Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[flute]

If an average well-read American is asked the difference between Pakistan and India--mostly, he'll stumble. S/He'll stumble because it is people like Roy (not her alone, but her ilk and pakistani PR) have brought both the countries on a level playing field.

An average American may stumble because they know precious little of the situation and have heard of "wars", "nuclear neighbors" and a couple other buzzwords. I agree that Pak PR is way ahead. That is a choice made by the Indian govt. Nobody stopped them from lobbying. It is unfair for you to attempt to muzzle dissenting opinion to compensate for this fact - is that not the Chinese model?

Terror attacks on India in the past have not been considered "terrorism" because the prevailing opinion is that it is a conflict because Pakistan is acting to protect minorities in India.

I am yet to hear this. I am sure some people have been misled to think that. The way to fight that is with information, not censorship.

It is not/has not been, until very recently, that pakistan is being associaated with terror openly.

You know as well as I do that this has to do with geopolitics and not Roy or Pak PR. Not remotely.

Perhaps the paranoia of Islam is helping India in this regard but the bottomline is that the likes of Roy enjoy the ears of a certain group of the latter liberal types and whether or not you agree with the impact is a moot point...if the tree falls, even if no one hears, it still falls. I, for one, am glad to see Rushdie, another latte favorite, speak up.

I will say this in favor of Roy that gets her ears, and you can check it out in this DG:
she has some facts and figures, while most of her detractors have none. That does not make her right or her points valid; it just shows that the other side are either lazy or arrogant. Look at the posts in this and other recent threads - all you see is invective, accusations and insults. Pop-psyschology about why she does what she does. No  rebuttal of her points at all, except one instance where she misquoted Suhel Seth. Greatbong's article is a perfect example. What will a non-Indian make of this?

Why do you knock the strawman intellectual so much? Indian kapi is really cafe-au-lait.
Not that far from a latte in my uninformed opinion :-) Anyway, as you well know, there are people who choose to be uninformed and carry knee-jerk opinions and reactions and there are those who try to read, discuss and gain a deep (although likely imperfect) understanding. By choosing to undermine and denigrate the latter class, you end up arguing for the former. Why?

welcome back prfsr..excellent post. BNNP is still waiting for you

[dextrous]

she has some facts and figures, while most of her detractors have none. That does not make her right or her points valid; it just shows that the other side are either lazy or arrogant. Look at the posts in this and other recent threads - all you see is invective, accusations and insults. Pop-psyschology about why she does what she does. No  rebuttal of her points at all, except one instance where she misquoted Suhel Seth. Greatbong's article is a perfect example. What will a non-Indian make of this?

Manipulated facts n figures? That's commendable?! Greatbong is a blogger. This woman is a sensational journalist who gets paid. She has time to cook up facts and figures. We don't.

Bottomline is that you like what Roy writes. I don't. No point arguing with you. I've heard her talk. I've read her articles. She's a disgraceful journalist.

And you/wv/flute have taken turns in calling anyone who opposes her things like this--"It is unfair for you to attempt to muzzle dissenting opinion to compensate for this fact - is that not the Chinese model?" This is a gross mis-representation of what I've said. The point is that she's crept in a power of prominence (in India and the west--huffington post is a top 25 most-visited website) and is using it disingenously to spread propo*a. One sided, fabricated BS makes her journalistic credentials the same as Bill O'Reilly where an opinion piece/editorial is being passed off as serious work of journalism. Even you're debating her brilliant facts and figures as if she's a journalist, not a tabloid artist.

But the floor is yours to defend her and make anyone who opposes her into a Chinese communist

[flute]

And you/wv/flute have taken turns in calling anyone who opposes her things like this--"It is unfair for you to attempt to muzzle dissenting opinion to compensate for this fact - is that not the Chinese model?" This is a gross mis-representation of what I've said.

huh? where did I say anything about you? I was only talking about not demonizing her. I too conceded that she is goes overboard. In fact, for the most part, I don't agree with her but I do respect her for taking up causes she believe in. I also believe that any democracy will definitely have some such hyperbole liberals, its ok.

On the contrary, it is you who tried to bring me into the discussion deviating from the topic, and you persisted inspite of reminding you of the importance of sticking to the debate, which when I withdrew from the debate (with you).

