How green is their valley?
#66 Anil,
You ask too many questions! Aren’t you aware that since that last “accident”, this is a NEW author, she keeps her head high in the clouds and picks and chooses which interact to answer – hasn’t the new (goal-moal) style sunk in on anybody yet! And aren’t the advantages obvious? This allows the flexibility of not answering questions which are too tough for her. After all, it is SO much easier to be intransigent, especially when one is so wrong – you see, if you DON`T answer! If one gives in on even the most glaringly idiotic mistakes, won’t that amount to an absolute negation of what one’s whole “literary” life is (was?) about?! So, therefore, you can shake your head as much as you like - there is no shaking THIS lady “mullah”!
The problem with your questions is not that these are difficult to answer, but that the answers are not to this author’s liking – not to mention to her cohorts (and perhaps her promoters, if any)! This web-site is crawling with such cohorts – addicted to their throes of afeem-induced aphrodisia – they LIKE it to stay that way and not REALITY come in-between themselves and their highs!
The internet gives even us janitors a certain degree of power. I spent a little time of my own to check out a couple of the characters here (it`s really not that difficult), and some of them appear to have kept certain “distinguished” companies in the past! Therefore, I’m sure the author knows exactly what she is doing and who she is hunting with! She is QUITE comfortable with that, too! In fact, based on observations (some of us can not help that) it’s my understanding that she (and a few others) have a significant “behind the scene” role in running this web-site, so don’t go about expecting anything from those “chowk staff” and “chowk editors” clowns, either!
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jul 25, 2005 09:14 pm
#66 Anil,
You ask too many questions! Aren’t you aware that since that last “accident”, this is a NEW author, she keeps her head high in the clouds and picks and chooses which interact to answer – hasn’t the new (goal-moal) style sunk in on anybody yet! And aren’t the advantages obvious? This allows the flexibility of not answering questions which are too tough for her. After all, it is SO much easier to be intransigent, especially when one is so wrong – you see, if you DON`T answer! If one gives in on even the most glaringly idiotic mistakes, won’t that amount to an absolute negation of what one’s whole “literary” life is (was?) about?! So, therefore, you can shake your head as much as you like - there is no shaking THIS lady “mullah”!
The problem with your questions is not that these are difficult to answer, but that the answers are not to this author’s liking – not to mention to her cohorts (and perhaps her promoters, if any)! This web-site is crawling with such cohorts – addicted to their throes of afeem-induced aphrodisia – they LIKE it to stay that way and not REALITY come in-between themselves and their highs!
The internet gives even us janitors a certain degree of power. I spent a little time of my own to check out a couple of the characters here (it`s really not that difficult), and some of them appear to have kept certain “distinguished” companies in the past! Therefore, I’m sure the author knows exactly what she is doing and who she is hunting with! She is QUITE comfortable with that, too! In fact, based on observations (some of us can not help that) it’s my understanding that she (and a few others) have a significant “behind the scene” role in running this web-site, so don’t go about expecting anything from those “chowk staff” and “chowk editors” clowns, either!
How green is their valley?
Should Farzana Versey be kept around?
Chowk is there for a reason! I assume that the reasons are good – I assume that it is to bring people together! Putting up such totally outrageous articles – which even hurts to read (next thing we know, Farzana will be blaming the Jews for the holocaust) does quite the opposite – it serves NO good purpose and drives people of goodwill away!
Here, we have a way to express our concern and send a message to Chowk.com!
Let’s have a snap poll (please vote just once, no matter how many nicks you carry).
Just vote “yes” or “no” as follows:
“Yes” (Keep Farzana Versey on Chowk – she promotes the causes Chowk was meant to promote).
“No” (Dump Farzana Versey from Chowk – she hurts the causes Chowk was meant to promote).
Let me be the first to vote. I say –
NO, Dump her!!
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jul 25, 2005 04:57 pm
Dear Chowkies:Should Farzana Versey be kept around?
Chowk is there for a reason! I assume that the reasons are good – I assume that it is to bring people together! Putting up such totally outrageous articles – which even hurts to read (next thing we know, Farzana will be blaming the Jews for the holocaust) does quite the opposite – it serves NO good purpose and drives people of goodwill away!
