Quote:
I guess the above link and the contents of the link have exposed a lot about the historian who believes that Taj Mahal is a Palace or whatever.
How is it that I have no replies to my quoted posts below. Has the author who posted that link adopted a strategy of shoot and scoot? Or is he using his cohorts to divert attention from the issue at hand.
|
Firstly, I had given the link only to the Taj-Mahal related content of the site. I have not even bothered to see what else is there on the site. My only objective was to give info on PN Oak's theory on Taj Mahal. I had read about it couple of years back, google searched and that was the site that I came across. I do not vouch for whatever else the site has. In fact, I am yet to even read that properly.
Secondly, what's the big deal about it? Had I posted the Taj-Mahal theory from other site- and it is indeed available on many- would that relly affect the plausibility of the theory?
Lastly, more importantly, there are many others who have a similar theory on Taj. Have a look at this site:
Was the Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple
Quote:
..
Purushottam Nagesh Oak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A little reading of the history of Oak's history shows that he believes that Agra Red Fort is a Hindu Building and Christianity also emerged from Krishna-niti. 
This is a little hard for any objective man to digest. Does plumber subscribe to the views of the historian in totality? Or has he cared to research only the Taj Mahal? Plumber,will you please come out in the open as to what credibility that historian has?
|
Well, if indeed you proclaim yourself to be an "objective" person, you must really understand that just because I endorse someone's pov/theory on an issue, doesn't mean I endorse all his theories/povs.
As far as credibility of historian is concerned...please show me how many people have bothered to provide rebuttal to Oak's theories. Even Stephen knapp has endorsed/propounded Oak's theories...How many people who disagree with them have bothered to answer their contention?
All they do is resort to some vicious name-calling...Something which even the posters here have done.
Quote:
|
P.P.S: Plumber if it is embarrassing for you to publicly admit that you follow such historians,we can always use PM/IM. Spare me the trouble of dealing with your cronies.
|
Embarassing? All you have done, again, is attack the historian in question. You can't do better, can you?
As far as your point of 'cronies' is concerned, if you think sharing similar/same opinions with someone/thanking someone's posts is considered 'cronyism', the forum has 2 set of cronies:
a- sackhim Jihadists
b- sachin fans
By your own logic, you are my cronie as well. And the people who have thanked/seconded your p.o.v are your cronies. And since, you have thanked almost all the posts on this thread, except a few people's, you are a cronie of all of them.
On a more serious note, learn to keep the discussion focussed on issues/arguments. Stop resorting to name-calling, regardless of whether you endorse/refute someone's posts. You are free to disagree with my arguments, and rip them apart, if you can/want to.
It's below my dignity to cast such imprecations. Honestly!
Quote:
Who is desperate to get Taj Mahal on the list. Not me.  I just voted for it...(Hell...I didn't even vote...Just replied to a long chain mail with my name & location, don't even care if that would count as a vote)...and that's it...moved on...I don't care if it doesn't appear on the list...there may be more deserving monuments..So be it...
The point I contend is when you say, Taj Mahal is a symbol of Blood or whatever *facts* and *original history* you refer to.
Independent research? Pray, tell me what independent research you did to come to a conclusion - Did *you* dig up the earth under Taj and found Hindu Idols?
|
There are 2 types of research.
Primary Research: Where one collects data first-hand, specifically for the issue at hand.
Secondary Research: where one uses sources like History textbooks/Magazines/internet and uses the data that's already been collected for same/different purpose.
Digging the monument would fall into 'a'. By research I meant, doing 'b'. Had I known you will misunderstand it, I would have specified it my initial post itself.
And, you said, you believe that it was a "monument of Love"; let me ask you: Did Mumtaz came and inform you that it was indeed a monument of love. Did Shahjan appear in your dreams and tell you that it was a 'monument of Love'? Or is it that you confidently believe that it's a 'monument of Love' because you have went and digged-up the monument and have spoken to Mumtaz' corpus?
If you indeed are so skeptical of History, start being consistently skeptical. What applies to goose, applies to gander. If you are fine with believing that it was a 'monument of Love', on the basis of secondary theories, I am allowed to believe in a version of History that goes against your beliefs, on the basis of secondary reserach, without having to justify my belief by digging up the monument.
Cheers!
PS: Shall abstain from posting if flaming and name-calling continues, and do not expect me to give instant replies to your posts. Also, people are requested to stop thanking/seconding my points, even if they honestly identify with them, lest they wanna get accused of being my 'cronies'.
PPS: I have always believed my arguments aren't infallible. They should be subjected to as much scrutiny as any one else's arguments are.
Help
??:
Linear Mode
