________________________________
From: J. Alfred Prufrock <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 7 August 2011, 23:56
Subject: Re: [silk] Assuming goodwill
I agree with Biju's point. I would imagine that the reason for a list like this
is that people with a reasonable level of intelligence can air their views. If
we're looking for homogeneity in those views, that should have been made clear
long ago. Since it wasn't part of the charter, too late.
If someone has a nice foaming fit on the list, what's not to like? We can (a)
watch the fun (b) wind up people some more (c) dismiss them all as
"chaddiwallas" (a term that's new to me, but obviously one with potential) (d)
all of the above.
As a well-known extreme rightist from Liverpool once wrote, "Nothing is real /
And nothing to get hung about." (Are chaddiwallas compensating for not being
well-hung? And are those of us who use that term automatically assumed to be
going commando?)
In any case, what's interesting about always talking to people who agree with
you? I kinda miss Arsalan Zaidi, for those of you who remember.
>On the other hand, I rather object to hidden agendas, sock puppets and similar
>weirdness.
>--
J. Alfred Prufrock
"Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded
I do not know whether a man or a woman
- But who is that on the other side of you?"
======================================
This is a fine analysis as it goes, but it depends on two errors; rather a
precarious balance, don't you think? Especially considering the subjects of the
analysis, taken individually and collectively.
The term in question is 'khaki chaddiwalas', and not chaddiwalas, which should
bring considerable support to at least some of us; so the dichotomy is not, as
you fear, between those with and those without, but between those swathed in
khaki around their middles and those otherwise accoutred. This accident, barely
more than an elision, should not bring the fear of a lifetime bereft of support
to you or to other unwary readers.
The other error is in the Liverpudlian's presumably inadvertent usage: it is,
of course, 'hanged' that he wished to say. You are to be commiserated with;
substituting hanged for hung does not allow room for the harmless, umm,
horseplay that you indulged in. We must, sadly, wait for a terrorist attack of
Kolkata for occasions to go commando.