Here, we have a way to express our concern and send a message to Chowk.com!
Let’s have a snap poll (please vote just once, no matter how many nicks you carry).
Just vote “yes” or “no” as follows:
“Yes” (Keep Farzana Versey on Chowk – she promotes the causes Chowk was meant to promote).
“No” (Dump Farzana Versey from Chowk – she hurts the causes Chowk was meant to promote).
Let me be the first to vote. I say –
NO, Dump her!!
How green is their valley?
On the plus side, at least Farzana has stuck her neck out (very “manly” if I may say so) to (pathetically attempt to) answer some of the questions raised earlier – or has she?
When she opens this piece of crap (excuse me – this “article”) with a quote from an avowed anti-Indian separatist like Geelani, her credibility as a writer (not to mention, as an Indian) takes a steep nose-dive right away – then it splashes into the bottomless pits of gutter journalism – followed by a quick visit to ONE family where she asks highly selective questions specifically designed to buttress her VERY prejudiced prior opinions.
The truly germane questions (conveniently skipped by this “author”) are:
(1) the pandits were sons of the soil. They were made to leave their ancient homes en-masse! This is “ethnic cleansing” by ANYONE’s book (except this woman’s). What kind of “gutless” individual will fail to admit that simple fact – or will admitting such violate any secret understandings with enemies of India – perhaps driving her into a state of permanent unemployment?
(2) NOTHING can replace what one leaves behind – in terms of property, one’s personal ties, one’s emotional investment, one’s every little thing that defines one! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, WOMAN!!!
(3) the fact that SOME of the pandits can go ahead and build whole new lives on their own, with or without community or government support – ought to have no part of this discourse (and therefore, of course, this “writer” makes it the FOCUS of her “article”). In fact, such a thing (in the U.S., we call it “raising one by the boot-strings”) ought to be cherished (instead of being lamented and “bitched” over as this “writer” does), because it sets some positive role models and some hope for people who may encounter similar tragedy! But the causes which forced such people to leave must NEVER be condoned! (As I said on Harish Nambiar’s board (you KNEW I was going to link up the two of you!) – let me quote myself –
“While you see a divine value in the “triggering” power of getting one’s butts kicked out of where one has lived for generations (just the way Farzana Versey … sees in the Kashmiri Pandits getting their asses unceremoniously kicked out of their ancestral homes, the REAL experience of such disruption is highly, highly painful and tragic!!! Get it through your little heads, both of you! There ain’t nothing GOOD about being forced to leave your ancestral homes – be it Godhra, Kashmir, or Bihar! Perhaps it will be a nice little “trigger” for both of YOU too, if you were forced to do some real work (may I suggest, for example, being a janitor) instead of hauling your asses around the country on a motor-bike, or buying ridiculously-priced cups of coffee and becoming fat on chocolates filled with wine (oh, how Indian! No wonder we occasionally need to throw in a few “patriotic” gimmicks like a bunch of lousy photo shots, while doing everything in our power under the sky to warm the hearts of the enemies of India)!”
(4) Unfortunately, the writer is so biased with her “green” color that she plainly misses the obvious corollary – that these same individuals could not survive as themselves in Kashmir – where they were surrounded by Muslims (who won’t protect their generations-long friends but were kind enough to buy properties at deeply discounted rates). In other words, this whole “secular” experiment – after many decades of trying out in the valley – FAILED! If the author truly thinks of herself as an Indian, this fact ought to scare her stiff! (Or do we have the makings of a young, female Jinnah here, firing the first salvos toward a further bifurcation of India since – “Muslims are special, so they must have their OWN homeland!” (Where have we heard that before?))
The valley was indeed green for these folks – the Kashmiri pandits! Unfortunately, now it has become too green – as in the color of Islam! So, so green that there is no more room for people of different faiths! This author, with her tush safely parked in posh Bombay suburbs – not having to work herself up through the day-to-day struggles involved in rising through life – everything always having been handed over on a silver platter, can NEVER identify with the pain of pandits – not unless they would have converted to HER religion! Anybody (but her) can see that fact plain as daylight!