[prfsr]

she has some facts and figures, while most of her detractors have none. That does not make her right or her points valid; it just shows that the other side are either lazy or arrogant. Look at the posts in this and other recent threads - all you see is invective, accusations and insults. Pop-psyschology about why she does what she does. No  rebuttal of her points at all, except one instance where she misquoted Suhel Seth. Greatbong's article is a perfect example. What will a non-Indian make of this?

Manipulated facts n figures? That's commendable?! Greatbong is a blogger. This woman is a sensational journalist who gets paid. She has time to cook up facts and figures. We don't.

Okay, so you will only throw rhetoric at her without refuting any facts? And you expect  to be taken seriously?

Bottomline is that you like what Roy writes. I don't. No point arguing with you. I've heard her talk. I've read her articles. She's a disgraceful journalist.

Great! You inferred that I like her! Show me one quote where I have said as much.

And you/wv/flute have taken turns in calling anyone who opposes her things like this--"It is unfair for you to attempt to muzzle dissenting opinion to compensate for this fact - is that not the Chinese model?" This is a gross mis-representation of what I've said.

Well that was the gist of your posts -- she should not say what she wants to because she makes India look bad. So that is the role of a journalist now? (BTW, IMO she is a columnist, not a journalist).

The point is that she's crept in a power of prominence (in India and the west--huffington post is a top 25 most-visited website) and is using it disingenously to spread propo*a. One sided, fabricated BS makes her journalistic credentials the same as Bill O'Reilly where an opinion piece/editorial is being passed off as serious work of journalism. Even you're debating her brilliant facts and figures as if she's a journalist, not a tabloid artist.

If you took the time to read my posts, I have never
(a) SUPPORTED her facts and figures
(b) DEBATED her facts and figures.

Don't let that get in the way of your rants.
 

But the floor is yours to defend her and make anyone who opposes her into a Chinese communist

Thank you. That is unexpected from you -- saying that a suggestion that censorship is more appropriate for the Chinese model than the Indian context is the same as me making you a chinese communist. Perhaps you would care to rephrase.

[dextrous]

she has some facts and figures, while most of her detractors have none. That does not make her right or her points valid; it just shows that the other side are either lazy or arrogant. Look at the posts in this and other recent threads - all you see is invective, accusations and insults. Pop-psyschology about why she does what she does. No  rebuttal of her points at all, except one instance where she misquoted Suhel Seth. Greatbong's article is a perfect example. What will a non-Indian make of this?

Manipulated facts n figures? That's commendable?! Greatbong is a blogger. This woman is a sensational journalist who gets paid. She has time to cook up facts and figures. We don't.

Okay, so you will only throw rhetoric at her without refuting any facts? And you expect  to be taken seriously?

Bottomline is that you like what Roy writes. I don't. No point arguing with you. I've heard her talk. I've read her articles. She's a disgraceful journalist.

Great! You inferred that I like her! Show me one quote where I have said as much.

And you/wv/flute have taken turns in calling anyone who opposes her things like this--"It is unfair for you to attempt to muzzle dissenting opinion to compensate for this fact - is that not the Chinese model?" This is a gross mis-representation of what I've said.

Well that was the gist of your posts -- she should not say what she wants to because she makes India look bad. So that is the role of a journalist now? (BTW, IMO she is a columnist, not a journalist).

The point is that she's crept in a power of prominence (in India and the west--huffington post is a top 25 most-visited website) and is using it disingenously to spread propo*a. One sided, fabricated BS makes her journalistic credentials the same as Bill O'Reilly where an opinion piece/editorial is being passed off as serious work of journalism. Even you're debating her brilliant facts and figures as if she's a journalist, not a tabloid artist.

If you took the time to read my posts, I have never
(a) SUPPORTED her facts and figures
(b) DEBATED her facts and figures.

Don't let that get in the way of your rants.
 

But the floor is yours to defend her and make anyone who opposes her into a Chinese communist

Thank you. That is unexpected from you -- saying that a suggestion that censorship is more appropriate for the Chinese model than the Indian context is the same as me making you a chinese communist. Perhaps you would care to rephrase.

