OverActing!

[ZC]

KLPD??

This is classic KLPD!
This is what one says when they have their BUTT cheeks all grease and ready for a spankin; and they hear someone talking about their "BOI".

~badmash~

ha ha ha ha ROFL ha ha ha ha



a female askin a male what KLPD is



ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



ROFL

[rabbithole]

KLPD??

This is classic KLPD!
This is what one says when they have their BUTT cheeks all grease and ready for a spankin; and they hear someone talking about their "BOI".

~badmash~

that was a riot man!!

[asli_badmash]

Off-topic, but Gandhi? Terrorist? He was as much of a terrorist as Coca-Cola is. People drink Coca-Cola because they like it. People followed Gandhi because they liked his principles. He did not hold a gun to anyone's head. He did not use money power or brute force to either reach the stature he acquired, or retain it, or misuse it.

I am not in general against people making dramatic sweeping black-or-white statements, but there should be at least some basic thinking.

Alright... Here is what I think... See if it makes sense to you.



And dont get me wrong... I belive in his message. But I just dont like the way he does things.



1. His eldest son always had differences with him because he was never a father to him or his siblings. Gandhi admits to this in his books. Gandhi always wanted his way of implementing things. He made them do things that were harsh and draconian by all means. Cleaning peoples toilets and doing socail service. My point is.. you want it. You do it.. dont force others to do it.



2. Whenever people wouldnt listen to him and fight, he would go on fasts. Emotionally blackmail people that he would die if they wouldnt stop fighting. Again coercion! If this is not terrorism(mental terrorism) then what is it. You might argue that stopped the fighting.. What he got done was nice. But how he got it done was wrong. I would imagine the right thing to do would have been to talk to people.. address their needs. What you did by that was just postpone the inevitable. He didnt think what would happen when he was not around. When people die, their principals die with them. When he was not around a Babri Masjid was taken down. How did his fasting help! If the fasting bit was not coercion or mental terrorism that what was it?



3. Yes he was the messenger of non-violence but the way he agreed to the division of India and worked to pacify the Muslims, created a underground fundamentalist hinduvata movement. Which not only claimed his life but has torched our cities time and again. Volumes have been written about how the Gandhian way of acheiving freedom has brought about the current state divide in India.



4. Then he instated Nehru as the Prime minister of India. Nehru was the one who started the nepotism trend in India. He brought his daughter into politics, who was not even interested in politics. And now we have an Italian leading the Indian National Congress, a person who has no qualification and no idea of what being an Indian means. Who writes her Hindi speeches in english and delivers them with a broken accent. We have come back to the time of Kings and Kingdoms. I dont hold Gandhi responsible for this.... But I am venting.



I am all for non-violence and I understand that no one is perfect but I just dont like the way he did things.



You gave a nice analogy.. COKE and GANDHI. Do you think Coke allows smaller mom and pop cola stores to exist. Coke executives with their aggresive marketing and hostile takeovers have imposed their brand in the market. Just like GANDHI.. either you were a Gandhian or you were an outsider. Gandhi didnt make this happen. The movement he created did. I am not against Gandhi as a person. I am just against his non-violence thoery. I like him as a person, he was a nice man.



British took us over by violence, every conquest ever done in the history of man-kind is done with force and violence. If non-violence made the british leave India, then non-violence was actually violence. Non-violence looks all high and mighty but it is a very deadly form of violence. What would you do to someone who is ready to die for his cause. Non-violence was no less than what suicide bombers are doing these days. Imagine you being British and a whole nation of suicide bombers coming after you.



Read this article

1. http://expressindia.com/ie/daily/19971225/35950713.htmland this ~ his book

2. http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/Biography/gandhi/part4.chapter23.html



~badmash~



PS: BTW; I am a MUSLIM and I think India shouldnt have ben divided and that could have been done; if Gandhi put his foot down on Jinnah's ass.