It’s indeed pathetic to see a “writer” spill out tons and tons of words (is that “all one has” or “one has all”?) without responding to a single issue that was brought up on the earlier board. And all of it based on ONE trip to one house!
Farzana, indeed it’s literally accurate to say that you are a true force of ONE!
If you were a scientist, you would have invented the most amazing scientific theories (going at various orientations with regard to firmly established ground rules of logic) based on ONE data point!
All of it finally tracing back to ONE Book!
The real and perhaps more legitimate question for individuals like you Farzana is what is YOUR vision of India – and can Muslims “handle” being secular – and do you think (especially with the attitude that you display and even though you represent few (one?)) do you even see a future for yourself and Muslims in India as proud individuals who can put their national identity ahead of their “Muslim” identity? (And don’t give the evasive answer about “there should not have to be a choice”.) In other words, when the push comes to shove, will you pick up a gun and fight with these militants who want to do your(?) country harm – or will you just turn tail and join them? (By the way, don’t use that old “you are a NRI” cop-out – this janitor’s loyalties are already well-documented!)
I could go on and on, since I feel really outraged at this gal’s gall! But I have a broom to attend to – and the author should feel thankful that she is nowhere within its range!!
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jul 25, 2005 04:30 am
On the plus side, at least Farzana has stuck her neck out (very “manly” if I may say so) to (pathetically attempt to) answer some of the questions raised earlier – or has she?
When she opens this piece of crap (excuse me – this “article”) with a quote from an avowed anti-Indian separatist like Geelani, her credibility as a writer (not to mention, as an Indian) takes a steep nose-dive right away – then it splashes into the bottomless pits of gutter journalism – followed by a quick visit to ONE family where she asks highly selective questions specifically designed to buttress her VERY prejudiced prior opinions.
The truly germane questions (conveniently skipped by this “author”) are:
(1) the pandits were sons of the soil. They were made to leave their ancient homes en-masse! This is “ethnic cleansing” by ANYONE’s book (except this woman’s). What kind of “gutless” individual will fail to admit that simple fact – or will admitting such violate any secret understandings with enemies of India – perhaps driving her into a state of permanent unemployment?
(2) NOTHING can replace what one leaves behind – in terms of property, one’s personal ties, one’s emotional investment, one’s every little thing that defines one! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, WOMAN!!!
(3) the fact that SOME of the pandits can go ahead and build whole new lives on their own, with or without community or government support – ought to have no part of this discourse (and therefore, of course, this “writer” makes it the FOCUS of her “article”). In fact, such a thing (in the U.S., we call it “raising one by the boot-strings”) ought to be cherished (instead of being lamented and “bitched” over as this “writer” does), because it sets some positive role models and some hope for people who may encounter similar tragedy! But the causes which forced such people to leave must NEVER be condoned! (As I said on Harish Nambiar’s board (you KNEW I was going to link up the two of you!) – let me quote myself –
“While you see a divine value in the “triggering” power of getting one’s butts kicked out of where one has lived for generations (just the way Farzana Versey … sees in the Kashmiri Pandits getting their asses unceremoniously kicked out of their ancestral homes, the REAL experience of such disruption is highly, highly painful and tragic!!! Get it through your little heads, both of you! There ain’t nothing GOOD about being forced to leave your ancestral homes – be it Godhra, Kashmir, or Bihar! Perhaps it will be a nice little “trigger” for both of YOU too, if you were forced to do some real work (may I suggest, for example, being a janitor) instead of hauling your asses around the country on a motor-bike, or buying ridiculously-priced cups of coffee and becoming fat on chocolates filled with wine (oh, how Indian! No wonder we occasionally need to throw in a few “patriotic” gimmicks like a bunch of lousy photo shots, while doing everything in our power under the sky to warm the hearts of the enemies of India)!”
(4) Unfortunately, the writer is so biased with her “green” color that she plainly misses the obvious corollary – that these same individuals could not survive as themselves in Kashmir – where they were surrounded by Muslims (who won’t protect their generations-long friends but were kind enough to buy properties at deeply discounted rates). In other words, this whole “secular” experiment – after many decades of trying out in the valley – FAILED! If the author truly thinks of herself as an Indian, this fact ought to scare her stiff! (Or do we have the makings of a young, female Jinnah here, firing the first salvos toward a further bifurcation of India since – “Muslims are special, so they must have their OWN homeland!” (Where have we heard that before?))