Eh, you see it is hard to debate someone who still is going on about "debating her facts" as if she were a scholar or a serious journalist. BUt i'm very confused...if I'm 'ranting' then she's what, spitting? Granted, her rants come on the back of a Booker...but they;re still rants.

[prfsr]

Eh, you see it is hard to debate someone who still is going on about "debating her facts" as if she were a scholar or a serious journalist. BUt i'm very confused...if I'm 'ranting' then she's what, spitting? Granted, her rants come on the back of a Booker...but they;re still rants.

Sigh. You do not have to debate me. Arundhati Roy does rant, and I am least interested in supporting her as a person or a "journalist". I am more interested in hearing anything that refutes all her claims (perhaps I should have said "facts" if that makes you happy). And yes she does have many facts in her article -- is it your contention that every line is false?

So again, do not debate me if you wish - but please substantiate your claims, if you want to be taken seriously. 

[dextrous]

Eh, you see it is hard to debate someone who still is going on about "debating her facts" as if she were a scholar or a serious journalist. BUt i'm very confused...if I'm 'ranting' then she's what, spitting? Granted, her rants come on the back of a Booker...but they;re still rants.

Sigh. You do not have to debate me. Arundhati Roy does rant, and I am least interested in supporting her as a person or a "journalist". I am more interested in hearing anything that refutes all her claims (perhaps I should have said "facts" if that makes you happy). And yes she does have many facts in her article -- is it your contention that every line is false?

So again, do not debate me if you wish - but please substantiate your claims, if you want to be taken seriously. 

Can you list her claims? I have a hard time seperating fact from fiction in her pieces. Thanks.

[prfsr]

No Dex, I cannot list all her claims. I will provide you a starting point though.

Pakistan, the Land of the Pure, became an Islamic Republic, and then very quickly a corrupt, violent military state, openly intolerant of other faiths.

India on the other hand declared herself an inclusive, secular democracy. It was a magnificent undertaking, but Babu Bajrangi's predecessors had been hard at work since the 1920s, dripping poison into India's bloodstream, undermining that idea of India even before it was born.

I have posted an article and a followup both from Shashi Tharorr in the Etc section. It may be useful for deciding whether he drinks chai or latte.

[dextrous]

No Dex, I cannot list all her claims. I will provide you a starting point though.

Pakistan, the Land of the Pure, became an Islamic Republic, and then very quickly a corrupt, violent military state, openly intolerant of other faiths.

India on the other hand declared herself an inclusive, secular democracy. It was a magnificent undertaking, but Babu Bajrangi's predecessors had been hard at work since the 1920s, dripping poison into India's bloodstream, undermining that idea of India even before it was born.

I have posted an article and a followup both from Shashi Tharorr in the Etc section. It may be useful for deciding whether he drinks chai or latte.

Yah, I read the article. So, I must ask, exactly what you're implying?

You realize I have FULLY supported the rights of any Indian to follow whatever religion s/he chooses?

Cut out your juvenile under-handed attacks. Just because I do not support Islamic terror does not make me a right-wing nut.

[prfsr]

No Dex, I cannot list all her claims. I will provide you a starting point though.

Pakistan, the Land of the Pure, became an Islamic Republic, and then very quickly a corrupt, violent military state, openly intolerant of other faiths.

India on the other hand declared herself an inclusive, secular democracy. It was a magnificent undertaking, but Babu Bajrangi's predecessors had been hard at work since the 1920s, dripping poison into India's bloodstream, undermining that idea of India even before it was born.

I have posted an article and a followup both from Shashi Tharorr in the Etc section. It may be useful for deciding whether he drinks chai or latte.

Yah, I read the article. So, I must ask, exactly what you're implying?

You realize I have FULLY supported the rights of any Indian to follow whatever religion s/he chooses?

Cut out your juvenile under-handed attacks. Just because I do not support Islamic terror does not make me a right-wing nut.

 
What can I say to this? You classified intellectuals as latte drinkers - people not to be taken seriously. I assumed that the rest are chai drinkers, people who may be taken seriously if necessary. So my question was "Is Shashi an intellectual?"

How is this an attack on you or suggest that you are right-wing? 

[dextrous]

No Dex, I cannot list all her claims. I will provide you a starting point though.