[Johnny]

Hmm First of all SRK RULZ.. he is the King Khan.. SO shut upp all Jealous Mofos..



Now coming to the topic of gays..

Well i read about a theory sometime back. Acc. to it, there is a mixture of both homosexuality and heterosexuality in every human. And acc. to the so called research, it can be calibrated on a scale of 1 to 6.

6 => A perfect homosexual.

1 => A perfect heterosexual.



There are no humans in the world with either perfect 1 or perfect 6. So basically there is some amt of both in all the beings.. And as asli pointed out, more than genetic it is psychological. Its a state of mind. One can call it is a disease, which can be cured. There are centres for homosexuality cure too.



Anyways.. no SRK is not gay. Enough of this now.. i wont argue with ppl who cant understand the real talent in an artist.

Somehow it is fashion among general people to go against the best there is in any field. Just criticise them for their negatives (which everyone has), rather than appreciate their true talents. Similar scenario arises when one discusses Sachin. He doesnt perform when it is needed.. and BLAH BLAH stuff.. WHo cares, he is da best so is SRK.

PEACE OUT





Now coming to the Gnadhi issue. There is nuttin much to add here, cuz all i wanted to say ASLI has already said it. But i would like to vent aain that i hate Gandhi policies. He has commited the biggest blunder in INDIAN Political History till date.

Bottom line being, if Gandhi and Nehru werent there, INDIA wud have been in a loot better position than what it is in now.

And i personally think, [b]Bhagat singh, Chandrashekar Azad[/b et al school of thought would have got us Independence much earlier than 1947.



PEACE OUT again.



PS: I m sorry if i hurt anyone's Sentiments here.

[CtrlAltDel]

i hadnt noticed this b4...so me replying now:

Ewww Cad you like isha gross she is soo ugly

:shock: what the hell....u gals term sexy girls ugly...what gives?

and whats up with liking lesbos? why are indians obessed with faggots and lesbians that is sooo not nature.

most straight males love watching lesbians in action....its kinky n erotic...thats why even pornos meant for straight men have lesbian acts in em....and no, watching gay men doesn't appeal to us...blech...most of us atleast....

what i am trying to say is that god created a man and a woman to be together not girl with girl and a man with man this world is gone corrupt!

plz read the post i made earlier today...i dun wanna repeat myself....

[Lucifer]

Alright... Here is what I think... See if it makes sense to you.

And dont get me wrong... I belive in his message. But I just dont like the way he does things.

1. His eldest son always had differences with him because he was never a father to him or his siblings. Gandhi admits to this in his books. Gandhi always wanted his way of implementing things. He made them do things that were harsh and draconian by all means. Cleaning peoples toilets and doing socail service. My point is.. you want it. You do it.. dont force others to do it.

Please keep in mind that he had more important things to do than fatherhood. But, he never forced anyone to do anything. People did it because they respected him. May be he was too harsh on his son. But is not every father harsh on his? Every father wants his son to be like him. Don't grudge the Mahatma for this human folly. And, every son wants to be like his father. I don't understand why his son never emulated a great man like him.

2. Whenever people wouldnt listen to him and fight, he would go on fasts. Emotionally blackmail people that he would die if they wouldnt stop fighting. Again coercion! If this is not terrorism(mental terrorism) then what is it. You might argue that stopped the fighting.. What he got done was nice. But how he got it done was wrong. I would imagine the right thing to do would have been to talk to people.. address their needs. What you did by that was just postpone the inevitable. He didnt think what would happen when he was not around. When people die, their principals die with them. When he was not around a Babri Masjid was taken down. How did his fasting help! If the fasting bit was not coercion or mental terrorism that what was it?

He never fasted to use it as a means of coercion. You fail to appreciate the basic theory behind it. He fasted the first time in Champaner. You know why? Because the peasants there were so hungry and so poor that he thought the only way he could understand their plight was to live their lives. Do not think it is easy to fast for days. Have you gone without water for a day? He did it for days together. It takes a superhuman resolve to do it.

