O! wendily, wendily. For one to know if another's take is correct, one must know if the take of the take bears integrity. Finally new use of 'political correctness'. My apologies belatedly, and in advance of what's to come. I reckon I am guilty of expound-splaining as ones' of redundant blogarrhea do do... albeit having forgone the clichéd link to an on the subject essay of mine own, though certainly rife with pretension ('mine own', in-deed). With what shall we win, well why not go on, true take, true take. Too is the take of C des Cs' twittling worthy of such similarly deeper consideration (anarchier than thou, anyone? .. good times).
For, you see, I was talking about my burgeoning belief that it is, in fact, only the plausibility that TPTB actually believe that repairing &/or buttressing their credibility is necessary as such. It is where I came up with (warning, near-narcissistic self-referencing of an essay in effect) 'manufacturing plausible consent'. I swear to Bejeezelbub Lucichrist that it is not just a portmanteau but a very real theory of my own very own, still yet incomplete in the flesh, which is why I probably do not link to it. If I may quote the late junkie, WSB: It's full of holes, it's full of holes. Prolly cuz I forced Gnome together with plausible deniability... but, no, I think I still think that they belong under the same analytical frame.
In short: they can do what they want, they that be, so at best the propaggrandising is long-already of indirect influential intent, seeking to maintain merely the canard that they gotta keep up appearances. They only feel the need to keep up appearances of keeping up appearances. Who in the last quarter century or maybe longer has done anything to stand in the way? —dly
As to Sundae all over the world:
For, you see, I was talking about my burgeoning belief that it is, in fact, only the plausibility that TPTB actually believe that repairing &/or buttressing their credibility is necessary as such. It is where I came up with (warning, near-narcissistic self-referencing of an essay in effect) 'manufacturing plausible consent'. I swear to Bejeezelbub Lucichrist that it is not just a portmanteau but a very real theory of my own very own, still yet incomplete in the flesh, which is why I probably do not link to it. If I may quote the late junkie, WSB: It's full of holes, it's full of holes. Prolly cuz I forced Gnome together with plausible deniability... but, no, I think I still think that they belong under the same analytical frame.
In short: they can do what they want, they that be, so at best the propaggrandising is long-already of indirect influential intent, seeking to maintain merely the canard that they gotta keep up appearances. They only feel the need to keep up appearances of keeping up appearances. Who in the last quarter century or maybe longer has done anything to stand in the way? —dly
As to Sundae all over the world:
Best Ficktion: a wondrously shifting subject, of length for on-line, so print it out.As to the gaze:
Referencing still that I didn't get smart until he behind the mask I thought was his own own face explicitly gazed upon itself providing the context, now in recursive mode.
"Snap one more time, see!"