Pakistan, the Land of the Pure, became an Islamic Republic, and then very quickly a corrupt, violent military state, openly intolerant of other faiths.

India on the other hand declared herself an inclusive, secular democracy. It was a magnificent undertaking, but Babu Bajrangi's predecessors had been hard at work since the 1920s, dripping poison into India's bloodstream, undermining that idea of India even before it was born.

I have posted an article and a followup both from Shashi Tharorr in the Etc section. It may be useful for deciding whether he drinks chai or latte.

Yah, I read the article. So, I must ask, exactly what you're implying?

You realize I have FULLY supported the rights of any Indian to follow whatever religion s/he chooses?

Cut out your juvenile under-handed attacks. Just because I do not support Islamic terror does not make me a right-wing nut.

 
What can I say to this? You classified intellectuals as latte drinkers - people not to be taken seriously. I assumed that the rest are chai drinkers, people who may be taken seriously if necessary. So my question was "Is Shashi an intellectual?"

How is this an attack on you or suggest that you are right-wing? 

classifying roy and her ilk as latte drinking idiots is not a comment on the intellectual club unless one considers roy an intellectual (and her a representative of all intellectuals), which i suppose you do. suit yourself.

[WicketView]

her undoubted ability to string together sentences into an entertaining paragraph, a quality that the Mullahs and the Saffron crazies sorely lack

Precisely..

The most dangerous people in the world are those with "screwed up" ideas and good communication skills. They can influence the gullible and the fad-followers.

are you suggesting something about some gangulians?  

I think he is suggesting Chappell with his stupid presentations that fooled the BCCI

I have been told, by Gangulians, that Chappel's communication skills were not good. So try again

You should refer me to the exact context ... and I could help you understand them. In these days of economic recession, I should really also charge you for my help in understanding the world, but I will be kind this time.

Ghor kalyug. Ab humein Gangulians se seekhna padega. Ram Ram

Ram Chandra keh gaye siya se aisa kalyug aayega
Hans chugega daana gud ka, kauwa moti khayega!

seekhna .... ab? Par aap to 'Gangulian' ke baat pehlei maan chuke the. 

kaunsi baat?

Ganguly aur gangulian main bahut farak hai

Upar par ke to dekhiye.  I made the portion bold for your convenience

looks like Cricinfo failed to take his regular (annual) shower and the brushing but how is that affecting your thinking? Are the gangulians connected at that level?

Yes, I am unable to comprehend where cricinfo came into this. I was pointing to your statement
 I have been told, by Gangulians, that Chappel's communication skills were not good.
 

[Cover Point]

her undoubted ability to string together sentences into an entertaining paragraph, a quality that the Mullahs and the Saffron crazies sorely lack

Precisely..

The most dangerous people in the world are those with "screwed up" ideas and good communication skills. They can influence the gullible and the fad-followers.

are you suggesting something about some gangulians?  

I think he is suggesting Chappell with his stupid presentations that fooled the BCCI

I have been told, by Gangulians, that Chappel's communication skills were not good. So try again

You should refer me to the exact context ... and I could help you understand them. In these days of economic recession, I should really also charge you for my help in understanding the world, but I will be kind this time.

Ghor kalyug. Ab humein Gangulians se seekhna padega. Ram Ram

Ram Chandra keh gaye siya se aisa kalyug aayega
Hans chugega daana gud ka, kauwa moti khayega!

seekhna .... ab? Par aap to 'Gangulian' ke baat pehlei maan chuke the. 

kaunsi baat?

Ganguly aur gangulian main bahut farak hai

Upar par ke to dekhiye.  I made the portion bold for your convenience

looks like Cricinfo failed to take his regular (annual) shower and the brushing but how is that affecting your thinking? Are the gangulians connected at that level?

Yes, I am unable to comprehend where cricinfo came into this. I was pointing to your statement
 I have been told, by Gangulians, that Chappel's communication skills were not good.
 

Right you gangulians have said that his communications skills were bad. so how could his presentations were good?

[WicketView]

I think most of the original blog post is over the top. I do recognize the fact that Roy tends to go overboard, but most of the time, there is some truth behind it. Only thing is, she tends to lose proportion of things in her zeal. I agree it is a huge negative. Also, people's contention that she does nothing except writing such articles is illinformed and misrepresentative. She actively involves herself in a lot of movements that she believes in.

