. Joy.
Hope all is well with you.
, you have done an excellent job. My congratulations.
My favourite sections of your thoroughly enjoyable post are the following-
1)Where you cite an earlier point-of-view post by yourself (rich in opinion and erm..., a bit sparse in facts) as valid and reliable proof of the Economist’s ”lack of awareness of basic facts”. Two words spring to mind. Pot. Kettle.
2)Where you link to the Economist’s country profile of India, “which contains a wealth of information that sometimes borders on being incorrect”. “Sometimes” and “borders on being incorrect” are, I believe, slightly different from “Mostly” and “factually incorrect”. Another word comes to mind. Spin. But that’s a clever use of English, I must admit. Well done.
3)Where you confidently state that “apart from a select circle, Nehru stands discredited on almost all fronts”. The valid and reliable proof for this is of course, another opinion post by yourself, another blog post that borrows heavily from a piece in that esteemed international newspaper established by a certain Conrad Black, ‘The New York Sun’, and an op-ed piece by the erm…… eminent sociologist and historian, Rajeev Srinivasan. To borrow your own words, apart from a select circle…of three (?), I wonder whether that reads s(usp)ect. Or maybe we’ll just have to accept your word for it. And that word is of course scientifically valid and reliable, unlike that of the Economist.
4)Now onto my favourite bit. To support the claim that “Hindus persistently worry that Indian Muslims are a fifth column”, you state that this is based on reality, since (the) “majority of the recent terror attacks on India were carried out by Indian Muslims indoctrinated in Pakistan and/or Bangladesh”. So far, so good. Point taken.
But then, you just had to go on, didn’t you? To reinforce your point further, you quote ‘Nitin’ who actually said, “It’s surprising how many things The Economist’s correspondent doesn’t know and yet goes on to make rather bold conclusions. Despite the near certainty of local Muslims being involved in the blasts, to extend this and suggest that India’s or even Hyderabad’s Muslims “probably” played a “supporting role” is absurd”.
Duh..uh!? Two last words. Foot. Mouth.
Now, I could work my way down your post systematically, but life is short, you see. However, the next time you undertake a so called ‘factual critique’, I suggest filling the first floor with some furniture. And hope that some bored scientist (of the qualified variety) doesn’t stumble on your post.
And, oh, please do read up about validity and reliability, will you? Thanks.
Yours seriously,
Never mind.
My favourite sections of your thoroughly enjoyable post are the following-
1)Where you cite an earlier point-of-view post by yourself (rich in opinion and erm..., a bit sparse in facts) as valid and reliable proof of the Economist’s ”lack of awareness of basic facts”. Two words spring to mind. Pot. Kettle.
2)Where you link to the Economist’s country profile of India, “which contains a wealth of information that sometimes borders on being incorrect”. “Sometimes” and “borders on being incorrect” are, I believe, slightly different from “Mostly” and “factually incorrect”. Another word comes to mind. Spin. But that’s a clever use of English, I must admit. Well done.
3)Where you confidently state that “apart from a select circle, Nehru stands discredited on almost all fronts”. The valid and reliable proof for this is of course, another opinion post by yourself, another blog post that borrows heavily from a piece in that esteemed international newspaper established by a certain Conrad Black, ‘The New York Sun’, and an op-ed piece by the erm…… eminent sociologist and historian, Rajeev Srinivasan. To borrow your own words, apart from a select circle…of three (?), I wonder whether that reads s(usp)ect. Or maybe we’ll just have to accept your word for it. And that word is of course scientifically valid and reliable, unlike that of the Economist.
4)Now onto my favourite bit. To support the claim that “Hindus persistently worry that Indian Muslims are a fifth column”, you state that this is based on reality, since (the) “majority of the recent terror attacks on India were carried out by Indian Muslims indoctrinated in Pakistan and/or Bangladesh”. So far, so good. Point taken.
But then, you just had to go on, didn’t you? To reinforce your point further, you quote ‘Nitin’ who actually said, “It’s surprising how many things The Economist’s correspondent doesn’t know and yet goes on to make rather bold conclusions. Despite the near certainty of local Muslims being involved in the blasts, to extend this and suggest that India’s or even Hyderabad’s Muslims “probably” played a “supporting role” is absurd”.
Duh..uh!? Two last words. Foot. Mouth.
Now, I could work my way down your post systematically, but life is short, you see. However, the next time you undertake a so called ‘factual critique’, I suggest filling the first floor with some furniture. And hope that some bored scientist (of the qualified variety) doesn’t stumble on your post.
And, oh, please do read up about validity and reliability, will you? Thanks.
Yours seriously,
Never mind.