Discussion:
Goanet Digest, Vol 4, Issue 790
(too old to reply)
MD
2009-08-03 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
It could be precisely for this reason that Mr. Fred Noronha has posted
this information, it is the duty of responsible people to verify what
has been left out and what has been deliberatily blown out, out of
proportion that we all would like to know, as most of the sites quote
'historian Priolkar' extensively that has led to this. Let us be
rational in our comments.

Maurice D'Mello

7. Re: Claudius Buchanan (Santosh Helekar)
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Claudius Buchanan
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
? ? ? ?<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Message-ID: <559017.41559.qm at web110311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, 8/2/09, Frederick "FN" Noronha <fn at goa-india.org> wrote:
Hard to believe that this is the same person so widely
quoted by Anant Kakba Priolkar in his book on the Goa Inquisition:

This continued smearing of the historian Priolkar by the freelance
journalist Noronha becomes more and more curious by each passing day.
To people who know something about scholarly research, and the
obligation and responsibility of researchers to discuss and cite all
prior accounts that deal with the subject at hand in an impartial
manner, Priolkar's citation of Buchanan's account should not be a
surprise. Indeed, Priolkar's work would have been regarded as shoddy
and incomplete if he had deliberately left Buchanan out.

As far as I can tell Priolkar has cited every single prior work
related to the Goan inquisition, including translation of records from
the Goan archives. What's more, other historians have stated that
subsequent publication of a previously unknown account from the 16th
or 17th century has largely confirmed Priolkar's observations.

Now why Noronha is hellbent on maligning Priolkar with all kinds of
spurious hints, frivolous assertions and smoke and mirror tactics is
anybody's guess.

Cheers,

Santosh
MD
2009-08-03 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
It could be precisely for this reason that Mr. Fred Noronha has posted
this information, it is the duty of responsible people to verify what
has been left out and what has been deliberatily blown out, out of
proportion that we all would like to know, as most of the sites quote
'historian Priolkar' extensively that has led to this. Let us be
rational in our comments.

Maurice D'Mello

7. Re: Claudius Buchanan (Santosh Helekar)
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Claudius Buchanan
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
? ? ? ?<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Message-ID: <559017.41559.qm at web110311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, 8/2/09, Frederick "FN" Noronha <fn at goa-india.org> wrote:
Hard to believe that this is the same person so widely
quoted by Anant Kakba Priolkar in his book on the Goa Inquisition:

This continued smearing of the historian Priolkar by the freelance
journalist Noronha becomes more and more curious by each passing day.
To people who know something about scholarly research, and the
obligation and responsibility of researchers to discuss and cite all
prior accounts that deal with the subject at hand in an impartial
manner, Priolkar's citation of Buchanan's account should not be a
surprise. Indeed, Priolkar's work would have been regarded as shoddy
and incomplete if he had deliberately left Buchanan out.

As far as I can tell Priolkar has cited every single prior work
related to the Goan inquisition, including translation of records from
the Goan archives. What's more, other historians have stated that
subsequent publication of a previously unknown account from the 16th
or 17th century has largely confirmed Priolkar's observations.

Now why Noronha is hellbent on maligning Priolkar with all kinds of
spurious hints, frivolous assertions and smoke and mirror tactics is
anybody's guess.

Cheers,

Santosh
MD
2009-08-03 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
It could be precisely for this reason that Mr. Fred Noronha has posted
this information, it is the duty of responsible people to verify what
has been left out and what has been deliberatily blown out, out of
proportion that we all would like to know, as most of the sites quote
'historian Priolkar' extensively that has led to this. Let us be
rational in our comments.

Maurice D'Mello

7. Re: Claudius Buchanan (Santosh Helekar)
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Claudius Buchanan
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
? ? ? ?<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Message-ID: <559017.41559.qm at web110311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, 8/2/09, Frederick "FN" Noronha <fn at goa-india.org> wrote:
Hard to believe that this is the same person so widely
quoted by Anant Kakba Priolkar in his book on the Goa Inquisition:

This continued smearing of the historian Priolkar by the freelance
journalist Noronha becomes more and more curious by each passing day.
To people who know something about scholarly research, and the
obligation and responsibility of researchers to discuss and cite all
prior accounts that deal with the subject at hand in an impartial
manner, Priolkar's citation of Buchanan's account should not be a
surprise. Indeed, Priolkar's work would have been regarded as shoddy
and incomplete if he had deliberately left Buchanan out.

As far as I can tell Priolkar has cited every single prior work
related to the Goan inquisition, including translation of records from
the Goan archives. What's more, other historians have stated that
subsequent publication of a previously unknown account from the 16th
or 17th century has largely confirmed Priolkar's observations.

Now why Noronha is hellbent on maligning Priolkar with all kinds of
spurious hints, frivolous assertions and smoke and mirror tactics is
anybody's guess.

