[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: 12 Sep 1996 16:32:19 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Hindu Students Conference, Rice Univ Chapter
-
References: <ghenDwJuJy.1v3@netcom.com> <5077j7$rdb@news.ececs.uc.edu> <ghenDx64Gy.1tE@netcom.com> <ghenDxBv2M.43z@netcom.com>
In article <ghenDxBv2M.43z@netcom.com>,
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
>Jaldhar H. Vyas (jaldhar@braincells.com) wrote:
>
>: That shouldn't stop you and Vivek though. How do you know we believe the
>: same or for the same reasons?
>
>Dear Jaldharji:
>
>Thank you for the encouragement. You know, Vivekji and I are in this net
>for a considerable length of time, and we are familiar with each others'
>net personalities.
With all due respect, please don't speak for me.
>I just cosied up to him a little.
Again, with all due respect, I didn't have anyone "cozy up" to me,
whatever the heck that means on this electronic medium. Or perhaps,
in addition to the matrimonial ads, we should have ads on SRH where
people are just seeking out people to "cozy up".
I hereby propose some new subject tags:
REQUEST FOR COZYING: just cozying, platonic or otherwise. In order to
keep this dharmic, both the cozier and the cozyee
should be unmarried.
SNUGGLE-SEEKING: a person who wants to go beyond cozying and is looking
for someome else. Naturally, both parties should be
single and of age.
In any case, the question still stands - if matrimonials were to be
allowed on SRH, would explicit restrictions on caste, jati, etc., be
allowed?
-Vivek
