I was waiting with bated breath to find out what Part 3 of "Regurgitating Goa's History" would reveal. Now that it is here I am relieved (no pun intended in the context of spoon feeding and regurgitation).
I notice that in this part Gilbert asks us to read humor in it. He also asks some questions. But I feel bad for him because from past experience I know that nobody will bother to answer his questions. Instead, some of us will laugh so hard at his humor that we will fall off our chair and let our jaw drop to the floor. Recognizing this fact, I would like to request genuine Goan historians to make a serious effort to answer his questions for a change. But I notice that they cannot do that until they understand exactly the context, perspective, conflicts of interest and expertise in Goan history that lead Gilbert to ask his questions. I would therefore like to ask him for some clarifications about the statements he has made in this regard. 1. Where has he published his retrospective analysis of some repeatedly reported facts of Goan history? In which book or publication of his can one read it? (please don't read humor in this) 2. What are the titles of the books or sources on Goan history from which he has derived his knowledge and expertise on this subject? (no humor intended) 2. Why does he want us to read humor into the fact that he has risen to some state in life? What state in life has he risen to? (no humor intended) Cheers, Santosh Gilbert Lawrence wrote: > >Regurgitating Goa’s History (Part 3) > >My retrospective analysis of some REPEATEDLY REPORTED FACTS of Goan >history >has made me the victim of many idle minds and fingers. But while >being a >supurlo Goenkar, I have not risen to my state in life by being >intimidated by >the chronic pesky non-factual critics, with much >spare-time on their hand ... >or fingers; and who consider themselves >‘experts’ immediately after reading >my posts (read humor). Yet, I >sincerely welcome factual criticism of the >issues I raise, especially >when accompanied with hard data. > >In looking at history, one needs to separate fact from opinion. In >looking at >fact, some fundamental issues are: > > >How were the (subjective) facts accumulated? Are the facts presented to >>support the stated opinions and conclusions? What were (objective) >>geographical and logistical limitations of the observer(s)? > >Were the data / facts independently corroborated; and not a regurgitation >of >prior information? Are there any facts related to the same event from >the >adversary and other sources? >Do the pieces of the puzzle fit and does the sequence of events make >sense? >What was the cause and effect? Greater credence to any historical >writing is >given when the raw data is provided like names of >individual(s) and place(s), >date of specific occurrence leading to the >main event. Very little occurs in >vacuum; and despite limitations of many >centuries ago, events had some logic >of purpose. > > >Politica dos Casmentos - fact or fiction? next > >Regards, GL > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