3. Yes he was the messenger of non-violence but the way he agreed to the division of India and worked to pacify the Muslims, created a underground fundamentalist hinduvata movement. Which not only claimed his life but has torched our cities time and again. Volumes have been written about how the Gandhian way of acheiving freedom has brought about the current state divide in India.

You are wrong here. The Mahatma never agreed to the division of India. Lord Mountbatten's time was such that made it very clear that the British would leave India on the 15th of August. Jinnah was the one who wanted the separate state. If Nehru and others had not agreed to Jinnah's demands there would have been no interim government formed once the British left. And, that translates to anarchy. Gandhiji was very much against division. He walked out of the congress meeting when it was being discussed as a sign of protest.

4. Then he instated Nehru as the Prime minister of India. Nehru was the one who started the nepotism trend in India. He brought his daughter into politics, who was not even interested in politics. And now we have an Italian leading the Indian National Congress, a person who has no qualification and no idea of what being an Indian means. Who writes her Hindi speeches in english and delivers them with a broken accent. We have come back to the time of Kings and Kingdoms. I dont hold Gandhi responsible for this.... But I am venting.

Like you have said it yourself, Gandhi was not responsible for it. If anyone is responsible for Sonia Gandhi's position it is none but the spineless congressmen who would rather have her lead that have any other person besides them come to power.

I am all for non-violence and I understand that no one is perfect but I just dont like the way he did things.

Pray, what was wrong with the way he did things? You know what Einstein said of the Mahatma? Quote: Generations to come will not believe that such a man in flesh and blood ever graced the earth.

You gave a nice analogy.. COKE and GANDHI. Do you think Coke allows smaller mom and pop cola stores to exist. Coke executives with their aggresive marketing and hostile takeovers have imposed their brand in the market. Just like GANDHI.. either you were a Gandhian or you were an outsider. Gandhi didnt make this happen. The movement he created did. I am not against Gandhi as a person. I am just against his non-violence thoery. I like him as a person, he was a nice man.

That same non-violence theory gave us independence. And it was used to good effect by Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Violence is not the answer to any conflict. Remember, war does not decide who is right. Just who is left.

British took us over by violence, every conquest ever done in the history of man-kind is done with force and violence. If non-violence made the british leave India, then non-violence was actually violence. Non-violence looks all high and mighty but it is a very deadly form of violence. What would you do to someone who is ready to die for his cause. Non-violence was no less than what suicide bombers are doing these days. Imagine you being British and a whole nation of suicide bombers coming after you.

You are disillusioned here. Suicide bombers kill and maim people. Satyagrahis never did that. They took every lathi blow and every bullet that was fired on them. They were not the aggressors here. They were the victims. Non-violence is a very powerful weapon, agreed. It is much more powerful than violence. You were right when you said that you cannot do much to someone who is ready to die for his cause. And therein lies the beauty of non-violence. It is a weapon that works only when the cause is just. You can never hope to use it for an unjust cause.

Read this article
1. http://expressindia.com/ie/daily/19971225/35950713.htmland this ~ his book
2. http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/Biography/gandhi/part4.chapter23.html

~badmash~

PS: BTW; I am a MUSLIM and I think India shouldnt have ben divided and that could have been done; if Gandhi put his foot down on Jinnah's ass.

I am not going to debate the issue of partition here because it is not going to serve any purpose. It was a very painful chapter in the lives of millions. But, it has shown us one thing - that anything born out of violence can never succeed. Pakistan had its birth in violence. What is the state of that country now?

[Lucifer]

Somehow it is fashion among general people to go against the best there is in any field.

Is that why you criticise the Mahatma? Have you even heard of 'My Experiments with Truth'? My suggestion: Please read that book before you jump to conclusions.

[Johnny]

Somehow it is fashion among general people to go against the best there is in any field.

