TO: Whoever's reading this

"Nice things about you."

The Legend of Ferdi

Preface
The rich and rewarding world of Pathetic Jokes would be that much poorer if not for the Legend of Ferdi. In NTU, where the joke in fact originated, it is so popular that its teller was nicknamed Ferdi, and we have since forgotten his real name. It's a pity that IG orientation is no longer what it used to be, for surely, only the pressure of being under a senior's blisteringly cold gaze and the prospect of being utterly embarrassed in front of your batchmates can elicit such brilliance from the hapless junior...

Here's to the Joke of Ferdinand the BuLL and Rosie the Coww, as told by our very own Ferdi during the TIGs' orientation, July 2000.

(Strong Mallu accent)

Once there was a buLL called Ferdinand the BuLL, and there was a coww called Rosie the Coww. One day, Ferdinand the BuLL saw Rosie the Coww grazing in the next field, and he fell in love wih her. Rosie the Coww also looked at Ferdinand the BuLL, blushed, and started grazing again in an inviting manner. Ferdinand the BuLL decided to jump over the barbed wire fence separating the two fields and go to Rosie the Coww.

When he reached her, he said, "Hello, I'm Ferdinand."

Rosie the Coww said, shyly, "Ferdinand the BuLL?"

And Ferdinand replied dejectedly, "Alas, not any more."

Up and down

Update on my life. :)

Good news first I guess... though a bit late. My kids (coaching kids) won their third preliminary round in a row, and broke second in the quarter finals draw! Awesome, eh! And this from perfect newbies - they didn't know what a rebuttal was, what a reply speech was, or anything at all till January this year. (Am I like, the greatest coach in the world or what... ;D)

Bad news next. It's a line I use frequently and not without good reason. But see, my life officially sucks. Boo hoo. My project is at a complete standstill, I am sick and tired of it and am seriously considering dropping out of uni and living on a coaching income. Sigh.

A real post next time, ok? Don't worry, this isn't going to turn into a 'dear diary' blog.

Fic

"Professor Lupin?"

Remus looked up from a particularly ill-written paper on simple hexes, and breathed a sigh of relief.

"Hermione," he said. "Come in, sit down."

He laid down his quill and stretched, popping a few stubborn vertebrae in his back. She sidled through the open door of his office, and sat on the edge of a chair, letting her book bag fall to the floor. It made rather a louder thud than he expected, and he noticed it was full almost to bursting with books.

A conversation with Hermione Granger, on anything, was bound to be a welcome relief from papers. She reminded him of himself when he was a student -- well, all right, a bossier, louder, less tactful version of himself -- really, she was more like James. Still, he liked intelligence in a student, and Hermione had that in spades.

"Did you have a question?" he asked, folding his hands on his desk and leaning forward slightly. She looked tired -- closer to exhausted -- and her face was pale, eyes nervous.

"I...um...about the assignment for Thursday..." she said.

"Was something unclear?" he asked, worried. If Hermione was confused, he could expect mystified befuddlement from the rest of the class.

"No, I was wondering..." she looked down at her knees. "ficodaveanstenshn."

He tried to make sense of what sounded like a spell gone wrong. "I'm sorry?" he asked.

"I was wondering if I could have an exension," she said, slower but no louder.

He sat back, and regarded her.

"Are you ill?" he asked. She shook her head. "Have you been called out of school?"

"No," she said softly.

"I'm sorry, Hermione, but it's school policy not to -- oh, blast."

He fumbled in his pocket for a handkerchief as she began to cry, quietly and with more dignity than one normally expected a thirteen-year-old girl to possess. He crouched by the chair and offered it; she took it, stared at it for a moment, and then crumpled it in her hands, twisting it in her lap.

"There's just so much work and I haven't had t-t-time to go to the library and I can't find anything on the topic and..." she trailed off into another discreet but heartfelt stream of tears.

"Professor McGonagall told me you're taking a heavy courseload," he said, " and she did have reservations -- "

"I can do it!" she said defiantly. He took the handkerchief away from her and dabbed at her face.

"I've no doubt, but there's no shame in not doing it," he said, wishing Dumbledore was here. He'd barely encountered children at all before Hogwarts, how did one deal with a blotchy-faced, defiant teenage girl?

"But I can," she insisted. "Just a weekend extension, I promise I'll have it on Monday, I can even turn it in Sunday night..."

He sighed, and put the handkerchief back in her hands. She swiped at her eyes with it.

