At 2007-07-13 16:12:54 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But the point is that you cannot call a people hostile based on this.
OK, I'll try to remember that the next time I want to call a people hostile. But what relevance does it have to what I actually wrote in *this* discussion? > The very definition of hostile is subjective, IMO and depends on your > perspective. I made no attempt to define or discuss anything about hostility. Are you actually reading what I'm writing, or are you arguing with someone else? Someone made of straw, perhaps? > People from out of town visiting you... guests.... you get the drift. No, I don't. > The point was to rebut your argument that Shaivite kings cared two > hoots for Vaishnavites and vice versa. I think you missed a "didn't" there. I also don't see how you've rebutted my argument (never mind that it was merely an example). > Because a whole lot of us do not believe our own past. I see. And so the people who know what it really was should MAKE them believe it. Sounds good to me. > Well, how many of us try to follow what these researches are doing? Do *you* follow current historical research? Do you know of any research that is relevant to *this* particular question? If not, the possibility that such research may exist and be unknown to me does not mean that it ought to be construed as fact or considered believable. > But then, we follow every story of how things evolved in other > cultures. Bah! Another complete non sequitur plucked from the ether. -- ams
