Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > OK, I'll try to remember that the next time I want to call a people > hostile. But what relevance does it have to what I actually wrote in > *this* discussion?
*** Whether a given ruler treated them well seems to have been a toss up, and often did depend on the religion of both parties (e.g. Shaivite kings might not give two hoots about Vaishnavite pilgrims, etc.). *** It has relevance to the above statement you made a few email earlier. > I made no attempt to define or discuss anything about hostility. Are you > actually reading what I'm writing, or are you arguing with someone else? > Someone made of straw, perhaps? See above statement you made. I think it meant that the king was *not friendly*, *indifferent*. The actions of such kings can be defined as hostile. (1) Wish I were arguing with someone made of straw. :-) I might have been able to convince or be convinced... >> The point was to rebut your argument that Shaivite kings cared two >> hoots for Vaishnavites and vice versa. > > I think you missed a "didn't" there. I also don't see how you've > rebutted my argument (never mind that it was merely an example). Thank you for catching the typo. > I see. And so the people who know what it really was should MAKE them > believe it. Sounds good to me. I agree with you. When I see that person, I will let him know. >> Well, how many of us try to follow what these researches are doing? > > Do *you* follow current historical research? Do you know of any research > that is relevant to *this* particular question? If not, the possibility > that such research may exist and be unknown to me does not mean that it > ought to be construed as fact or considered believable. http://www.livius.org/ga-gh/gandara/gandara.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar http://ignca.nic.in/nl002503.htm > Another complete non sequitur plucked from the ether. agreed. (1) http://www.elook.org/dictionary/hostile.html