"It's just Ron and Harry won't talk to me and that means Dean and Seamus don't want to and I was only trying to help," she continued, sniffling every few words. "I don't want Harry to die!"

He smiled. "None of us wants that, Hermione. Harry and Ron are just being typical boys. They'll grow out of it. Most of us do."

She tried to match his smile, only half-succeeding. "You weren't ever like them, were you?"

He thought, reservedly, of a few times when he desperately wished he'd opened his mouth and said something to James.

"As a matter of fact, I was," he answered. "I was probably worse. There now, that's amusing, isn't it?"

She nodded, and blew her nose noisily. "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make a scene -- "

"Nonsense," he said, sensing vaguely that this might not be the most appropriate thing to say, but not having any better ideas. "Now, about this extension..."

"Please, you can take points for lateness. I'll write an extra-long essay to make up for it," she said desperately.

"I tell you what, I'll give you until Sunday night, you can slide it under my door. But I really do think you should at least consider lightening your workload, Hermione. Between you and me and the grindylow, Divination isn't worth your time, and Muggle Studies is ridiculous when you were raised in the Muggle world." He straightened. "You look a bit better now. Run on and get some rest." She smiled, and shyly offered him the damp handkerchief back.

"Thanks," she said, in the doorway. "I'm sorry -- "

"Don't be sorry, Hermione," he interrupted. "Just have the paper to me by Sunday, and get some sleep in the meantime."

She nodded, and vanished out the door, leaving him with a damp square of cloth and the feeling that there were probably better ways to handle this.

:D

Took the quiz on Cuckoo's blog. I'm the person who died in Book V!! Yay!! Personality type: ENTP.

(I'm making the big sacrifice of avoiding naming the person for the benefit of Certain People - yes, plural - who have promised me they'll read book 3 soon.)

Harry Potter Quiz by Pirate Monkey (what a name).

2 Fics

For starved Potterites: something I read a while back and forgot to recommend. Both are by the same author, and both are extraordinary.

Transformation I: The Year of Living Differently

Transformation II: The Forging

Coffee

These are the facts of the McDonalds hot coffee case. I had my facts wrong before; here are the correct ones:

1. The woman was 79 years old.

2. She spilled the coffee on her thighs and suffered 3rd degree burns (i.e. flesh-deep) over 6% of her body. She had to have multiple skin grafts and stayed in the hospital for weeks.

3. McD's coffee is served at 180-190 deg. F; normal homemade coffee is about 130-140 deg F. At 180F, liquids can cause 3rd degree burns when the contact lasts 3-3.5 seconds. At 150F, the contact period before serious burns occur becomes 30-40 seconds.

4. Contrary to what I (and many others) had assumed, the warning that comes on the cup of coffee now was not a result of this lawsuit. This woman's case rested on the fact that "Caution: contents hot" is an inadequate warning because most people don't know that spilling this coffee can cause 3rd degree burns in an instant.

5. McD's coffee is still served at this temp (except in the hometown of this woman) because it is thought to be the optimal temperature to release the aroma. McD admits that drinking coffee at this temperature will definitely cause serious damage to the palate and throat. Their entire defence in this case rested on two grounds: that customers wanted the coffee to be aromatic, and that it's 'obvious' that no one should drink the coffee immediately after buying it from the counter.

Grasim Mr. India contest quotes

Host Manpreet Garg with some filler material:
"... these very handsome aspiring men...."

Contestant answers the question, "What do you think of the metrosexual man?":
"... I wax my arms, underarms and legs regularly..."

Contestant answers the question, "What defines the Indian man?":
"... he knows how to cherish the Indian woman."

Fast Food Facts

The challenge: find reasons why people should be allowed to sue and get compensation because McDonald's (and BK and KFC and Wendy's et al) made them fat and diabetic.

I know it's a stupid stand to take, but let's just consider it, OK? Here's what needs to be proven:
1. That fast food, when consumed as intended, is harmful to health.
2. That corporate responsibility extends to ensuring that accurate health information is readily and freely available in the event that their product may be harmful to health.
3. That these companies knowingly suppress information about the 'side effects' of using their products and furthur go on to:
(a) relentlessly advertise to children
(b) falsely represent the health facts of their foods (famous eg: McDonalds' "low fat" ice cream and salad, which has more fat than a burger)
(c) not put a disclaimer or warning of any sort on their products
4. That there exists a legal precedent for this sort of litigation

Basically all we need to show is that part of the responsibility for these adverse health effects belongs at the fast food corporation's door. Just a part of it. And this series of very reasonable statements do just that, don't they?

