To HK

by MulaiAzhagi Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:01 am

FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.

Why do you think that he made that statement?

What did you do to him to engender that response?

by Guest Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:20 am

MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.

your assessment (bolded) is true and correct.

Why do you think that he made that statement?

through his speech on this board he comes across a cynic which shades of misanthropy. he has not ellaborated on why your assesment is wrong in that thread so i have to attribute his reaction to his general "misanthropy" (that he exhibits towards members on this board).

What did you do to him to engender that response?

let me tackle this in a different way. i am sure if i flattered him and always agreed with him (for instance: oh, a cappella is oh my geezers!! sooooo divine *drool*), i'm sure he'd change his opinion of me and would no longer call your assessment naive.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:59 am

MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.

you could be considered naive for other reasons too.

by Hellsangel Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:23 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.
you could be considered naive for other reasons too.

When you have had a life as bitter as this old man, all happy people could be considered naive.

by MulaiAzhagi Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:37 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.
you could be considered naive for other reasons too.

Please list them.

by Guest Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:52 am

MulaiAzhagi wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.
you could be considered naive for other reasons too.

Please list them.

please start a new thread. if he finds it interesting, he may or may not reply.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:55 am

MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.

Why do you think that he made that statement?

What did you do to him to engender that response?

why would you think that a habitually dishonest person is decent? boobsy has bragged here about hacking into other people's accounts and reading their private communication with others. not only did he do the deed, he bragged about it! boobsy has also told us about hiding his true business accounts in the computer of one of his employees. are you naive enough to wonder why? that he's an idiot to boast about his deeds is a different matter.

and why would you think that a fat person who boasts about and posts photos of the truckload of rich but uninteresting food his cook makes for him is humble? why would he post photographs of his corpulent self and sagging breasts at chat? could that be because boobsy conforms to an indian, especially northindian, value system by which fat, obviously well-fed men are considered powerful and wealthy, especially by uneducated rural people?

apparently, uneducated, rural folk are not the only ones who are naive.

by Hellsangel Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:22 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote: about hacking into other people's accounts and reading their private communication with others.

Translation: HK outed me and destroyed the aura of mystery and invincibility I had.

by Guest Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:30 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote: boobsy has also told us about hiding his true business accounts in the computer of one of his employees. are you naive enough to wonder why? that he's an idiot to boast about his deeds is a different matter.

you are so naive. come income tax department, come and get me. forward this post to the income tax department with my name and location: http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/ let them use this post to investigate to create a "reason to believe."

the department suspects every assessee hides his/her income and keeps his/her account in a secret place. but that suspicion, or even hearsay, is NOT a "reason to believe." a "reason to believe" has to be backed by clinching, covert investigation.

by Guest Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:43 am

my files go into scrutiny every year. i pay a lot of income tax (beyond my level of comfort). a "reason to believe" would have been created long ago. the fact is that i am a small fish.

by Idéfix Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:46 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.

Why do you think that he made that statement?

What did you do to him to engender that response?

why would you think that a habitually dishonest person is decent? boobsy has bragged here about hacking into other people's accounts and reading their private communication with others. not only did he do the deed, he bragged about it! boobsy has also told us about hiding his true business accounts in the computer of one of his employees. are you naive enough to wonder why? that he's an idiot to boast about his deeds is a different matter.

and why would you think that a fat person who boasts about and posts photos of the truckload of rich but uninteresting food his cook makes for him is humble? why would he post photographs of his corpulent self and sagging breasts at chat? could that be because boobsy conforms to an indian, especially northindian, value system by which fat, obviously well-fed men are considered powerful and wealthy, especially by uneducated rural people?

apparently, uneducated, rural folk are not the only ones who are naive.