Is that why you criticise the Mahatma? Have you even heard of 'My Experiments with Truth'? My suggestion: Please read that book before you jump to conclusions.

Thanks for the suggestion. And who wrote the book? He himself. And everything written is not what it is. There are some real facts, which one can fathom only if one is open to them and leave the Rigor Mortis.



And my statement u had quoted there above was not in this context. It was in the context of skills and arts. And our society has never suffered a lot due to either of the celebrities i mentioned. (SRK and sachin). Dont misuse the quotes in situations like this, which are far more important and serious than issue of a fav actor or a cricketer.



PS My advice to u : Read a post carefully, before jumping to conclusions and giving free advice to sensible people.

[asli_badmash]

Somehow it is fashion among general people to go against the best there is in any field.

Is that why you criticise the Mahatma? Have you even heard of 'My Experiments with Truth'? My suggestion: Please read that book before you jump to conclusions.

I am not jumping to conclusions.



I read the book and some others about Gandhis influence of India history. I have enough data to say what I say. Yes I understand no body is perfect.



If you would have read all the book that I read you would have known what I am talking about. In his book Gandhi is very candid about his short comings and mistakes. I respect him for sharing that with us. He was and is someone I look to emulate. But he would sacrifice everything at the altar of his principles. The world cannot be seen as black and white; there has to be a gray zone, a middle path. Yes your principals are important but other people are also important sometimes you have to relent.



My beef is with how he followed his principles without looking into the actualities of life. Why did he walk out of the conference where India was divided. He should have sat there and tried to convince Jinnah and others from his party not to divide the country. If Jinnah was not convinced, he should have probably asked Nehru or someone else to take him out. Sacrifising one person to save a country is acceptable. But no what about my principals.. what would people think about me. I am a Mahatma, I shouldnt be doing this.



He was very particular about his principals; and who ever did not agree would be put out of his circle. The same thing happened to his family, he would force his kids to do things and the eldest son when he stood against his father he put him outside the circle of trust. Read about Hiralal and his life. He succeeded as a saint but he failed as a father; He writes that in his book and that is why none of his kids emulated him. They were all too tired of his principals. Goodness given is regular doses works fine; he was too good to be TRUE.



About fasting; He writes in his book about how his mother was used to fasting sometimes for days at a stretch. And she used to involve her kids to fast with her. My point is.. he used this fasting as weapon to hold the indian mass hostage. He didnt fast before he became an important person in India. He didnt fast in South Africa for the good of common people? Why? When he became the mahatma he used this tactic to get his way, not once not twice.. several times. It was like.. I will fast and die else you listen to what I have to say? That is Viloence.. holding people hostage.



Read this... http://meadev.nic.in/Gandhi/chronology.htm. Look at the dates

- 17 September 1924 Started 21 days' fast for Hindu-Muslim unity

- 4 January 1932 Started fast against separate electorate for the Harijans

- 8 May 1933 Started 21 day fast for the improvement of Harijan's condition and was released at 6 p.m. from jail.

- 3 March 1939 Started fast unto death at Rajkot and on settlement of the issue ended fast on 7 March 1939

- 10 February 1943 Started fast in Agakhan Palace-Jail

- 15 August 1947 At Calcutta, fasted as country was cut into two pieces

- 13 January 1948 Started fast in Delhi against communal riots



No mention of fasting in South Africa or his life before he started his work in India. Why?



About non-violence; Yes the people who were involved in the Freedom movement under the Gandhian principle were all people with high morals. But it is a subtle form of violence. A violence that kills all other forms of expression of freedom and imposes his theory of non-violence.



Somebody said: "Even democracy is a form of dictatorship; every opinion which stands against it will be hunted and destroyed".



on similar lines "Non-violence is also a from of violence; every other opinion which stands against it will be hunted and looked down upon!"



