Thread by @dikgaj

@jyotiray @maidros78 @sarkar_swati @abishekbagchi u first accused the authors of writing "lies": when asked to specify u quickly diverted, and avoided pointing out what you claimed was a "lie": bringing in "context". This kind of avoidance is quite unthinkable in regular "science".

@jyotiray @maidros78 @sarkar_swati @abishekbagchi I will show you why professional "scientists" may become skeptical on ur claims of "sociology" as you seem to understand it (or implying "formal training in it"): first casualty of yours is logic.

@jyotiray @maidros78 @sarkar_swati @abishekbagchi you started off trying to prove criticism by authors on NC, with sequence of tweets on how JLN was angry with NC. How does being target of JLN's anger automatically prove what NC wrote was not false or lies? Is that what ur formal training in "sociology=science" teaches as logic?

@jyotiray @maidros78 @sarkar_swati @abishekbagchi ur raised issue of "context": implication, NC's comments ag freedom struggle/anti-Brit sentiments/insurrectionists must be taken in "context", somehow ur "science" seems to think that "context" somehow makes factually false statements by NC, no longer "false".

@jyotiray @maidros78 @sarkar_swati @abishekbagchi to illustrate ur "scientific" concept of "context", u brought in Bankim ch, Vivekananda (largely 19th c) cited their caution. Apparently u interpret "not yet ready" as opposed to independence, love for Brits, and vicious fulmination ag any thought towards overthrowing Brit rule.

@jyotiray @maidros78 @sarkar_swati @abishekbagchi can you explain how those two 19th c intellects give context to NC, writing post independence ag those who fought for independence, and NC's shock at how the good Brits were hated by those ruled by Brits?