From: kat@doe.carleton.ca (Kathiravan Krishnamurthi)
Subject: Re: Apology Required? - NOT!
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:59:24 GMT

In <lbcu72INN2jc@bathtub.cs.utexas.edu> raman@cs.utexas.edu (Raman Rajagopalan) writes:

>>>>     Raman threatens and appeals for arms for Brahmins.
>>>
>>>> He (brahmin) will say "poonool"
>>>> He will bug you for money
>>>> He isa  greedy chap
>>>> He will sweat in front of the white man.
>>>>
>>>>Kathiravan
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>No. Kathiravan did not say this. He only claimed that Bharathiyar had
>>said so.
>>
>>The words quoted here  are not Karhiravan's.
>>If I remember Kathiravan's response correctly, he was
>>quoting Bharathiyar in his repsonse.
>>I think this repsonse should not have been edited to exclude
>>references to Bharathiyar. If the deleting was unintentional, that is ok;
>>If not, it amounts to deliberate distortion of the response.
>>
>>I have no comments about who is right or wrong on this issue.
>>I do not want to get involved in this battle.
>>However, I felt it was necessary to point out that Kathiravan's
>>response was edited badly, and contents were taken out of context,
>>and presented in an unflattering way.
>>
>>Bye.

>First, the reference to Bharathiyar was not intentionally left out.
>I had reponded to an earlier post by Kathiravan that I am not
>going to bother with traslating tamil written in english.  I simply
>skipped the paragraph.

That is why I provide translations. You send mails appealing
for collecting arms for brahmins against whoever? You
say you cannot understand tamizh-OK. 

>Next, it's immaterial whether it was intentially left out or not.  
>Mr. Kathiravan used the quote to refer to me.  Therefore, it no longer
>matters who originally wrote the quote.  Mr. Kathiravan had
>indeed said something unflattering about me by reproducing the
>quote when he did.


  Yes, just that you like to test people by sending
"gun mails", I wanted to answer that by using paarathiyaar's
verses. Yes, paarathi at 2 or 3 places condemns brahmins,
but he is specific. He starts with "piLLaikku poonool
yenpaan". Only the guy who demands money for that, not
all brahmins. Why, he himself was a brahmin. 
 I quoted asking you will you assasinate him with your
guns for just saying a few verses against some greedy
chaps or take it as addressing the whole community.
I
personally dont know about the vEdaas and did not
send any info on vedaas. But if somebody
sends info with a lot of effort you resort to character
assasinate the person by calling names. It was all started
by some of you guys against vishnu and paandian. That is where I
say, "if it is vedaas, just put your points
for or against it in a healthy manner". Do not go all
out and start connecting vedaas to srilankan issue
and all that stuff combining with reservations.

We 
>By the way, what's going on here?

>I reply to Meenan Vishnu, and find a reply by Kathiravan.  I
>reply to that and Mr. Pandian reponds.  Finally, Mr. Kathiravan
>defends himself (with the above mentioned nonsense) and you
                                           ^^^^^^^^
>come to his aid.  

>Don't the persons being debated have the guts to defend their
>positions directly, with facts, when challenged, rather than
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes.
  Only when you mix up issues you get to the non---.
>simply libeling me through quotations and nonsense rhetoric?


 Who speaks non-? Think about it. You only send all
your name-branding and non- mails and you say hidden
sarcasm. that is exactly the non- we are talking about.


>I do not include you in this, Mr. Pandian.  Your earlier objections
>to being categorized have been noted, and I will leave you
>out of this matter.

    
>cheers,

>raman rajagopalan
cheers,
kathiravan


Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil