Revision as of 15:50, 15 November 2006 edit Ravi Chaudhary (talk \| contribs) 327 edits →Response ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:01, 15 November 2006 edit undo Ravi Chaudhary (talk \| contribs) 327 edits m →Response Next edit →
Line 702: Do try and stay with the topic Nothing you have posted so far, shows that you have any information that would convince ~~anyome~~anyone that Kaniska and tethe Kushans were not Jats. Simply casting doubt, does not a rational argument make. ~~As a side note, you are using chinese terminology for a non chinese people. This causes considerable confusion.~~ ~~Hence~~As ita ~~becomes~~side ~~even~~note, ~~more~~you ~~inportant~~are tousing ~~examine~~ ~~the~~late "chinese ~~Kushan~~terminology ~~question' form~~for a much earlier non chinese ~~view~~people. This causes considerable confusion. Hence it becomes even more important to examine the " Kushan' question from a non chinese view. I will suggest you shift this discussion to the Jathistory group.

Talk:Jats: Difference between revisions