[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ADMINISTRIVIA : Matrimonials
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA : Matrimonials
-
From: vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 9 Sep 1996 19:05:52 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Hindu Students Conference, Rice Univ Chapter
-
References: <ghenDwJuJy.1v3@netcom.com> <504k0d$b0s@news.ececs.uc.edu> <5077j7$rdb@news.ececs.uc.edu> <ghenDx64Gy.1tE@netcom.com>
In article <ghenDx64Gy.1tE@netcom.com>,
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote:
>dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti) wrote in article
><5077j7$rdb@news.ececs.uc.edu>...
>> Dear Vivekji:
>> Let's let Jaldharji write his article on this first.
>
>There's enough excitement going on in this newsgroup at the moment without
>me adding more. I'll wait for a lull before posting.
>
>That shouldn't stop you and Vivek though. How do you know we believe the
>same or for the same reasons?
This is a general response, not really to Jaldhar:
Forgive my newsserver for getting the articles out of order. However,
I should state that while I don't know what Jaldhar believes regarding
matrimonials, I have already stated why there are at least 7 things to
which someone can object in the standard, average matrimonial, and
"casteism" is only one of the 7.
So, while I would like to know what Jaldhar thinks, it really
shouldn't have to hold up this discussion for any reason. He seems to
indicate that he won't mind if anyone else continues onward. I
specifically would like to continue the discussion on Jati and
matrimonials, in addition to the "spirit" of this newsgroup. If Dhruba
or anyone else would like to address the 7 or so points I raised in my
other post, I'd love to hear them.
Incidentally, while I raised those points, it doesn't mean that I
believe them at all. I was merely showing how different people could
find a single ad objectionable on a variety of fronts.
-Vivek