Anyone has any hard evidence/arguments supporting and elaborating the stuff I've said above?

Here we go again

The boyfriend and I have a rocky relationship when it comes to shared interests. To be more specific, he has the artistic and intellectual taste of a hippie-turned-wannabe-caveman. The list of his sins is long: he hated Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the book, and liked Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the movie. He scorns Ayn Rand and Objectivism, insinuating that it's a cult. (Ask him why and he'll say: fanaticism of the followers. Right. So HP and LotR are cults too?) He refuses to buy me flowers, on principle, and fell asleep while watching RotK with me.

And now he's gone and done it again. I've spent the past few months trying to convert him to blogging. Initially he thought it was a gay thing to do (no, I don't have a clue why), and then he read my blog and thought it wouldn't be so bad after all. But the moment of inertia is hard to overcome, so it was a few more months till he set up his journal. Which, after a grand total of one post and one comment (from me), is now dead.

Sigh.

Update: Oops, that was just UJournal acting up. His blog's back online, with new posts too!

The coconut story

As requested by Artanis and Getafix. Finally got the courage to put it up here. This, by the way, is the very first story I wrote on my own (as opposed to for school essays and stuff), about four years back. I've never submitted it anywhere coz I don't have a title. Any suggestions? (NO, not The Attack of the Rogue Coconut.)

Untitled.

Oh, God... I'm

Mrs. Dalloway!

by Virginia Woolf

Your life seems utterly bland and normal to the casual observer, but inside you are churning with a million tensions and worries. The company you surround yourself with may be shallow, but their effects upon your reality are tremendously deep. To stay above water, you must try to act like nothing's wrong, but you know that the truth is catching up with you. You're not crazy, you're just a little unwell. But no doctor can help you now.


Is this crazy or am i?


Take the Book Quiz at the Blue Pyramid.

The debate on wrestless

kaa's blog entry last week was an interesting one. More so because it's led to a nice meaty debate about the issues I care most about in the world. (Yes, I'm officially pathetic.) Read the comments for that entry to get the context for this post.

Now, as I see it, there are 3 questions that need answering.

1. Are individual value systems subjective and so have the potential to go contrary to each others' interests?
Value systems are subjective within themselves (I put integrity at the top of my list, you may put hard work at the top of yours), but there's a controlling factor here: there are good value systems and bad value systems. I commented on kaa's blog that values which make one's life better are good values, and those which make one's life worse are bad values, and the rest of the values are 'subjective' and don't matter. Now we can't go about taking the concept of a 'better life' very literally and say that robbing a bank is ok. Because that's a very myopic view of things, isn't it? Robbing a bank will land you in jail. More importantly, if it was considered alright to rob banks, you wouldn't have anything protecting your right to property at all, and someone else could just as easily re-rob that money from you, right?
So basically, your individual interests lie in sponsoring a rational legal system, so that your own rights are protected. Subscribing to the value of protecting individual rights makes your life better.
And in this scenario, it's hard to imagine conflicts of interest arising. Ayn Rand has an excellent essay on this in The Virtue of Selfishness. When rational self interest is a value that's shared by two people, there's really no possibility of a conflict of interest. Even if there's, say, a job opening that we're both eyeing, since you and I both know that a wish to have something does not translate into a right to have it, there's no conflict. May the better woman win. :)

2. Are society's values to be given precedence over individual values?
In the first place, society is not the basic unit of a nation, the individual is. Therefore, there are no societal rights or values that's independent from individual rights or values. Individuals with shared values come together to form a community or a nation. This nation then needs a legal system to protect the rights of its citizens.
So if a bank robber is sent to prison, we aren't 'taking away' the prisoner's 'right' to rob banks and still be free. We're protecting the right to property of every single individual by punishing those who trespass on these rights. I quote: "if society thinks that a group of peple (judiciary) can give him the death penalty ..again the subjective issue of 'the wish of a grp of people is greater than of a single?'..." The issue simply does not arise. It's not the wishes of anyone that we consider here. It's the issue of rights, and that's not subjective.

