[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: REQUEST : Foreskin / circumcision
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: REQUEST : Foreskin / circumcision
-
From: vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 24 Sep 1996 15:47:19 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Hindu Students Conference, Rice Univ Chapter
-
References: <ghenDxMoLA.MMG@netcom.com> <ghenDxu5p9.5o7@netcom.com> <ghenDy7EvK.8rJ@netcom.com>
In article <ghenDy7EvK.8rJ@netcom.com>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
|>Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) wrote:
|>: In article <ghenDxMoLA.MMG@netcom.com>
|>: ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari) said:
|>: |>So, atleast in N. India
|>: |>(the India which a know a little about), they bless newly wedded
|>: |>females so that they may bear a hundred sons. It is said that
|>: |>a lot of these people are devotees of Lord Shiva.
|>
|>: Interesting - I wonder how long it will take the Sudheers and the RB's
|>: of the world to denounce the above statement. The implication is
|>: obvious, isn't it? Isn't Tiwariji calling all followers of Shiva
|> ***
|>: eunuchs?
|>
|>No. I am not. Not **all**. But definitely **some**.
I realize what you said, and I just wanted to point out that when I
made a much, much milder statement, I was accused of insulting all
Shaivites with my statement. Sudheer and RB even went to some lengths
to mispresent what I said, rather than quoting the original. I just
find it amusing that they haven't said a word about what you've said.
-Vivek