The valley was indeed green for these folks – the Kashmiri pandits! Unfortunately, now it has become too green – as in the color of Islam! So, so green that there is no more room for people of different faiths! This author, with her tush safely parked in posh Bombay suburbs – not having to work herself up through the day-to-day struggles involved in rising through life – everything always having been handed over on a silver platter, can NEVER identify with the pain of pandits – not unless they would have converted to HER religion! Anybody (but her) can see that fact plain as daylight!
It’s indeed pathetic to see a “writer” spill out tons and tons of words (is that “all one has” or “one has all”?) without responding to a single issue that was brought up on the earlier board. And all of it based on ONE trip to one house!
Farzana, indeed it’s literally accurate to say that you are a true force of ONE!
If you were a scientist, you would have invented the most amazing scientific theories (going at various orientations with regard to firmly established ground rules of logic) based on ONE data point!
All of it finally tracing back to ONE Book!
The real and perhaps more legitimate question for individuals like you Farzana is what is YOUR vision of India – and can Muslims “handle” being secular – and do you think (especially with the attitude that you display and even though you represent few (one?)) do you even see a future for yourself and Muslims in India as proud individuals who can put their national identity ahead of their “Muslim” identity? (And don’t give the evasive answer about “there should not have to be a choice”.) In other words, when the push comes to shove, will you pick up a gun and fight with these militants who want to do your(?) country harm – or will you just turn tail and join them? (By the way, don’t use that old “you are a NRI” cop-out – this janitor’s loyalties are already well-documented!)
I could go on and on, since I feel really outraged at this gal’s gall! But I have a broom to attend to – and the author should feel thankful that she is nowhere within its range!!
How Free is ’free?’
#14 Miriamk (part)
The corporations you mention are generally so large that their interests cover too many diverse areas – they do not protect or project any one particular point of view on ANY issue. They are profit-driven and they mostly do not interfere with the day-to-day operations of news organizations – they mostly leave it to the judgment of the day-to-day operatives – not so much because it is the “right” thing to do, but because it is simply the most practical thing to do – why would anyone do something oneself when one has more experienced brains available (and one is paying them) to do the same work.
(An important exception when higher level ownership DOES get involved in a lower-level decision is when an issue can mess up the corporate image of the larger entity. Examples from the past would include R.J. Reynolds on tobacco, many corporations on disinvestment from the (then apartheid-practicing) South Africa, etc. The bottom line rule is – it is just not good business to be controversial if you are trying to enlarge your market base to the whole population. This is also the reason that many corporations would withhold advertisements from “controversial” programs.)
Because of the curiosity raised by your remarks regarding James Madison ([solution: well, the founding fathers (especially james madison) thought it was important that the public and not the merchants own the media. hmmm…wonder why?]), I felt inspired to go back and read on him some. (As you know, Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist essays – which eventually proved to be one of the triggers that led to U.S. independence.)
The problem I see is you make statements and attribute to Mr. Madison without any basis. Freedom of press was just one (relatively minor) issue in Madison’s drafting and supporting the “bill of rights” – what we would call the dangers of a rough-shod majority appears to have been the main driving force. Madison never said anything regarding private ownership of press – the argument advocated by you, which clearly appears to be a product of YOUR idle imagination. Here is what I see is the bulk of the story regarding Madison and the freedom of press.
In introducing the draft of what became the “bill of rights”, here is what Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses (introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789) said: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” The final language (“Congress shall make no law respecting … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ….”) was agreed upon in conference.
Madison, like other American founding fathers, was probably heavily influenced by the model of common law set forth by William Blackstone in the 1700s, who stated: “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. …Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.”
An interesting trivia: “Madison wrote 24 of his 29 Federalist essays in seven weeks, at the remarkable pace of three essays a week. Many of these essays rank among the best political thought ever produced.” Some people – when they get going – there is no stopping them!
(Unsought advice:) Please use initial caps appropriately in your remarks (and thus not “belittle” the U.S.)