3. Does rampant individualism lead us into tiger-ish-ness? (I quote: "if individualism was more prevelant like in tigers in the jungle...we would not have "progressed" so far.")
The difference, of course, is that tigers are simply individualistic, whereas human beings are capable of rational individualism. To be sure, there have been philosophers who have advocated this view of 'happiness and freedom above all', but that's hedonism. Clearly irrational, because it leads to the destruction of the best and the survival of the most brutal.
Rational individualism, on the other hand, leaves people free to furthur their own interests, feel secure that their right to do so is protected by the legal system they sponsor, and not be burdened by responsibilities that are not their own (any form of welfare is hardly consistent with rational individualism). Which leads to a heck of a lot of progress.

The intellectual left

Update: Here's a far superior analysis of the issue - courtesy of Deepak's link. I agree with this on almost all counts, though not with the entire philosophy of libertarianism. (I think the government has a legitimate and completely necessary role to play in society, as opposed to the libertarian ideal of moving towards things like privately run armed forces, judiciary and police.)

Ever wondered why most writers and scholars and philosophers are rather leftist? The article gives perhaps one way of looking at the matter. I've only just read it, and though it's quite simplistic at first glace, if you think about it, it does explain a lot. Interesting enough to warrant a read anyway. I don't know what I think of it yet. Boiling the root causes of any problem down to just one thing is never satisfying. Human beings are more complex... or is the institution that the author talks about influential enough to be the major reason for the phenomenon?

Comments, please.

Well, I've thought about it, and while it's not total hogwash, it's close. Why?
(a) Intellectuals, as crazy as that may sound, grow up. Which automatically means they learn the way life works, the way society works. And the way it works is close enough to reward these people even in the capitalist system, as the essay itself says in the beginning (greater than avg income earners, respected, etc).
(b) I think Ayn Rand was right about this one: the reason for the popularity of the leftist sentiments among intellectuals is the widespread acceptance of a whole string of flawed philosophers and their philosophies through the ages, which include timeless classics such as: Selfishness is bad, altruism and self-sacrifice is good, profits are evil, the meek shall inherit the earth, etc. All thanks to Messrs. Hegel, Marx, Kant, Hobbes et al. I quote, from Rand's Philosophy: Who needs it?":


"You might claim-as most people do--that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following?
"Don't be so sure--nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does. It's in my nature." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey. "

On Amazon

Check out the profile of reviwer Lawrence M. Bernabo on Amazon.

To review, or not to review: that is the question:
Whether 'tis better to post reviews and cover
The pros and cons of action figures,
Or to write reviews about best sellers,
And by reviewing diss them? To critique: to review;
No more; and have a life again we end
The long-nights and the thousand misspeeled words
and buy things instead, 'tis a consumption
Amazon devoutley wish'd. To critique, to review;
To review: perchance be voted: Yeah, there's the fun;.....

(to read furthur, click on link)

Edict

"Judge not lest ye be judged"

Lets people get out of so many things, doesn't it? Justifies:

1. Not deciding what (or who) is good or bad
2. And therefore ignoring justice and treating both the same.
3. Expecting other people to overlook flaws in character
4. And if they don't, labelling them as 'judgemental'.

Such a convenient existence. The shyster clause to rule them all!

@#$%#@

Didn't get through to the ISC Symposium this year. Bet those idiots discriminate against second time entrants. My essay this year was way better than last year's man, SHIT. Unfair things in this universe, may you rot in hell!

Also extremely (and perhaps even more) unfair is that Sushil didn't get through either. Wait till I get even with the evil forces at work here... AARRGGHHH.

Book Review

Who owns death? Capital Punishment, the American Conscience, and the End of Executions by Robert J. Lifton and Greg Mitchell.

Rating: 4.5/10

Yet another book arguing the usual stuff against capital punishment. But because I haven't read many of the others, there was some interesting new information to be found in this book. It makes some excellent points about the arbitrary way in which the death penalty is meted out by juries (though how exactly this invalidates cp itself is not mentioned), great case studies and examples from history etc, but also, unfortunately, from scripture. On the whole, I would call this book very well researched, but otherwise a flop.

After the first couple of chapters, it gets tired and starts repeating itself. It quotes from the Bible way too many times, as if hoping to counter scriptural arguments for cp with more scripture. It overstates the 'inhumane execution methods' argument, and has a large section of personal interviews with all the wrong people (i.e. people who are so obviously biased against cp because of their profession: e.g. executioners). This means that most of the book is filed with emotional bilge, which leaves little room for solid (i.e. valid, usable in a debate) argumentation.

Well, perhaps this is just the debater in me speaking. I suppose the average reader doesn't mind emotional statements in a policy book?

