At 2007-07-13 22:13:23 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You also said that this was because the pilgrims did not believe the > same God the ruler did, which is what we are discussing here.
I said it was a toss up, and that religion was one of the factors that might influence the protection pilgrims received. > Well, free as in freedom to travel to a place. I don't think Shiv > meant free as in 'at no cost'. Me: «What does "free access" mean?» You: «Free as in you do not pay a country money to enter it.» (bait) ... You: «I don't think Shiv meant free as in 'at no cost'.» (switch) Don't speculate about what you /thought/ *Shiv* meant. What did *you* mean? Anyway, what I said was that there were both monetary and other kinds of barriers to unrestricted travel; but also that these were the same kinds of barriers that existed elsewhere, or applied to visitors from China or Greece or wherever. So the nature of pilgrimages cannot necessarily be used to infer anything about the existence of a nation. > > So... you're saying that no kings were ever hostile? > > AFAIK, not to pilgrims. Wow. > I was giving credit to your statement. Why, thank you. > You would not believe Darwin's theory of evolution, the big bang > theory, string theory, membrane theory then? What about the general > theory of relativity? I'm sorry, name-dropping is not an acceptable method of proof. > Why is he a bloody idiot? Because he has a different set of beliefs? No, it's because his beliefs are idiotic. Wanting to "trash" the work of "motivated westerners" to see truth in terms of "our national heritage" is an idiotic basis for serious historical research. > Would you have believed it if it was published in a foreign magazine > and was quoted by someone outside India? I'm sorry, questioning my "nationalism" is not an acceptable method of proof. Do you have a less disingenuous argument in mind? -- ams