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jul 19, 2005 10:06 am
#14 Miriamk (part)
The corporations you mention are generally so large that their interests cover too many diverse areas – they do not protect or project any one particular point of view on ANY issue. They are profit-driven and they mostly do not interfere with the day-to-day operations of news organizations – they mostly leave it to the judgment of the day-to-day operatives – not so much because it is the “right” thing to do, but because it is simply the most practical thing to do – why would anyone do something oneself when one has more experienced brains available (and one is paying them) to do the same work.
(An important exception when higher level ownership DOES get involved in a lower-level decision is when an issue can mess up the corporate image of the larger entity. Examples from the past would include R.J. Reynolds on tobacco, many corporations on disinvestment from the (then apartheid-practicing) South Africa, etc. The bottom line rule is – it is just not good business to be controversial if you are trying to enlarge your market base to the whole population. This is also the reason that many corporations would withhold advertisements from “controversial” programs.)
Because of the curiosity raised by your remarks regarding James Madison ([solution: well, the founding fathers (especially james madison) thought it was important that the public and not the merchants own the media. hmmm…wonder why?]), I felt inspired to go back and read on him some. (As you know, Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist essays – which eventually proved to be one of the triggers that led to U.S. independence.)
The problem I see is you make statements and attribute to Mr. Madison without any basis. Freedom of press was just one (relatively minor) issue in Madison’s drafting and supporting the “bill of rights” – what we would call the dangers of a rough-shod majority appears to have been the main driving force. Madison never said anything regarding private ownership of press – the argument advocated by you, which clearly appears to be a product of YOUR idle imagination. Here is what I see is the bulk of the story regarding Madison and the freedom of press.
In introducing the draft of what became the “bill of rights”, here is what Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses (introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789) said: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” The final language (“Congress shall make no law respecting … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ….”) was agreed upon in conference.
Madison, like other American founding fathers, was probably heavily influenced by the model of common law set forth by William Blackstone in the 1700s, who stated: “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. …Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.”
An interesting trivia: “Madison wrote 24 of his 29 Federalist essays in seven weeks, at the remarkable pace of three essays a week. Many of these essays rank among the best political thought ever produced.” Some people – when they get going – there is no stopping them!
(Unsought advice:) Please use initial caps appropriately in your remarks (and thus not “belittle” the U.S.)
When Puppets Hide Behind Pomposity
#12 Farzana Versey
This must be considered a red-letter day – since this is the day this author joins the rank of the “run of the mill” by stooping to the following:
(1) providing a long “background” explanation AFTER a work is published – in order to cover up the glaring shortcomings contained in the article.
(2) not having the courage to respond to individual interactors – which allows them the “flexibility” to wholesale skip on comments that are so accurate and hard-hitting that it leaves them squirming and fuming inside, and they can’t do duce about it since those interacts are so accurate!
The most critical comments – skipped so conveniently – are:
(a) the author uses a few isolated and personal experiences with a few reporters and editors to make vast and sweeping generalizations about ALL of media.
(b) the encroachment of journalistic integrity is more a result of ad-hoc commercial considerations (which eventually WILL reign supreme, since these are COMMERCIAL ventures) and not restricted to the printed media or even the news media.
(c) the author suggests no solutions, leaving aside how to go about implementing those solutions. (By choosing not to respond, the author has basically let the accusation stand – proving (for those who have not been blinded and choose to see this fact plain as daylight) she has NO answers, and given a LOT of ammunition to the accusation that this author’s specialty is mere “bitching” about real, serious, or their opposites in issues – never solving anything)
Although this interactor is not himself aware of the sacrifices the writer may have paid personally for having “independent” views (if “baba–adam” era views can be so designated), he has no reason to doubt that these sacrifices happened or for not to have respect for such sacrifices (which perhaps should be lauded when real life is full of so many compromising situations), however (leaving aside for a moment how deep these sacrifices were (as sacrifices go in the Indian context)), allusion to such sacrifices can not be used as a somewhat uncharacteristic half-hearted and feeble excuse for an attempt to cower away from answering the legitimate questions asked (for such an attempt will be seen by everybody for what it is).