On the positive side, she and people like are essential for a functioning democracy. No matter how crackpotish they may appear, they are the watch dogs of a democracy. Those who are spewing venom on her on this DG, remember two things

1. Indian police is highly corrupt and inefficient entity. Depending on your position, circumstance,background, religion, caste etc., grave injustice can be done to you. Depending on the type of crime police might choose to frame you into, you could face life imprisonment or execution. This happened to a lot of innocent people and is still happening. Remember that muslim guy who dared to marry a hindu gal in WB, remember all those innocents killed in the name of naxal sympathisers, remember all those gals raped and killed by big shots sons etc. the list is long and endless. It could happen to any of us. I personally know a few who were victims. A know a police officers brother who got killed in campus and he could not deliver justice to the killers.

2. When anything like that happens to you, no politician, no common man, no group will help you in India, it is people like Arundhati Roy who will be willing to listen to you and agitate in your support.

I know Roy's weaknesses, I know her pitfalls, I know her penchant for high drama and out of proportion comparisons, but let us not make a demon out of her. I believe she is definitely contributing something to Indian demcoracy.

The only thing her and her supporters contribute to the Indian democracy is the demonization of a nation and its people which makes it difficult for Indians living abroad to hold their head high without spitting on their own country with equal venom.

It is a 3rd world country with a big corruption problem. Yeah, we know. Lots of people are working in that system toward good things. Others are milking this scenario with world tour deals ala Roy. Watchdogs of democracy? Just having an opinion contrary to the prevailing one does not make one a watchdog--just a dog that barks.

as I mentioned, as far as Roy is concerned, she is an activist too not just spouting her opinions. She gets herself involved pretty actively in whatever she believes in. Narmada Bachao andolan is a case in point. Irrespective of what everyone says, she and her ilk definitely did their part in bringing out the horrible compensation issues to the fore. The juggernaut of indian system would never have cared about the displaced people if not for Roy & Medha Patkar. She got herself involved in Afzal Guru's case too and actively campaigned for him in the belief that he is innocent. It takes guts to take up such cases especially in a country like India where emotions run high. Irrespective of general opinion, whatever I learned of the case makes me think that there is a good probability of Afzal Guru getting framed because of inefficient police work.

In a country where nobody gives a damn when you are victim, I feel happy there are people like Roy who are willing to take up the dirty work inspite of demonization by general public and right wing activists. I know, she can do it much much better by toning down her gung ho approach to bad things in India, but let us not lose sight of the fact that she is contributing in an important way. consider the below atrocities I observed just among my friends and acquaintances.
1. One guy lost his daddy because of criminal negligence of a major hospital in Hyd. He is pissed but not willing to fight. Nobody, absolutely nobody paid attention to his complaints.
2. In 1990s, a gal from a middle class in our locality got raped and killed. There was lot of hue and cry, nothing happened with complete cover up by the police, because a local MLA's kith is involved.
3. A guy got killed in osmania campus by ABVP activists. His brother could do nothing inspite of being in police. The killers are now in US, enjoying life in general.
4. A guy bought a commercial property and was never able to vacate one non-paying tenant because of his conections. He is leaking money. High court will come to his rescue after 10 yrs probably.
5. There is a senior executive in a IT company in Hyd. who lost his hard earned, expensive piece of land to a political goonda in Hyd.

Above is a miniscule fraction of the things I know. I am sure many here on this DG too have similar experiences. Many many friends of mine are "of this world", the practical people, who do not even think of complaining or fighting. They look at me like I am crazy to talk about such things. WHO HAS THE STOMACH OR THE WILL TO FIGHT THESE LITTLE FIGHTS? not even the victims are willing to fight.
Whatever lil  done, is being done by Roy and people like her in their own way to bring some level of accountability. Let us not bring her  down for the simple reason that she is not contributing to our "national ego" (national pride) as NRIs.

Dirty work? My ass. Picking and choosing high profile cases for publicity stunts does not make her into my watchdog. Opposing everything progressive, i.e. dams, plants, etc. does not make her a watchdog. Guts? Um, no. There's no guts involved when being west's favorite India basher comes with the perk of free airline tickets and hotel stays.