As Promised

Readers Of My Blog: This is a post addressed to my 'coaching kids', and as such may be of no use to you. However, the more cerebral among you might find the essay linked to for 'Jo-see-yah' of some interest.

On the welfare state:
Here's a good place to start on the welfare state. Also, take a look at this. Other than this, check out articles in the Economist: search for welfare in general, but be warned that the articles might be a bit advanced and go to an unnecessary depth for the debate itself.

As for Jo-see-yah, here you go: Philosophy: Who needs it?

Crazy deal!

The Book People are offering an amazing deal: 10 Wodehouse books for just £9.99! Go to the site and type 'Wodehouse' in the search box to buy online.

I did some hunting to find which 10 books. You get 6 Jeeves books and 4 other standalones (i.e. non-series, which means no Blandings books). Beginning with the six Jeeves stories: The Inimitable Jeeves; Right Ho, Jeeves; Jeeves in the Offing; Stiff Upper Lip, Jeeves; Ring for Jeeves; Aunts Aren't Gentlemen and then the four standalones: Piccadilly Jim; The Clicking of Cuthbert; Big Money; and The Girl in Blue.

Surely I don't need to add: go buy now!

On a separate note, here's the quote for the day:

Calvin: Susie, if you want to see your doll again, leave $100 in this envelope by the tree out front. Do not call the police. You cannot trace us. You cannot find us. Sincerely, Calvin.

News

SPOILER ALERT! Don't click on links in no. 2-5 if you don't want to know STUFF!

1. Artanis has a new blog!

2. His middle name is John!

3. My theory is wrong!

4. He's truly dead!

5. There's finally more news!

To quote Michael Jackson (who sang in some completely different context) - I don't know whether to laugh or cry, I don't know whether to live or die... it cuts like a knife. Sob.

Amazingly difficult

Timepass.

To-Read List

Must remember to read: Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco and Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis.

In another interesting book reco, Gillette writes:

" i am reading a book about a guy's travels in mongolia. it's
amazing. the mongol natives apparently still live in tents and are nomads. they
drink terrible quality (coz china gives them crap) tea made with
horse/camel milk. tea is in the form of bricks which you've to break off and crush.
they eat sheep meat, which is boiled in water with sometimes salt added.
sometimes they just add the whole thing to tea. thats the extent of their diet. they
dont eat vegetables, fruits, grain, bread anything like that. mongolia claims to
be self-sufficient in vegetables. the author says it's true.. they dont eat
any, dont grow any. he once thought they'd have roast sheep's head coz they were
roasting it in fire, but soon found out that was just to singe off the hair,
they put the entire head in boiling water.

the horses are still half wild, people learn to ride before
they can walk (some people cant walk properly coz they ride almost everywhere,
even for 200 yard distances). but their legs are strong coz they often stand
in their stirrups coz the horses' gait is very bumpy. they never feed horses,
there is enough grassland apparently and in winter the horses dig thru the
snow to get at the grass underneath. they ride hours at a stretch, taking
breaks for tea. they apparently sleep contentedly with just a thin blanket on in
-10 C. they've only one city which is not really modern, even there a lot of
people live in portable tents. they've only 2 tar roads.

this was written in late 80s, so things may have changed since then."

Whoa.

Scary catfish

But other than that, Big Fish is a cool movie. Arthouse flick with elements of fantasy - brings to mind The Secret Life of Walter Mitty at some points. It flows really well, acting is brilliant at some points and pretty darn good in the rest of the places. I love the colours in the movie. But what steals the show is the script. It's no secret that I'm a sucker for plot, and this movie has it in spades. Even when it seems to have no point, it does. So it's like an onion. Or rather, a cake, coz it's a really fun ride and doesn't make you cry much at all.

What else? Stop reading this and go watch. And look out for an awesome witch, and another something that can only be a reference to Harry Potter.

L. Ron Hubbard on Art

I read a beautiful piece by L. Ron Hubbard yesterday describing the philosophy of art. It rings so true I'm tempted to type out the whole essay right here... but I'd hate to infringe the copyright of something I respect so much. (Yes, I do have some reverent bones in my body.)

He starts off talking about the most common criticisms artists receive: "It's not original enough" and "It's too literal", and marvellously combines the two to come to the conclusion that art is communication. That which does not communicate anything to the viewer is not art, pure and simple. He talks about how, often in the name of originality and "satisfying the artist within me", many artists go completely out of the realm of communication. Last year's Turner Prize winner* comes to mind, as does the milkman who sold his excretory products for 300,000 pounds (where's the pound sign on the keyboard?) to the British museum of art. (The examples will be familiar to readers of Dave Barry.)

