personalizing debate-- My last word

[Dileep Karanth]

On Mon, 19 Sep 1994, Jonathan Silk wrote:

> I think many on this list will agree with me that labeling his comments
> "hate mail" is really crossing a line.  There *is* such a thing as "hate
> mail," but I very much doubt whether Dominik has ever authored an example,
> and I have absolutely never noticed one authored by HIM on this list!  It
> is up to Mr. Karanth's conscience to judge how he considers his own tone in
> this discusssion.

How about this?

	What I find wholly unacceptable is the "anything goes, everything is
relative" view expressed by J. B. Sharma. 
				- Dominik
Note that this statement was not qualified or supported by argument. The 
original statement by J.B.Sharma was not quoted and criticized. How am I 
supposed to believe that this is not an ad hominem criticism of 
J.B.Sharma. If Mr. Sharma's sources (as determined from a private 
conversation which did not spill over to the indology net) are indeed of 
the same quality as Eric von Daniken's book, they should be easy to 
refute. The refutation could then be put on the listserver (an idea 
Dominik suggested to me in the course of an earlier argument with him)
so that the discussion can be prevented from straying too far afield.

>         Might I suggest that we try to avoid personalizing this -- or any
> other -- debate?  

	Entendu. Only please remind the author of the following  about it:
"What I find wholly unacceptable is the "anything goes, everything is
relative" view expressed by J. B. Sharma." 
				-Dominik


>   But if INDOLOGY becomes a
> forum for politicized rhetoric and personal invictive, 

	The only people who have smelt politics have been those speaking on 
behalf of Dominik -- yourself, Madhav Deshpande, and Dominik. Why impute 
motives to people? If their arguments are wrong/laughable, point out the 
mistakes. Credit people with enough intelligence to make intelligent 
choices when the facts are placed in front of them. 
	I have myself not read any book on this subject -- only articles by 
writers of various persuasions. I am apt to be convinced by each article 
I read. When people speak of others as advocating that "anything goes", I 
have no reason to believe their motives are sincere.

>those of us who are
> here because we enjoy scholarly debate and exchange with our colleages in a
> trusting and intellectually honest enviroment might as well all send the
> "unsubscribe" message right away.

	If you are in the network only to find fault with people who 
disagree, and to confirm your own (possibly biased) notions, maybe you 
should form a network called "Indology-Dominik style" . You can tell 
Chris Wooff to include a message to new members not to join unless they 
are willing to agree with all you want to say. That way trouble-makers 
like me will not interfere with "scholarly debate".

>         Without wanting to usurp the discussion unto myself, I hope I can
> close with "enough said?"

	Me too. I promise this is my last word. I apologise to people who 
were not interested in this debate for burdening their mailboxes, and 
thank them for not getting back at me.

Dileep Karanth