
and given that I was posting to SRH and AH at least 2 years ago, I
find it hard to believe that I'd claim otherwise.
>If that is what you claimed, then obviously
>you assume that the two are distinct identities.
Once again, your logical fails here. You still haven't shown why you
can't be _both_, which is what you'd have to do in order to support
your claim.
-Vivek