The best art, Hubbard says, is the kind that achieves a two way communication, allowing the audience to contribute their own feelings, emotions or imagination to the work of art. He gives a brilliant example. Take a painting of a ferocious tiger advancing towards a girl chained to a tree. This is a simple painting that communicates one-way: we fear for the girl, we admire the tiger's snarl, then move on to the next painting. But let's say the same tiger was drawn with certain features amplified, cutting out the scene altogether - the angry, piercing eye enlarged, the snarl stylised and exaggerated. The audience contributes its own imagination to fill in the gaps: the posture of the tiger, the prey that it is stalking. It suddenly holds special meaning for the audience. There's a two way communication established here.

Lay your hands on this essay if you can. It's called "The Philosophy of Art", and I found it in the third volume of a book of short stories called "Writers of the Future". Far more worthwhile than Ayn Rand's "The Romantic Manifesto", which was just a bunch of desperate rationalisations for Rand's own artistic preferences.


* The Turner prize, in case you don't know, is one of the most prestigious art awards in the western world, given every year by London's Tate Gallery for a body of work whose creator has demonstrated outstanding ability and originality. The winner then chooses an item to put on display. The prize is worth £20,000 (about $30,000). Last year's award went to 33-year- old Martin Creed for an exhibit that consisted of an empty room with lights that flicker on and off every five seconds. Mr. Creed's previous exhibits include a scrunched-up sheet of plain typing paper, a piece of plasticine stuck to a wall, and neon signs bearing cheery messages. The award was presented by Madonna.

Sidharth...

... has this letter from a Pakistani on his page. [If the link doesn't work, scroll down to the Feb 28th entry: "Give peace a chance"]

I agree with major thrust of this letter - yes, let's stop quibbling and have peace - but not with most of the meaningless rhetoric about patriotism. Patriotism, like any other form of loyalty, should have a rational basis, and should not be blindly given just because it's the country you happen to be born in.

And in this context, I quote: "It was to be a place ... wherein a major part of the Muslims of the subcontinent would be able to control their own destiny..." - and this is essentially what Pakistan is about. A homeland for Muslims. Which so goes against the seculrism we hold dear in India.

Not that India doesn't have its own policy problems. But at least at the basic constitutional level it recognises all citizens as equal, and that's what matters.

Agreed, people have different opinions. There are those who believe religion and race are too integral a part of their people's identity to separate them from their politics. More power to them, but I, for one, can't respect this policy. I don't get along with militant feminists who want affirmative action for women even in developed countries in this day and age. People who believe in quotas and reservations for God knows how many different communities make me want to scream. For the same reason, I can never understand anyone who believes that Muslims need a homeland all to themselves, where they are 'more equal' than non-Muslims in their country, before they can feel free and safe, and make some progress. The ideology is fundamentally unsound at best, and unfair at worst.

If nothing else, for this one valid reason the bickering neighbours will never be bosom buddies.

Joke

In a train:

TC to Sadhu : "Baba kahan jaoge?"
Sadhu : "Jahan Ram ka janam hua tha."
TC: "Baba ticket dikhao."
Sadhu: "Nahin hai...."
TC : "To phir chalo"
Sadhu: "Kahan?"
TC: "Jahan Krishan ka janam hua tha"


Translation:

Ticket Collecter on a train to Holy Man: "Where are you going, sir?"
H.M : To the place where Rama was born [ Rama = a god, place he was born = Ayodhya]
T.C : Show me your ticket, please.
H.M : I don't have one.
T.C : Then let's go...
H.M : Where to?
T.C : To the place where Krishna was born [Krishna = a god, place he was born = a jail]

Da Man

Well, I gave in. Took one of the zillion LotR-guy tests out there - but not the one you're thinking about, heh heh.




Which main LoTR bad guy are you?

What the heck, why not take the usual one too?

Your man is Boromir. Boromir is a man of honour; though he is tainted by his fathers desire to mould him into a leader. You may come second place to quests and daddys requests, but hell be ever willing to make it up to you when he returns *wink* .


The last 'WHICH LOTR GUY IS FOR YOU?' quiz you'll ever have to take UPDATED WITH BETTER PICS & RESULTS
brought to you by Quizilla

Minute of NOISE

... for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King!

Instructions: Get stopwatch, take deep breath, and belt out your loudest, most raucous yell for one whole minute.

HURRAH!