Close Encounter

Chowk Staff regarding Farzana;

Who is going to apologize to us Chowkies? She has insulted our intelligence by writing lies time and again without conscience. Please step in to moderate her lies too. Thank you.

i also had a dream

hamidm bro:

am singling you out…you were one of the few who tried in vain to steer this in the right direction…also feel should lend you a shoulder...for it is not often we get stood up… more so when the respondent is not a … nah…let me not hit you there;)

may i share a dream which in my way i can also use to hint at a closure to this brouhaha?

you and begum hamidm were at this event of the year thrown by the grande dame scion of a world known family…a plain looking woman in her early sixties…(zoare plain per hay dost m`ray – ah! all this political correctness)

during the course of the evening she made a couple of passes at you…and you desisted…at the third blatant pass you were irked sufficiently to decline saying, ``M`am tomorrow morning I will be sober but you will still be …`` at this point in my dream i saw mrs. hamidm step in gingerly and steered you away…

(disclaimer: some of you may recognise that this dream was based on a literary anecdote)

rgds

t

Farzana –

You had to come here and stir the worms in the can!

My dear friend, you cannot take cheap shots at people, belittle them, or are Ms. Sanctimonious. That’s an art form and, frankly, you are not the type who can master it. Most importantly, to your detriment, you are not cut out to respond to a rock hurled your way with a brick.

So, grab a spicy bloody mary (or virgin mary, if you wish), sit back, put your feet on the ottoman, relax, read the posts on this board (the article is not worth wasting time), and enjoy. You maybe looking for trouble by participating, as if your hands aren’t full already!!!

salim #261:

Your ability to balance between your partisan emotions during the
frequent altercations and your objective enforcement of Chowk
guidelines as Chowk ``volunteer,`` is admirable.

…you must have misunderstood…will give you the benefit of doubt…

khair…this is what i said publicly here last year… and reiterated
yesterday … that i volunteer for chowk…i refrained from mentioning in
what area…

but suffice it to say it is not enforcement area…more where my
interests lie….and where over the years it has been my pleasure to
have helped more people than have interacted on this board so
far…barring a few exceptions….anonymously

re: women i will disagree

this is what I wrote in #331: ...respecting another person
...specially a women is different and more of challenge...in a sense
we can also bring in an individual`s self-worth …if they are … secure
or insecure…after all in the desi mind-set women occupy the lowest
rung of the totem pole…

having quoted this…i also feel obligated to state that civility and
tolerance should be incumbent upon all who visit here (thank you and
godbless- n)

rgds

t

chowk staff .....

zindabad !

...... but you could have avoided all this unpleasentness if you had taken my suggestion and barred everyone who is under 17 years of age (except romair, who should be barred for life)

........ does this mean that i cannot hound urstruly, romair and ntsyed (echoboom seems to be on an extended vacation in the caribbean or somalia or afghanistan ) ? ....... if that is the case, then i am afraid i will have to find another vocation ..............

fv,

..... i was relieved when urstruly didn`t show up - i don`t think i could have continued to abuse him once i looked the devil in the eye ............

Re: # 339 she is the bg cheez or is naa-cheez around these parts!

oh how sweet -- chowk staff is apologizing to farzana versey -- btw chowk-staff, what brought about this change of heart and this realization of so many things done wrong in the past ???

farzana, i wonder whether your visiting card actually says `chowk columnist` ? you dont really have to answer that by the way

Why Temporal is posting with multiple nick? He is writing as Chowk staff now. What a joke.

# 336 continued ...

This is to clarify that ``soulat`` was indeed a pseudonym (user id/nick) used by an existing member of Chowk and has therefore been removed. But none of the ids in question have anything to do with Farzana Versey.

Re #314 by tddysam on August 31, 2005 12:45pm PT
[On the subject of multi-nicks, methinks Soulat is none other than Farzana Versey]

tddysam,

If you want to volunteer information please do so about yourself. There is no need to imply false and baseless speculation about others.

Farzana Versey is columnist and regular participant on Chowk and as she states below she has never used covers of pseudonyms to write here.
--

To Farzana,

Please accept my public apologies for this and several other personal attacks you have suffered on Chowk. There were occasions where chowk-staff could have and probably should have (debatable) stepped in to moderate.

Sincerely

(Sorry about this digression -- indeed!)

