personalizing the debate

[J.B. Sharma]

 Jonathan Silk wrote :
I suspect that Dominik is too much a gentleman to respond directly to Mr.
Karanth, and while I can certainly not claim to speak on Dominik's behalf,
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.
        Might I suggest that we try to avoid personalizing this -- or any
other -- debate?  The free flow of ideas is, I have always understood, what
scholarship is (supposed, anyway) to be all about -- and this list has, in
general, been representative of that tradition.  But if INDOLOGY becomes a
forum for politicized rhetoric and personal invictive, 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.
        Without wanting to usurp the discussion unto myself, I hope I can
close with "enough said?"
--------
 Almost... 
 I agree with the high ideals and morality involved in sholarly 
debate. Dileep did overstep the bounds in his outburst, and so the 
rap on the knuckles is deserved. I am however surprised on this high 
moral ground overlooking the obvious, which I am sure was not missed 
by the most thoughtful of the scholars on the list.
 Sometimes it is vulgar to state the obvious, and on the same hand 
sometimes silence gives credence to accusations. It is matter of 
record on Dominik labelling me as advocating " anything goes, and all 
is relative", and then giving reference to personal correspondence. 
Gentlemen and scholars do not do that, even if I did write such a 
thing to him (which I did not). This is a method of invoking the 
"good old boys network", which is to the effect "this guy is 
irrational.. trust me ... I know as we have corresponded". This has 
no bearing on what I have written in this discussion, and is plainly 
trying to make an intellectual point by vilification. This is even 
more egregious a sin coming from a scholar established in the field; 
and if this is not personalizing the debate, I leave it to seekers of 
truth on the list to make their judgements. The civility of the 
discussion ended right there, before the appearence of Dileeps note. 
 So, it is not a matter of great moral courage to deride Dileep, and 
by the same standards stroke Dominik; this presents a glaring logical 
inconsistency, which seriously erodes credibility... 
J.B. Sharma