Perhaps the author should have chosen the “safer” alternative of not showing up at all to post a response – which would have left at least a bit of doubt about the fact that she is really clueless in answers, and not exposed her utter helplessness in face of smart criticism! It’s all so timid it would be hilarious to watch were it not so pathetic! (I suppose it is difficult to leave ALL old habits behind!)
Individuals like supersize need to develop entities, personalities, and opinions of their own, instead of going obsequiously “yes, yes, Your Highness, me too!” and tagging along like a “fly in dukaan-e-halwai” or perhaps more accurately like a “fly on a horse’s rear”, always riding BEHIND somebody!
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jul 19, 2005 04:07 am
#12 Farzana Versey
This must be considered a red-letter day – since this is the day this author joins the rank of the “run of the mill” by stooping to the following:
(1) providing a long “background” explanation AFTER a work is published – in order to cover up the glaring shortcomings contained in the article.
(2) not having the courage to respond to individual interactors – which allows them the “flexibility” to wholesale skip on comments that are so accurate and hard-hitting that it leaves them squirming and fuming inside, and they can’t do duce about it since those interacts are so accurate!
The most critical comments – skipped so conveniently – are:
(a) the author uses a few isolated and personal experiences with a few reporters and editors to make vast and sweeping generalizations about ALL of media.
(b) the encroachment of journalistic integrity is more a result of ad-hoc commercial considerations (which eventually WILL reign supreme, since these are COMMERCIAL ventures) and not restricted to the printed media or even the news media.
(c) the author suggests no solutions, leaving aside how to go about implementing those solutions. (By choosing not to respond, the author has basically let the accusation stand – proving (for those who have not been blinded and choose to see this fact plain as daylight) she has NO answers, and given a LOT of ammunition to the accusation that this author’s specialty is mere “bitching” about real, serious, or their opposites in issues – never solving anything)
Although this interactor is not himself aware of the sacrifices the writer may have paid personally for having “independent” views (if “baba–adam” era views can be so designated), he has no reason to doubt that these sacrifices happened or for not to have respect for such sacrifices (which perhaps should be lauded when real life is full of so many compromising situations), however (leaving aside for a moment how deep these sacrifices were (as sacrifices go in the Indian context)), allusion to such sacrifices can not be used as a somewhat uncharacteristic half-hearted and feeble excuse for an attempt to cower away from answering the legitimate questions asked (for such an attempt will be seen by everybody for what it is).
Perhaps the author should have chosen the “safer” alternative of not showing up at all to post a response – which would have left at least a bit of doubt about the fact that she is really clueless in answers, and not exposed her utter helplessness in face of smart criticism! It’s all so timid it would be hilarious to watch were it not so pathetic! (I suppose it is difficult to leave ALL old habits behind!)
Individuals like supersize need to develop entities, personalities, and opinions of their own, instead of going obsequiously “yes, yes, Your Highness, me too!” and tagging along like a “fly in dukaan-e-halwai” or perhaps more accurately like a “fly on a horse’s rear”, always riding BEHIND somebody!
When Puppets Hide Behind Pomposity
Thanks BeeJay
Now, next time, please let me speak for myself!
You, better than anybody else, ought to know what happens when people make me mad!
Ever heard the term - ``Cat got your tongue?``
Lion.
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jul 18, 2005 01:53 am
#1Thanks BeeJay
Now, next time, please let me speak for myself!
You, better than anybody else, ought to know what happens when people make me mad!
Ever heard the term - ``Cat got your tongue?``
Lion.
A Moment of Silence
(Enter the Lion)
Lion (L): Sniff, sniff…
L: (Ears perked up) [….tigers from Oslo]
L: (Disappointed) Oh, only paper tigers!
L: (Ears perked up) [….hundreds bite…]
L: (Disappointed) Oh, only dust!
L: (Ears perked up) […. hunters with hungry intent.]
L: (Disappointed) Oh, only diplomats!
L: (Ears perked up) […Bones buried in it.]
L: (Disappointed) Oh, only devastation!
