Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> I said it was a toss up, and that religion was one of the factors that
> might influence the protection pilgrims received.
Let me get this straight... Your conjecture is that there were
guards/soldiers/police/protectors provided to travelers on the road. And
if the road led to a religious site that the king did not particularly
favor, these security men either did not exist or stood mutely while the
travelers were being attached. What a vivid imagination.
> You: «Free as in you do not pay a country money to enter it.» (bait)
> ...
> You: «I don't think Shiv meant free as in 'at no cost'.» (switch)
>
> Don't speculate about what you /thought/ *Shiv* meant. What did *you*
> mean?
Let me say this again, maybe I was not clear enough the first two times.
I maintain that the kings did not demand an entry fee (analogous to
present day visa). Both my statements basically mean this. "At no cost"
does not mean that the pilgrim will get free food/accommodation en
route. Is that clear? No bait and switch here... Just a missed
connection. And not it is not a non-sequiter.
> Greece or wherever. So the nature of pilgrimages cannot necessarily be
> used to infer anything about the existence of a nation.
I agree with this and I have not disputed this.
> Wow.
Nothing to be amazed, just my opinion. And I have defined "hostile"
before, that is how I define a "hostile" king.
>> You would not believe Darwin's theory of evolution, the big bang
>> theory, string theory, membrane theory then? What about the general
>> theory of relativity?
>
> I'm sorry, name-dropping is not an acceptable method of proof.
You would not believe the theory of evolution, the big bang theory,
string theory, membrane theory then? What about the general theory of
relativity? Is that better? Please answer the question now...
>> Why is he a bloody idiot? Because he has a different set of beliefs?
>
> No, it's because his beliefs are idiotic. Wanting to "trash" the work of
^^^^^^^^^^
Isn't that just your opinion? I don't see a reason to belittle a person
or his opinions because you do not have a high opinion of that person,
especially since you do not know him personally/professionally.
>> Would you have believed it if it was published in a foreign magazine
>> and was quoted by someone outside India?
>
> I'm sorry, questioning my "nationalism" is not an acceptable method of
> proof. Do you have a less disingenuous argument in mind?
I am not questioning your "nationalism". Would you have believed it if
that statement was made by someone else?