Yes he was a great man infact a saint. And I respect him for that, but politics cannot be run by saints. He started a movement that was based on a simple principal of non-violence, once freedom was close he should have changed his tactic to keep the land he liberated togather. But no he couldnt give up his principals. Maybe he should have gotten togather with S.C.Bose or people like Bhagat singh, taken out all the people who wanted to create PAKISTAN. He and his principals ruined the country.



He was the only man who could have changed the history at that point when India was divided. But he choose not to. WHY ? Were his principals so important... Was his mahatma stature so important.



And its childish to say I criticize mahatma because he is popular. I like him as a person, but I dont like that way he did things.



~badmash~

[Stingrae]

Hey guys

Back with a new topic WHo do you think in the industry overacts wayyyyy tooo much??

And who dances like a girl??/

And who is the slutiest in the industry??

WEll to me Aishwariya Overacts wayyy too much she think she is everything i hate her she is fake.

And Hrthik Roshan dances like a girl!!! In Ek pal ka jeena

And Kim sharma and that chick from murder is the slutiet

stickin ON topic....

SRK takes my vote too...like every1 else said...its like everytime he plays a character in a movie,he's playin himself...he's playin "SRK" - the star,the overactor.

the reason i loved amitabh in kaante was 'cuz he blended among the guys, he became an equal, he lived his character....i can never imagine SRK to do dat....he'd be on a different plane wit his histrionics.....Lubin n co,let us not confuse SRK's good looks with his proficiency in over-acting...



as some1 said...Yana Gupta dances like a girl...and like a dam hot one at that...



sluttiest wud be d Mirchi girl in dat Zayed khan movie....though she's kinda ok in dat Pardesiya video....

[Lucifer]

Somehow it is fashion among general people to go against the best there is in any field.

Is that why you criticise the Mahatma? Have you even heard of 'My Experiments with Truth'? My suggestion: Please read that book before you jump to conclusions.

Thanks for the suggestion. And who wrote the book? He himself. And everything written is not what it is. There are some real facts, which one can fathom only if one is open to them and leave the Rigor Mortis.

Leave the Rigor Mortis? Could you explain that?

And my statement u had quoted there above was not in this context. It was in the context of skills and arts. And our society has never suffered a lot due to either of the celebrities i mentioned. (SRK and sachin). Dont misuse the quotes in situations like this, which are far more important and serious than issue of a fav actor or a cricketer.

PS My advice to u : Read a post carefully, before jumping to conclusions and giving free advice to sensible people.

The context here was people who are the best in their field. You did not specifically say which field. You did talk of SRK and Sachin. They might be the best in their field. Gandhiji certainly was the best in his. I quoted it in that context. And, I do not think it was a misquote. You also spoke of Gandhiji right after SRK and Sachin in the same post. I did not join two posts here. Just used your views expressed in the same post. And, no, they are not two different issues. Be it in the context of skills or art or of anything else, when you say people go against the best it becomes a generic statement. Also, please tell me why you think Gandhiji had no skills or art. Is only acting or cricket art? Does not art extend to things like people management, etc.?

[Habitual Perfectionist]

All the Gandhi stuff....









All the gay stuff...









Biggest overactor : I just got off Doordarshan and its all over the place...SRK is still leading the overactors race by a few good miles. Aishwarya was a non starter because she isn't an actress at all in the first place.



Someone mentioned Anil Kapoor. IMO, Anil is the most underrated actor in Bollywood today.







Dances like a girl : Its still YANA GUPTA....Karishma Kapoor is a very good dancer but she doesn't really dance like a girl. She dances more like Govinda.







Slutty : Bipasha aint slutty. She's sexy. Slutty has some kind of a negative connotation to it. And Bips is anything but negative..<<CONFESSION SPOILER - HIGHLIGHT TO READ>>..I saw her long before her bollywood forays at a fashion show once. And she's graced my wet dreams ever since.



how about some slutty actresses from yesteryears?