Chowk Staff:

I thought I would desist, but I am afraid silence will be misconstrued in a context that has to do with my identity on Chowk.

Since you decided to jump into the fray and monitor this board, and are even accepting offers for Baskin Robbins, you ought to display some respect for writers who choose to maintain their distance from this sort of slugfest. By giving me a column and publishing me on a regular basis, you are certainly not to be held responsible for my opinions (which in all probability are not in consonance with yours), but you DO have to stand up for unprovoked slurs, especially since you know the truth.

I am referring to the post #314 by tddysam on August 31, 2005 12:45pm PT

[Re: # 313
On the subject of multi-nicks, methinks Soulat is none other than Farzana Versey.]

You know this is not true, and you let a person whose credentials are suspect get away with it.

tddysam
Registered Dec 6 2004

And yet her/his first post appears on April 7, 2005. Do you realise this could be someone with a multiple nick?

If the person Soulat seems to have made me into an example, then 1)it is not my problem; 2)why does it bother people so when they are openly getting cute on their Bhais/bhabhis/behens here?

For you this may appear to be a minor problem, but I do not take kindly to this at all as it would have been very convenient (and even prudent) for me to get a nice nick for myself to defend myself, which I know I have to do pretty much on my own and do so the way I know best -- without resorting to the abuses similar to the ones hurled at me.

However, in the recent past, there have been people who have made a huge noise about my `fans`, `admirers` who, invariably, according to them are of `dubious character`. I deal with people on the basis of what they say about my writing, and not whether they are going to stand by me in my moment of crisis.

And I anyway do not understand how and why you permit this consistent use of a person`s name on boards when she does not even make an appearance. It may give people a kick to become a metaphor, but I`d much rather be what I am. You seem to have this great maternal/paternal concern for all that goes on in UP, but the stalking on FP is far worse because some of us want to engage in a dialogue on a subject that may have to do with an important issue. Surely you are aware it takes more effort to write about these than post on boards that talk about catfights?

I am also surprised that you permitted this board to take the shape it did -- the digressions are not in the same league as Jinnah revived or Kashmir revisited. This constant battle among certain individuals has always been simmering, but of late it has been exported to these boards. Whenever there has been even a feeble attempt on any of my boards, I have stalled it. It is the job of the writer to do so, even at the risk of losing a few enemies which everyone around seems to love so dearly. This pathetic thing happened on the Zafar Anjum board; those of us who did have things to say had to refrain. I certainly do not wish to be made a part of such empty wars or partake of their spoils.

And while we are on the subject of multiple nicks, the ones that create a `havoc` are easily recognisable. I wish to draw your attention (oh, but you already know that!) to the use of more than one nick by the nice folks. Ask your volunteers; they might know who these people are. They may not have nuisance value (debatable point), but I hope you apply the standards you are striving to apply across the board.

I try to give you feedback, more often at times when I am not the `aggrieved party` (have never asked for anyone to be banned and, to the chagrin of several folks here, never threatened to leave!) because of only one reason -- I need to respect the space I occupy. I expect some reciprocation for that. There are several other points which I shall put up in my personal space later...

If you do read this, I can only hope it did not take too much time and your ice-cream has not melted.

Regards,
Farzana
- - -

Hamidm:

I would like to remind you that it was I who had suggested quite some time ago that it was my dream for a double date with you and urstruly; he had accepted it. You maintained silence. Now it seems clear where your preferences lie:) It is a pity I cannot use the term `green with envy` lest I be deported to S.Arabia...

Re: # 298

[Here is how we plan to enforce these guidelines:

1. Multiple ids of registered interactors will be removed
2. Posts containing crude language will be filtered and removed in extreme cases
3. Interactors posting abuse, attacks, and hate etc. against other members will have their interacting privileges suspended for a short period and the specific comments will be filtered or removed ]

Chowk-Administration (I do not like to write ``Staff``)

I recommend that you allow at least 24 hours for substantive feedback from your subscribers before approving a new legislation in the rowdy and chaotic halls of Chowk Assembly. Some of us have long working hour plus commute plus workout activities therefore we are not aware of the latest and greatest happenings here. We need some time to go over the current affairs on Chowk :)

I would like to add to the (3) item on the list:
I agree with you that interactors inciting members against other members should have their interacting privileges revisited. On the other hand, those who are easily influenced by the hate-mongers need to be treated in-kind for their gullibility.