arguments and cultural conditioning

[Rajarshi Banerjee]

RB> witness steve farmers [sic] style of arguing: > He brands his opponents
as beleivers [sic] in flying saucers, wooly [sic] > mammoth pilots and such
like.
SF>Can I point out that nowhere have I ever mentioned "beleivers in flying
saucers, wooly mammoth pilots, and such like" (nice phrasing!).
I assume that you are mixing me up with one of my previous avatars.
RB> Well I am refering to your parallel avatar on another list(unmoderated).
In any case, I am still right about yours and others attempts at branding
your oponents and invoking authority at the slightest stimulus. What would
be helpful is if you attack facts and theory rather than personalities same
goes for everyone else. It is refreshing to see Witzels critique of Kaks
interpretation of the rigvedic astronomical code vs your coverage of
rajaram's background which only proved that he had infact worked in NASA. As
for being an eminent or mediocre scientist how does that mater. A laudatory
article (that too written in the 3rd person) is meant to impress lay people
and should in any case be taken with a pinch of salt.
Science is about experiments theories proofs etc not about personalities.
Indologists tend to think they are above reproach. I believe that they are
answerable to the people of india and a little more humility and
transparency are in order.
regards RB