Ravi Riverfront #2 : A curious case of Meinhardt and Focal Person (Digital Media) to CM Punjab
I would like to thank the focal person for getting people to read my post.
A story in tweets.
Act 1: I write a post and tweet about it
.
Act 2: A Twitter account is created and FIA is tagged
Act 3: Spokesman for CM Punjab Quote Tweets it 🤷♂️
This next one I couldn’t understand. 🤷♂️🤷♂️ Why the need for tagging without reading the post?
Act 4: I reply by running CTRL-F on “blacklist” in the LHC judgment
Act 5: Fahad finds the original LDA document of blacklisting
The end
Thank you to Focal Person
Let’s be honest. Not many people read my esoteric substack. As the Meinhardt post was long and comprised of long excerpts from LHC judgment, I expected even lesser people to read it. Moreover, the way the breaking news cycle works in Pakistan with a new crisis every day or sometimes multiple crises in one day, I expected the Meinhardt piece to be forgotten in half a day. But then the Meinhardt account was created, which is only followed by fans of one particular party, leaving me to speculate who created it, and claimed that I fabricated stuff in my post, and then the account also tagged FIA in the tweet. Occasionally I do get abusive tweets from real estate brokers over my posts which I ignore, and I would have ignored this too. It was when the spokesman for CM Punjab quote tweeted it that I took it seriously. A lot of people tweeted patting my back, so thank you to them.
Consequently, my Meinhardt post started receiving extra traffic and the substack added a few more subscribers. Hence, I would like to thank Azhar Mashwani for getting people to read my post and bringing me more subscribers.
But seriously, this was such a needless drama. All Azhar needed to do was read my post and see that I am not stating anything that’s not already been said by the court.
Those rare souls that drudge through my substack regularly would know that I don’t take credit for anything that I didn’t come up with, to the extent that I quote the original tweets in the midst of my pieces if I have sourced info from them. [There have been a few exceptions over the months but those have only been when the original poster asked me to remove his tweet or sent me the info in confidence.] The last section of that Meinhardt piece is titled “credit where credit is due” and comprises only of tweets giving credit to tweeps that provided the information. The point I am trying to make is it is rare that I make a blanket statement in my posts about something without posting evidence in the same post. Where I assume something or speculate, I usually mention it that this is speculation.
Could I have been any clearer that it’s LHC and LDA saying this and not me?