NRI ego? Eh, no. Taking India and rubbing * all over it in Western countries may be your idea of happiness--not mine. I'll take a Rushdie, a writer par-excellence, with well-balanced views who does not sell himself on India's misery. The problem with people like you and Roy is that you have no sense of a nation's standing in the world. You think you have your hand on the pulse of India because you can list a couple of cases...no, we all know the problems the nation faces.

Does this mean that you want to deny all the ills of India that you know exist because you think this will affect our standing?

I will not get into the morality of that approach. But, the only way you can try to convince that India does not have these problems (and so keep our standing) is by becoming a police state, where no press freedom is allowed. That of course, is far worse, that admitting to the ills that we have, and should strive to better. Even if all Indians decided to do a no-Arundhati Roy (and I agree that her article loses it) and walk blind-folded, the world press would come to know of what goes on. Being closed is futile, from the practical perspective.

Which part of my reply says we need to "deny" that India has ills? Are you reading my posts? EVERY INDIAN knows that numerous ills affect the country. However, what the likes of Roys do is highlight the negative in western media to sell themselves.

Maybe not every post, but yes the post that engendered that comment was read and reproduced in bold font for your convenience. Yes, Roy highlights the negative ... it is not a balanced viewpoint. I don't think anyone said that any of her articles were perfect  and balanced.

Here are some of your words:
"The only thing her and her supporters contribute to the Indian democracy is the demonization of a nation and its people which makes it difficult for Indians living abroad to hold their head high without spitting on their own country with equal venom."

leading Flute to question why NRIs could not hold their head high without
spitting?
"you have no sense of a nation's standing in the world." Hence the question:
Why is it so important to deny the ills that you admit exist?

Every attack on India becomes an excuse for attacking India. Anyway, no point arguing this. If you think Roy is driven by some sense of greater cause thats bigger than herself...all power to you. And if India's PR lobby in Washington is compared against Pakistan's, you'll begin to understand why Pakistan and India are spoken in the same breath. Every conflict is downgraded to "oh its about kashmir"

Roy is not India's PR lobby in Washington. If India does not
maintain/organize a PR lobby in places here it expects help from that is a
different problem. There are two ways one can go about this: either get a
lobby in Washington (surely we have the means to do so), or decide that
this is unimportant (but then don't whine about the better Pak lobby).
Blaming the lack of a lobby on Roy is just escapism, and that suck in Washington (surely we have the means to do so), or decide that
this is unimportant (but then don't whine about the better Pak lobby).
Blaming the lack of a lobby on Roy is just escapism, and that will never
solve the problem.

Secondly, how are the attacks on India (I presume you mean the description
of ills) an excuse to attack India (by whom?) Please explain.

...but let's pretend that world standing is not built through Roy's (and her ilks) rants across America that india is not a democracy and is no different than Pakistan (who sing in chorus with Pakistan's PR dept). If that's the kind of hyperbole describes your India, then suit yourself. For someone who has managed to creep into parts of American media and understands that her opinion columns are considered news by the western media starved to 'understand' Islam...and still continues with her biased, deceitftul rants...that makes her nothing more than a petty sensational journalist looking to make a couple of bucks.

Who claimed that? No question that Roy indulges in hyperbole ... but so is this.

Criticize India all you want but do so with some relative standards. But, as she suffers from a severe complex, she considers India (among otehr nations) to be bullies who're punching Islam. It doesn't take much to make any group in the world into a victim for someone who can write. It is sad, but true, that attacks like the ones of Mumbai, and her subsequent columns, are the only way people like her get exposed. "Activist" is not a job that pays bill, after all.

[WicketView]

her undoubted ability to string together sentences into an entertaining paragraph, a quality that the Mullahs and the Saffron crazies sorely lack

Precisely..

The most dangerous people in the world are those with "screwed up" ideas and good communication skills. They can influence the gullible and the fad-followers.

are you suggesting something about some gangulians?  

I think he is suggesting Chappell with his stupid presentations that fooled the BCCI

I have been told, by Gangulians, that Chappel's communication skills were not good. So try again

You should refer me to the exact context ... and I could help you understand them. In these days of economic recession, I should really also charge you for my help in understanding the world, but I will be kind this time.