L: (Ears perked up) […Keep on slaying]
L: (Animated) Bravo! ROAR!!! ROAR!!! (Bounds off)
(Exit the lion)
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jul 1, 2005 03:11 am
(Enter the Lion)
Lion (L): Sniff, sniff…
L: (Ears perked up) [….tigers from Oslo]
L: (Disappointed) Oh, only paper tigers!
L: (Ears perked up) [….hundreds bite…]
L: (Disappointed) Oh, only dust!
L: (Ears perked up) […. hunters with hungry intent.]
L: (Disappointed) Oh, only diplomats!
L: (Ears perked up) […Bones buried in it.]
L: (Disappointed) Oh, only devastation!
L: (Ears perked up) […Keep on slaying]
L: (Animated) Bravo! ROAR!!! ROAR!!! (Bounds off)
(Exit the lion)
Trivia of “Potty-Parity”
(Loud and widespread sounds of boos and jeers)
Lion: Grrrr…(Human translation (HT): my comments on this work)
(Loud booming voice from the back: who asked for it?)
Lion: Roar…(HT: First, it lacks sufficient focus (from NYC ordinance to South Asian context to personal domestic phone calling patterns))
Lion: Roar, roar…(HT: Second, it contains insufficient statistical data to back up most of its claims)
Lion: Roar, roar, roar…(HT: Third, it uses highly anecdotal data (e.g., “One of my wife’s cousins…”) to draw sweeping conclusions (“Woman! Thy name is social conversation”))
Chowk censor (CS) (interrupting): Lion, do you have anything specific to point out? (to himself) Perhaps that will make him go away.
Lion: Grrr, ROAR… (HT: [For example, it was said that the men generally act quite matter-of-factly when they pay a visit to the restroom. They do their thing and walk out. At times, many of them do not even care to wash their hands after their act.]…)
CS: Lion, do you have any data of your own?
Lion: Roar! (HT follows below)
CS: And your point, lion?
Lion: Grrr… (HT: Don’t trust people when they tell you about bathroom stuff.)
CS: I see.
Lion: Grrrr… (HT: And now….)
CS (jumping in): Stop, lion! Not here!
Lion: (looks quizzically)
CS: You do that only to mark your territory! This ain’t it!
Lion: (Limps away with a painful expression)
(Exit the lion. Loud sounds of cheering)
Sounds from the den: zzzzzzzz….
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jun 4, 2005 03:55 am
(Enter the lion)(Loud and widespread sounds of boos and jeers)
Lion: Grrrr…(Human translation (HT): my comments on this work)
(Loud booming voice from the back: who asked for it?)
Lion: Roar…(HT: First, it lacks sufficient focus (from NYC ordinance to South Asian context to personal domestic phone calling patterns))
Lion: Roar, roar…(HT: Second, it contains insufficient statistical data to back up most of its claims)
Lion: Roar, roar, roar…(HT: Third, it uses highly anecdotal data (e.g., “One of my wife’s cousins…”) to draw sweeping conclusions (“Woman! Thy name is social conversation”))
Chowk censor (CS) (interrupting): Lion, do you have anything specific to point out? (to himself) Perhaps that will make him go away.
Lion: Grrr, ROAR… (HT: [For example, it was said that the men generally act quite matter-of-factly when they pay a visit to the restroom. They do their thing and walk out. At times, many of them do not even care to wash their hands after their act.]…)
CS: Lion, do you have any data of your own?
Lion: Roar! (HT follows below)
| Men and women who wash hands after the ``act`` | Men and women who don`t wash hands after the ``act`` | |
| As claimed (in phone survey) | 95% | 5% |
| Actual | 68% | 32% |
| Source: Environment, Health and Safety Online website | ||
CS: And your point, lion?
Lion: Grrr… (HT: Don’t trust people when they tell you about bathroom stuff.)
CS: I see.
Lion: Grrrr… (HT: And now….)
CS (jumping in): Stop, lion! Not here!
Lion: (looks quizzically)
CS: You do that only to mark your territory! This ain’t it!
Lion: (Limps away with a painful expression)
(Exit the lion. Loud sounds of cheering)
Sounds from the den: zzzzzzzz….
Twenty Years After
Lion: Did somebody call me?
Cayenne: No, go away!