Bindu - The queen of sluts.

Mita Vashisht

Deepa Sahi

[Lucifer]

Somehow it is fashion among general people to go against the best there is in any field.

Is that why you criticise the Mahatma? Have you even heard of 'My Experiments with Truth'? My suggestion: Please read that book before you jump to conclusions.

I am not jumping to conclusions.

I read the book and some others about Gandhis influence of India history. I have enough data to say what I say. Yes I understand no body is perfect.

If you would have read all the book that I read you would have known what I am talking about. In his book Gandhi is very candid about his short comings and mistakes. I respect him for sharing that with us. He was and is someone I look to emulate. But he would sacrifice everything at the altar of his principles. The world cannot be seen as black and white; there has to be a gray zone, a middle path. Yes your principals are important but other people are also important sometimes you have to relent.

My dear friend, the middle path is the road-divider. You cannot walk on it. It just serves its purpose of keeping two opposite things from colliding.

My beef is with how he followed his principles without looking into the actualities of life. Why did he walk out of the conference where India was divided. He should have sat there and tried to convince Jinnah and others from his party not to divide the country. If Jinnah was not convinced, he should have probably asked Nehru or someone else to take him out. Sacrifising one person to save a country is acceptable. But no what about my principals.. what would people think about me. I am a Mahatma, I shouldnt be doing this.

He walked out because all else failed. And, what do you mean by saying, 'ask Nehru to take him out?' Do you think killing Jinnah was the solution? Do you know how many Muslim followers he had? His death and India would have burned. Besides, how could anyone sanction assassination? Civilised societies are not built on violence. I think I already gave you an example in Pakistan when I told you what happens to things that have their birth in violence.

He was very particular about his principals; and who ever did not agree would be put out of his circle. The same thing happened to his family, he would force his kids to do things and the eldest son when he stood against his father he put him outside the circle of trust. Read about Hiralal and his life. He succeeded as a saint but he failed as a father; He writes that in his book and that is why none of his kids emulated him. They were all too tired of his principals. Goodness given is regular doses works fine; he was too good to be TRUE.

I don't think his fatherhood has anything to do with it. I already told you how fathers can be when it came to their sons. In this aspect, he was just displaying a human folly. You say he was too good to be true. Agreed. But, he was true. And we should all be very thankful that such a man had his birth in a land as great as ours.

About fasting; He writes in his book about how his mother was used to fasting sometimes for days at a stretch. And she used to involve her kids to fast with her. My point is.. he used this fasting as weapon to hold the indian mass hostage. He didnt fast before he became an important person in India. He didnt fast in South Africa for the good of common people? Why? When he became the mahatma he used this tactic to get his way, not once not twice.. several times. It was like.. I will fast and die else you listen to what I have to say? That is Viloence.. holding people hostage.

Read this... http://meadev.nic.in/Gandhi/chronology.htm. Look at the dates
- 17 September 1924 Started 21 days' fast for Hindu-Muslim unity
- 4 January 1932 Started fast against separate electorate for the Harijans
- 8 May 1933 Started 21 day fast for the improvement of Harijan's condition and was released at 6 p.m. from jail.
- 3 March 1939 Started fast unto death at Rajkot and on settlement of the issue ended fast on 7 March 1939
- 10 February 1943 Started fast in Agakhan Palace-Jail
- 15 August 1947 At Calcutta, fasted as country was cut into two pieces
- 13 January 1948 Started fast in Delhi against communal riots

No mention of fasting in South Africa or his life before he started his work in India. Why?

I think I told you how and why he started fasting. He could not hold the masses to ransom if they did not believe that he was doing the right thing. And, if he got his way all the time, why did his fast from January 13 for communal harmony go in vain? No, he did not get his way with this tactic, though I hope he had for then we would not have witnessed partition.

