--- Joe Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Well what do we know? Before further accusations fly >left, right, and center, I suggest that you please >read Santosh Helekars admission below, in >his very own words, -- that there were inaccuracies >in his paper. >
First, it is clear that Joe Vaz cannot defend his assertion that the students/audience at New Rochelle College were baffled by confusing and inaccurate data in my paper. That statement of his has been shown to be a lie. The real question is who told him this lie, and why did he lie again? Can he tell us that? Second, the above quoted statement from Joe is also clearly misleading. This can be found out from his above post itself. As Gilbert mentions below I had categorically stated right at the outset of my original paper that the dating of historic and prehistoric events is often uncertain and inaccurate. These are not my inaccuracies. These are inherent in any prehistoric dating. Gilbert wrote: > >The dating of the people in Goa may be incorrect (as >was suggested in the original article) or we may have >new science and the Goans may be the earliest >civilization known on earth. > Finally, Joe Vaz has retrieved the excerpt that he has quoted, from an old post of mine, not from the Goanet archives, but from the Goa-Goans archives. Here are the links to this post, so you can read it in its entirety, and find out everything I say: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Goa-Goans/message/11479 My post was in response to two posts from Ben Antao and Gilbert Lawrence, both of which were quite laudatory about my paper. Here are the links to their posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Goa-Goans/message/11469 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Goa-Goans/message/11470 Gilbert's question for further clarification to me was obviously because of a misunderstanding or lack of specific knowledge on his part. Cheers, Santosh
