Indology constraints (contd.)
ucgadkw at UCL.AC.UK
Wed Jul 7 09:04:10 UTC 1999
I rather think Sujatha Stephen has overreacted, but I warmly welcome the
current discussion which has ensued about the contraints enjoined on this
Several good points have been made, but I'd like to pick just one for
Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa at AOL.COM> said,
>In that case, one can do one of the following.
>1. Deliberately withhold information which may be of use to the list.
I think that this is indeed a reasonable position to take. I know that
quite a few professional Indologists are rather isolated, often being the
only such India specialist in a department of religion, language, or
history, or perhaps being an independent scholar. But there is still
really no need to see INDOLOGY as the place where one has to express every
single "useful" piece of information one has. One can pick up the phone
and chat to a colleague elsewhere, post a letter, start a discussion in a
student seminar, or even engage in an email exchange directly with someone
who posted to the list. The latter choice becomes even more appropriate
if, later on, one posts a summary of the useful discussion back to the
list, so that some value gets ploughed back in.
INDOLOGY isn't the be-all of indological exchange, thank goodness, it is
just one forum amongst many. Even if someone says "What is X?" and you
happen to know all about X, it still isn't necessary to answer to the
list, especially if an answer contravenes the simple constraints which are
aimed at making INDOLOGY a bearable experience overall.
Not everything that can be said should be said.
Founder, INDOLOGY list
-- Frasier Crane
More information about the INDOLOGY