About non-violence; Yes the people who were involved in the Freedom movement under the Gandhian principle were all people with high morals. But it is a subtle form of violence. A violence that kills all other forms of expression of freedom and imposes his theory of non-violence.

Somebody said: "Even democracy is a form of dictatorship; every opinion which stands against it will be hunted and destroyed".

What are you saying? That we do away with democracy? And, what form of expression did non-violence stop? It had acceptance among the masses. That implies millions thought it was the right was to do things. You do not need more vindication of its appropriateness than that.

on similar lines "Non-violence is also a from of violence; every other opinion which stands against it will be hunted and looked down upon!"

If non-violence is a form of violence, then God is a form of the Devil. Because every thought which is not sacred is hunted and looked down upon in the eyes of God.

Yes he was a great man infact a saint. And I respect him for that, but politics cannot be run by saints. He started a movement that was based on a simple principal of non-violence, once freedom was close he should have changed his tactic to keep the land he liberated togather. But no he couldnt give up his principals. Maybe he should have gotten togather with S.C.Bose or people like Bhagat singh, taken out all the people who wanted to create PAKISTAN. He and his principals ruined the country.

He was the only man who could have changed the history at that point when India was divided. But he choose not to. WHY ? Were his principals so important... Was his mahatma stature so important.

And its childish to say I criticize mahatma because he is popular. I like him as a person, but I dont like that way he did things.

~badmash~

You are saying he should have chosen the path of violence once freedom was near. SC Bose did. What happened? Did he get anywhere near? The very fact that he did not have the support of the masses like Gandhi did bears testimony to the fact that people were not going to accept this method. I guess here is where Gandhiji was a shrewd tactician. You cannot fight against people's will. People were willing to fight the British with non-violence, not violence.



And do you know why non-violence is a brilliant weapon? Because there is no weapon to counter it. That is why the British lost. You can't fight fire with fire. You would have been no match for the British artillery. You use water to douse the flames.

[Lucifer]

I shall finally post on the topic!



Have to agree with Junta in case of SRK. Not because he overacts but because he has not done anything that has proved his prowess. He has not done any film where he has done something different from Main Hoon Na or K3G. Just the same mushy stuff.



Dances like a girl? Has to be Hritik Roshan. BTW, has anyone seen his interviews? He speaks absolote crap.



Slutty: Kunika - the vamp in Kittie Party

[Johnny]

Thanks for the suggestion. And who wrote the book? He himself. And everything written is not what it is. There are some real facts, which one can fathom only if one is open to them and leave the Rigor Mortis.

Leave the Rigor Mortis? Could you explain that?

Sure Bro. Rigor mortis here is used to stress on the state of the brain's rigidness to accept someting different, which is contrary to the popular belief. Albeit the popular belief might be wrong.

The context here was people who are the best in their field. You did not specifically say which field. You did talk of SRK and Sachin. They might be the best in their field. Gandhiji certainly was the best in his. I quoted it in that context. And, I do not think it was a misquote. You also spoke of Gandhiji right after SRK and Sachin in the same post. I did not join two posts here. Just used your views expressed in the same post. And, no, they are not two different issues. Be it in the context of skills or art or of anything else, when you say people go against the best it becomes a generic statement. Also, please tell me why you think Gandhiji had no skills or art. Is only acting or cricket art? Does not art extend to things like people management, etc.?

Well i spoke of SRK sachin and gandhiji in the same post cuz, there were two diff discussions goin on in the thread. Being in the same post need not mean they r related. I merely didnt want to post another message just to seperate gandhiji's discussion. ( i aint lookin for post count here..)



Sure accepted gandhiji has a skill in management et al. My bad My bad.. I restate: That quote i used was for the entertainment celebritys, who dont have much influence on the countrys future. The same statement i made with reference to the personal choice of best actor or cricketer, cannot be extended for a person like gandhiji. As Asli pointed out what u r arguing is a childs arguement. You shud have the ability to comprehend things in the way they r meant.



