From: chitoor@thorin.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor)
Subject: Re: An article by Prof.Jeyaraman
Followup-To: soc.culture.tamil
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:15:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.040309.16017@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ssankara@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sornam Sankara) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.230122.26804@udel.edu> chitoor@mercury.cis.udel.edu (Srik
>rishnan R. Chitoor) writes:
>>These kinds of stupid statements are those that prevent healthy discussion,
>>and who all are you referring to in `we' ?
>     Yes, it is an unwarranted statement but I used it after reading Kuram's
>response to the article in SCI.  He criticized that article before even going
>through that article (later he read the article and he given his wisdomic
>comments)  just because it was posted by Sanjeev Mahajan
>
> {BTW,  I took pains to  read the long article immediately because it was
>       posted  by Sanjeev Mahajan :-)}
>
>     Even Khuram would have liked my comment, because this artilce did embarass
>him.
>
>     BTW, are you a Khuram follower,  because you did not rise to condemn

Typical screwed up logic. I wonder when you guys are going to think properly.
Aren't you assuming without justification that 
  (i) I read SCI.
  (ii) If I do not condemn an article, I agree with it ?
  (Btw, I am not saying that I am not kuram's follower :-)).

>Khuram's statement (intelligent ?) branding Sanjeev Mahajan, Chukka Srinivas,
> Srinivasa Budaraju together as some unique creatures.   I am sure you are not.

I am not what ?

>>
>>Anyway, that was a well written article. It is true that hindu fundamentalism
>
>>is tending to become like the Islamic fundamentalism and we might have science
>
>>being corrupted by these elements.

>     I agree that you are not a Khuram follower. I am very happy about it.

So I disagree with one point of kuram and that absolves me of the crime of
being kuram's follower ?
  (Btw, I am not saying that I am a kuram's follower :-)).

>> He takes it a bit too far when he equates
>>secularism with `atheism' (partly explains Sankarapandi's interest in an
>>article totally unrelated to TN culture except that the author is
>>from Madras :-).

>  He becomes an athiest whenever he meets a `thiest' because the latter stops
>his research and starts fighting on whether the creater is `X' or `Y'.

My, My, mankind is lucky to have sankarapandis :-).

>
>>    I also have no problems with introducing `vedic mathematics' if
>>any such thing is found to exist (as long as we do not have one of those
>>theological schools). It is ridiculous to dismiss it if it really
>>existed. Only thing is that it should not refute the modern science but
>>can supplement it (teaching calculus and saying that we had it 2000 years
>>back really doesn't hurt). The basic thing is that we should be taught
>>our history as it is (with no bias on either side).
>>
>     Even if it there, what is the point in talking about ancient pride.  The
>present India is far behind other countries in all essential fields and more
>than half the population do not even get goodfood.  What is the point in

I have answered this previously. History is also a science (social science)
and the confidence in oneself IMO, helps one to solve more problems. 

>talking about vedic mathematics or `thamizhan as aRiviyal munnodi'.  Our
>society is not able to develope our languages to study science and technology
>which should be a first step in the original development of a country whereas
>we fight Hindi Vs Tamil etc on the one hand and glorifying the `extinct'
>Sanskrit language on the other hand.

Partly right. You are yet again confusing history as a science, I repeat
there is nothing wrong in saying that sanskrit WAS a great language (if it was).

-Krishna.
Opinions are mine.
Organization: Senior, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA