feb 22nd, 2011 CE
talk of action and reaction! i am being proved absolutely correct about the existence of a sock-puppet goonsquad whose intent is to terrorize.
nice when the validation of one's hypothesis is instant and massive.
i tweeted this yesterday quoting verbatim the den-mother of indian mainstream media, bdutt. (for lack of space, i left out her second phrase, which was just an expansion of the same idea by bdutt.):
it seemed like a logical conclusion that since she knew mobs were frightening etc., that would be a good reason for those supporting her to form a lynch mob on twitter, which they do. [note: i am, carefully, not accusing bdutt of hiring them or encouraging them, i am simply noting that she has such a squad of supporters, which might be sui generis, a group of true believers. no section 509, nor section 507.]
and sure enough, right on cue, god's rottweiler showed up, barking inanely and mercilessly. this i expected. he would, given that that's his nature. as the arabs say, "dogs bark, but the caravan keeps going".
but i must admit i was a little surprised when i heard via others that the 'secular' 'right' people were rolling their eyes at me. (i think this pragmatic_d fellow is 'secular' 'right' -- i have seen his writing now and then. if he is NOT 'secular' 'right' then i stand corrected.)
so following these links, i found out pragmatic_d's peeve with me:
how distressing! sigh, yet another nationalist gone wayward! i can see pragmatic_d brushing off a tear, actually. tragic.
so what exactly is pragmatic_d's problem? here's what i had said:
i quite like the "milady doth protest too much" act by pragmatic_d, and his deliberate "playing-dumb" act. i especially loved his wrapping the flag around himself. what is it they say about "patriotism being the last refuge of the um... 'secular'"?
if he knows enough about me to know that i call myself a nationalist, he would know my views on the dynasty. it is pretty evident that he is pretending to not understand the sarcasm. i doubt that he fails to see the irony. i believe he is fully literate.
so why this elaborate charade?
the only conclusion i can come to is that the sock-puppet goonsquad has two types: one the hard fundies, whom nobody pays any attention to; and then the soft fundies, who almost make you believe them. but not quite. in other words, classic good guy/bad guy routine.
well, very nicely done, indeed. so this is what 'think-tank intellectuals' are all about? how can i get a cushy sinecure like that myself?