PS: I like gandhiji as a person, sure his achievements cant be writen off totally, but then he lost it all with the blunders he made. Those blunders are costing us dear now.

[Stingrae]

All the Gandhi stuff....




All the gay stuff...

dude....thanks d use of Maya-Emoticons ur post has made its post...me humble post got obscured in d loong discussions....

[Aquarian81]

Hi everyone,



Im not much of a hindi-film-watcher, but I do catch the previews all the time. Its not hard to tell that SRK is one of the father's of the art of OVERACTING, and he's mastered it over the years. Following him in his female counterpart of overactors are Kareena Kapoor, Aishwarya Rai, and Kim Sharma.

Sluts: Kim Sharma, Celina Jaitley and Kareena Kapoor

Fags: Hritik Roshan, Saif Ali Khan and Zayid Khan

[asli_badmash]

This is my last post on this topic! Sorry HP!

My dear friend, the middle path is the road-divider. You cannot walk on it. It just serves its purpose of keeping two opposite things from colliding.

Maybe you should look at it this way... Sometimes you have to stand on the divider to avoid traffic from both sides.

I think I already gave you an example in Pakistan when I told you what happens to things that have their birth in violence.

Pakistan is an idealogy gone wrong, its got nothing to do with how it was born. Partly beacause of the culture of the people who live in that land. They have lived in small groups for ages and have no concept of a nation. To this day they still follow the same rules.

You say he was too good to be true. Agreed. But, he was true. And we should all be very thankful that such a man had his birth in a land as great as ours.

Agreed.. And I am proud to be an Indian. That is why its state bothers me today and I am looking for answers.

I think I told you how and why he started fasting. ...have witnessed partition.

I think people saw through his ways by then. What I am trying to say here is, he did a good thing by stopping the violence. But didnt actaully work towards a solution to the problem that caused the violence. He did his best to sush the people when they fought but left the dispute unresolved. And that dispute has come back to haunt us time and again. I strongly beleive he was the only person who could have made a differnce. And that I say because I beleive in him.. his message. But just not his ways.

What are you saying? That we do away with democracy? And, what form of expression did non-violence stop? It had acceptance among the masses. That implies millions thought it was the right was to do things. You do not need more vindication of its appropriateness than that.

Millions even thought Communism was right for Russia before it was proven wrong! Every form of goverment has its flaws. And people are sheep they follow what they have been told.

then God is a form of the Devil.

Yes to an atheist. God and Devil are one and the same. Just forms of Control! (Matrix style)

You are saying he should have cho... water to douse the flames.

Let me repeat I am not against the man. Just not for the way he did things.

~badmash~

PS: Please PM me if you have to reply!

[Habitual Perfectionist]

PS: Please PM me if you have to reply!

Or better still, start a new topic. Would be good to discuss this controversial topic. I have a lot to say on this but couldn't as I acted like a smart@$$ and posted the off topic post.

[CtrlAltDel]

God and Devil are one and the same. Just forms of Control!

:shock: Flattery will get u nowhere....

[asli_badmash]

God and Devil are one and the same. Just forms of Control!

:shock: Flattery will get u nowhere....

Vanity defines the devil. BTW; I was quoted out of context.

I said "To an atheist" - God and Devil are one and the same. Just forms of Control! (Matrix Style)

What are you brewing here CAD? Dont make me send my amazon's after you skinny black ass!

[-:-PhAt-:-]

thnx fo the info cumagain...lol...









***I believe in MIRACLES***

[CtrlAltDel]

thnx fo the info cumagain...lol...

my pleasure ma'am.....

[-:-PhAt-:-]

tht was yOo??

lol..shuda known by the sn...









***Looking, smelling, feeling like a million bucks...ahh!****

[Habitual Perfectionist]

***Looking, smelling, feeling like a million bucks...ahh!****

Can I feel you too? Million bucks is tempting.