Thanks Sri Kalyan-ji for pointing out the selective quotes and partial representation in Indology list by Prof. Walter Slaje amounting to misrepresentation.
Partial because :
1. Not all the posts on the BVP list have got to do with ideology or viewpoint because most of the posts are in the form of are asking for book sources are references from books.
2. Next to such posts come the posts seeking 'guidance' in matters of 'Hindu' practices. To some Indian members themselves these posts may appear to be non-scholarly or unacademic. But let us remember that these posts are addressed to scholars for authentic guidance from praamaaNika sources and the scholars provide scholarly responses providing references from books and other sources.
I pointed out earlier too that dealing with classics content of which is no longer in the living practice of people is different from dealing with classics content of which is in the living practice of people. A researcher from outside the culture on some other list might post a question , " how is this item in this Sanskrit text practised by people? What is the textual reference supporting such practice? ".The member on this list might post a question, " how should this item be practised by me? What is the textual reference supporting such practice?" That is the difference. Here, the answers come from greter authorities in such matters than in the other forums where enquirer and the answering person may be at an equal level in the knowledge of the matters.
3. Posts from non-scholars or beginners or learners mostly cover grammar or etymology and other such usage aspects of Sanskrit too. BVP has a name as a forum where non-scholars or beginners or learners can seek guidance from stalwarts in such matters. For a very long time, BVP was known as a forum where such prakriyaa /siddhi aspect of vyaakaraNa dominates the discussions and intense discussions and debates of such nature run endlessly being enjoyed by both the participating scholars and learners seeking guidance. Even today, this tendency of BVP continues to a large extent.
None of the above three kinds of posts which form the majority of the posts here have any scope for ideological positions.
4. Yes, though less in number, there are always posts here having scope for ideological positions. When issues with such scope come for discussion, members taking a position of respect for Sanskrit, Sanskrit studies, India, Indians, Indian culture etc. which are the subject matter of Indology are more in number here than in other forums where members studying this subject matter of Indology but not those who form part of the subject matter itself of Indology are more in number. Here, because the people who are the subject matter of Indology themselves are discussing Indology, positive rather than the negative attitude towards the subject matter predominates the posts.
Among such posts there are both rigorous scholarly ones and naive and non-rigorous expressions of emotions from the non-scholarly members.
The ones that were quoted on the Indology list are chosen from those by a non-scholarly zealot member.
As you rightly noted, particularly in the thread on the Leonardo da Vinci topic, there were different views most of them without such zealous and emotional expressions as those quoted in the Indology list. But none of them got quoted there.
Only the zealous and emotional expressions of a non-scholarly member got quoted there as if those represent the approach of all the posts on BVP and are a basis for the tone of the BVP conference.
If this is an expression of displeasure at members taking a position of respect for Sanskrit, Sanskrit studies, India, Indians, Indian culture etc. which are the subject matter of Indology being more in number here, so be it.
But taking a small portion of a small portion of the whole topics on the list to create a certain impression about the list does not reflect neither fairness nor good scholarship.