Lion: Okay! (Starts to leave, then pauses) What’s that sound?
Cayenne: What sound? That’s just your tummy rumbling!
Lion: Hmmm…(Eyes Cayenne)
Cayenne: Don’t even think about it!
Lion: (Continues to eye Cayenne and moves closer)
Cayenne: (Getting nervous) Wait! (To himself) Let me try another tack. (Aloud, sweetly) Look you are a nice kitty! I am nice too. Let’s be friends.
Loud booming voice (LBV) from the background: You said… “You betcha.I like the attention.I`m vain too and i have no qualms about it.”
LBV (continuing): … “I`m a good looking guy and have no qualms about it.Okay, cute.I love the superficiality of it all.My looks, i mean .`Cause i can get away with stuff that `normal` or ugly people would get basted for.I`m by no means young, but a skinny frame combined with some gym work makes me look much younger than my years.”
Lion: (Starts drooling)
Cayenne: Wait.
Lion: (Thinking) Should I first make mincemeat of him or only “string” him out?
(Loud thumping sounds of running feet)
Chowk censor (CS): (Jumping in) Hold it. No violence is permitted on Dr. Gill’s board. (Pleading to the lion) Look, the guy has kids!
Lion: (Looking doubtful) Are you sure I should let him go?
CS: This time, just this once, please…
Lion: But what about my rumbling tummy?
CS: That sound wasn’t your rumbling tummy. Just Cayenne blowing hot air!
Lion: But I didn’t see his lips move!
CS: He didn’t use his mouth!
Lion: (Holds his nose and slowly starts walking away)
(Exit the lion)
Sounds from the den: zzzzzzzz….
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jun 1, 2005 10:02 pm
(Enter the lion)Lion: Did somebody call me?
Cayenne: No, go away!
Lion: Okay! (Starts to leave, then pauses) What’s that sound?
Cayenne: What sound? That’s just your tummy rumbling!
Lion: Hmmm…(Eyes Cayenne)
Cayenne: Don’t even think about it!
Lion: (Continues to eye Cayenne and moves closer)
Cayenne: (Getting nervous) Wait! (To himself) Let me try another tack. (Aloud, sweetly) Look you are a nice kitty! I am nice too. Let’s be friends.
Loud booming voice (LBV) from the background: You said… “You betcha.I like the attention.I`m vain too and i have no qualms about it.”
LBV (continuing): … “I`m a good looking guy and have no qualms about it.Okay, cute.I love the superficiality of it all.My looks, i mean .`Cause i can get away with stuff that `normal` or ugly people would get basted for.I`m by no means young, but a skinny frame combined with some gym work makes me look much younger than my years.”
Lion: (Starts drooling)
Cayenne: Wait.
Lion: (Thinking) Should I first make mincemeat of him or only “string” him out?
(Loud thumping sounds of running feet)
Chowk censor (CS): (Jumping in) Hold it. No violence is permitted on Dr. Gill’s board. (Pleading to the lion) Look, the guy has kids!
Lion: (Looking doubtful) Are you sure I should let him go?
CS: This time, just this once, please…
Lion: But what about my rumbling tummy?
CS: That sound wasn’t your rumbling tummy. Just Cayenne blowing hot air!
Lion: But I didn’t see his lips move!
CS: He didn’t use his mouth!
Lion: (Holds his nose and slowly starts walking away)
(Exit the lion)
Sounds from the den: zzzzzzzz….
Do riot children smell fear in parent’s sweat?
(Enter the lion)
Lion (ears perked): Did any one say “fear”?
Lion: Sniff, sniff…
(Much later)
Lion (looking sad and dejected): No blood here!
(Exit the lion)
Sounds from the cave: zzzzzzz……
Posted by
CD_Lion
Jun 1, 2005 06:11 am
(Enter the lion)
Lion (ears perked): Did any one say “fear”?
Lion: Sniff, sniff…
(Much later)
Lion (looking sad and dejected): No blood here!
(Exit the lion)
Sounds from the cave: zzzzzzz……
- CD_Lion
- Interacts: 10
- iLogs: 2
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 1081
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: May 31 2005
- Last signin: Nov 14 2005
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