Cheers,

Santosh
MD
2009-08-03 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
It could be precisely for this reason that Mr. Fred Noronha has posted
this information, it is the duty of responsible people to verify what
has been left out and what has been deliberatily blown out, out of
proportion that we all would like to know, as most of the sites quote
'historian Priolkar' extensively that has led to this. Let us be
rational in our comments.

Maurice D'Mello

7. Re: Claudius Buchanan (Santosh Helekar)
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Claudius Buchanan
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
? ? ? ?<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Message-ID: <559017.41559.qm at web110311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, 8/2/09, Frederick "FN" Noronha <fn at goa-india.org> wrote:
Hard to believe that this is the same person so widely
quoted by Anant Kakba Priolkar in his book on the Goa Inquisition:

This continued smearing of the historian Priolkar by the freelance
journalist Noronha becomes more and more curious by each passing day.
To people who know something about scholarly research, and the
obligation and responsibility of researchers to discuss and cite all
prior accounts that deal with the subject at hand in an impartial
manner, Priolkar's citation of Buchanan's account should not be a
surprise. Indeed, Priolkar's work would have been regarded as shoddy
and incomplete if he had deliberately left Buchanan out.

As far as I can tell Priolkar has cited every single prior work
related to the Goan inquisition, including translation of records from
the Goan archives. What's more, other historians have stated that
subsequent publication of a previously unknown account from the 16th
or 17th century has largely confirmed Priolkar's observations.

Now why Noronha is hellbent on maligning Priolkar with all kinds of
spurious hints, frivolous assertions and smoke and mirror tactics is
anybody's guess.

Cheers,

Santosh
MD
2009-08-03 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
It could be precisely for this reason that Mr. Fred Noronha has posted
this information, it is the duty of responsible people to verify what
has been left out and what has been deliberatily blown out, out of
proportion that we all would like to know, as most of the sites quote
'historian Priolkar' extensively that has led to this. Let us be
rational in our comments.

Maurice D'Mello

7. Re: Claudius Buchanan (Santosh Helekar)
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Claudius Buchanan
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
? ? ? ?<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Message-ID: <559017.41559.qm at web110311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, 8/2/09, Frederick "FN" Noronha <fn at goa-india.org> wrote:
Hard to believe that this is the same person so widely
quoted by Anant Kakba Priolkar in his book on the Goa Inquisition:

This continued smearing of the historian Priolkar by the freelance
journalist Noronha becomes more and more curious by each passing day.
To people who know something about scholarly research, and the
obligation and responsibility of researchers to discuss and cite all
prior accounts that deal with the subject at hand in an impartial
manner, Priolkar's citation of Buchanan's account should not be a
surprise. Indeed, Priolkar's work would have been regarded as shoddy
and incomplete if he had deliberately left Buchanan out.

As far as I can tell Priolkar has cited every single prior work
related to the Goan inquisition, including translation of records from
the Goan archives. What's more, other historians have stated that
subsequent publication of a previously unknown account from the 16th
or 17th century has largely confirmed Priolkar's observations.

Now why Noronha is hellbent on maligning Priolkar with all kinds of
spurious hints, frivolous assertions and smoke and mirror tactics is
anybody's guess.

Cheers,

Santosh
MD
2009-08-03 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
It could be precisely for this reason that Mr. Fred Noronha has posted
this information, it is the duty of responsible people to verify what
has been left out and what has been deliberatily blown out, out of
proportion that we all would like to know, as most of the sites quote
'historian Priolkar' extensively that has led to this. Let us be
rational in our comments.

Maurice D'Mello

7. Re: Claudius Buchanan (Santosh Helekar)
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Claudius Buchanan
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
? ? ? ?<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Message-ID: <559017.41559.qm at web110311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, 8/2/09, Frederick "FN" Noronha <fn at goa-india.org> wrote:
Hard to believe that this is the same person so widely
quoted by Anant Kakba Priolkar in his book on the Goa Inquisition:

This continued smearing of the historian Priolkar by the freelance
journalist Noronha becomes more and more curious by each passing day.
To people who know something about scholarly research, and the
obligation and responsibility of researchers to discuss and cite all
prior accounts that deal with the subject at hand in an impartial
manner, Priolkar's citation of Buchanan's account should not be a
surprise. Indeed, Priolkar's work would have been regarded as shoddy
and incomplete if he had deliberately left Buchanan out.

As far as I can tell Priolkar has cited every single prior work
related to the Goan inquisition, including translation of records from
the Goan archives. What's more, other historians have stated that
subsequent publication of a previously unknown account from the 16th
or 17th century has largely confirmed Priolkar's observations.

Now why Noronha is hellbent on maligning Priolkar with all kinds of
spurious hints, frivolous assertions and smoke and mirror tactics is
anybody's guess.

Cheers,

Santosh

Loading...