Ghor kalyug. Ab humein Gangulians se seekhna padega. Ram Ram

Ram Chandra keh gaye siya se aisa kalyug aayega
Hans chugega daana gud ka, kauwa moti khayega!

seekhna .... ab? Par aap to 'Gangulian' ke baat pehlei maan chuke the. 

kaunsi baat?

Ganguly aur gangulian main bahut farak hai

Upar par ke to dekhiye.  I made the portion bold for your convenience

looks like Cricinfo failed to take his regular (annual) shower and the brushing but how is that affecting your thinking? Are the gangulians connected at that level?

Yes, I am unable to comprehend where cricinfo came into this. I was pointing to your statement
 I have been told, by Gangulians, that Chappel's communication skills were not good.
 

Right you gangulians have said that his communications skills were bad. so how could his presentations were good?

You took Gangulians for granted? One should try to understand something before  accepting it, even if it is said by God.
I am merely recommending that learning from "Gangulians", rather than accepting everything from them is better;D

[Cover Point]

her undoubted ability to string together sentences into an entertaining paragraph, a quality that the Mullahs and the Saffron crazies sorely lack

Precisely..

The most dangerous people in the world are those with "screwed up" ideas and good communication skills. They can influence the gullible and the fad-followers.

are you suggesting something about some gangulians?  

I think he is suggesting Chappell with his stupid presentations that fooled the BCCI

I have been told, by Gangulians, that Chappel's communication skills were not good. So try again

You should refer me to the exact context ... and I could help you understand them. In these days of economic recession, I should really also charge you for my help in understanding the world, but I will be kind this time.

Ghor kalyug. Ab humein Gangulians se seekhna padega. Ram Ram

Ram Chandra keh gaye siya se aisa kalyug aayega
Hans chugega daana gud ka, kauwa moti khayega!

seekhna .... ab? Par aap to 'Gangulian' ke baat pehlei maan chuke the. 

kaunsi baat?

Ganguly aur gangulian main bahut farak hai

Upar par ke to dekhiye.  I made the portion bold for your convenience

looks like Cricinfo failed to take his regular (annual) shower and the brushing but how is that affecting your thinking? Are the gangulians connected at that level?

Yes, I am unable to comprehend where cricinfo came into this. I was pointing to your statement
 I have been told, by Gangulians, that Chappel's communication skills were not good.
 

Right you gangulians have said that his communications skills were bad. so how could his presentations were good?

You took Gangulians for granted? One should try to understand something before  accepting it, even if it is said by God.
I am merely recommending that learning from "Gangulians", rather than accepting everything from them is better;D

abhi jaane deta hoon. Nahin to Inocji aur naaraaz ho jayenge.

To put it in cricketing terms for inoc. A. Roy is like Azhar. Desh Drohi also like some DGians.

[achutank]

No Dex, I cannot list all her claims. I will provide you a starting point though.

Pakistan, the Land of the Pure, became an Islamic Republic, and then very quickly a corrupt, violent military state, openly intolerant of other faiths.

India on the other hand declared herself an inclusive, secular democracy. It was a magnificent undertaking, but Babu Bajrangi's predecessors had been hard at work since the 1920s, dripping poison into India's bloodstream, undermining that idea of India even before it was born.

I have posted an article and a followup both from Shashi Tharorr in the Etc section. It may be useful for deciding whether he drinks chai or latte.

Yah, I read the article. So, I must ask, exactly what you're implying?

You realize I have FULLY supported the rights of any Indian to follow whatever religion s/he chooses?

Cut out your juvenile under-handed attacks. Just because I do not support Islamic terror does not make me a right-wing nut.

 
What can I say to this? You classified intellectuals as latte drinkers - people not to be taken seriously. I assumed that the rest are chai drinkers, people who may be taken seriously if necessary. So my question was "Is Shashi an intellectual?"

How is this an attack on you or suggest that you are right-wing? 

classifying roy and her ilk as latte drinking idiots is not a comment on the intellectual club unless one considers roy an intellectual (and her a representative of all intellectuals), which i suppose you do. suit yourself.

latte ke bhoot baton se nahin maante

its time for affirmative action against the coffee drinking chatteratti, lets ban all armani imports into this country