You are upset. You are angry. You are upset and angry that Breasty Beauty, who used to have a high opinion of you, now thinks someone else is a decent and humble human being. If you want people to consider you decent or humble or just a human being, you should try demonstrating decency, humility and humanity for a change.

by Guest Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:55 am

panini press wrote: If you want people to consider you decent or humble or just a human being,

LOlu.

by garam_kuta Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:09 pm

panini press wrote:
You are upset. You are angry. You are upset and angry that Breasty Beauty, who used to have a high opinion of you, now thinks someone else is a decent and humble human being. If you want people to consider you decent or humble or just a human being, you should try demonstrating decency, humility and humanity for a change.

Amazing.. this and the related original post intrigue me that people use varying baselines of behavior that varies with economic status, for judging others.. what is a simple normal act of one belonging to a certain class could be perceived as a generous, decent, humble,humane etc., etc.,when it is from someone of a different economic band/stratum.. does that mean these attributes cannot be defined uniquely just by the act and assessed with certainty and quantified with one yardstick ???

by Hellsangel Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:25 pm

garam_kuta wrote:
panini press wrote:
You are upset. You are angry. You are upset and angry that Breasty Beauty, who used to have a high opinion of you, now thinks someone else is a decent and humble human being. If you want people to consider you decent or humble or just a human being, you should try demonstrating decency, humility and humanity for a change.

Amazing.. this and the related original post intrigue me that people use varying baselines of behavior that varies with economic status, for judging others.. what is a simple normal act of one belonging to a certain class could be perceived as a generous, decent, humble,humane etc., etc.,when it is from someone of a different economic band/stratum.. does that mean these attributes cannot be defined uniquely just by the act and assessed with certainty and quantified with one yardstick ???

Every dog has its (good deed of the) day!

by Idéfix Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:08 pm

garam_kuta wrote:
panini press wrote:
You are upset. You are angry. You are upset and angry that Breasty Beauty, who used to have a high opinion of you, now thinks someone else is a decent and humble human being. If you want people to consider you decent or humble or just a human being, you should try demonstrating decency, humility and humanity for a change.

Amazing.. this and the related original post intrigue me that people use varying baselines of behavior that varies with economic status, for judging others.. what is a simple normal act of one belonging to a certain class could be perceived as a generous, decent, humble,humane etc., etc.,when it is from someone of a different economic band/stratum.. does that mean these attributes cannot be defined uniquely just by the act and assessed with certainty and quantified with one yardstick ???

Perceived decency, humility and humanity involved in a particular behavior are all functions of: (a) the social milieu, (b) the background of the person exhibiting that behavior, and (c) the background of the person doing the perceiving. There may be some behaviors that are universally considered indecent, but those are but a small fraction of the human repertoire. Even for behaviors that seem particularly repugnant to me (e.g. "man killing his own child"), I can imagine other times, places and people who would find that behavior acceptable, decent or glorious (e.g. "Agamemnon killing Iphigenia," "Abraham sacrificing Isaac"). For Breasty Beauty, an "old money" rich guy being normal and talking about his hopes and fears is decent and humble. A poor "backward caste" fellow expounding on the same content might be insolent or presumptuous.

by garam_kuta Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:22 pm

panini press wrote:
garam_kuta wrote:
panini press wrote:
You are upset. You are angry. You are upset and angry that Breasty Beauty, who used to have a high opinion of you, now thinks someone else is a decent and humble human being. If you want people to consider you decent or humble or just a human being, you should try demonstrating decency, humility and humanity for a change.

Amazing.. this and the related original post intrigue me that people use varying baselines of behavior that varies with economic status, for judging others.. what is a simple normal act of one belonging to a certain class could be perceived as a generous, decent, humble,humane etc., etc.,when it is from someone of a different economic band/stratum.. does that mean these attributes cannot be defined uniquely just by the act and assessed with certainty and quantified with one yardstick ???
Perceived decency, humility and humanity involved in a particular behavior are all functions of: (a) the social milieu, (b) the background of the person exhibiting that behavior, and (c) the background of the person doing the perceiving. There may be some behaviors that are universally considered indecent, but those are but a small fraction of the human repertoire. Even for behaviors that seem particularly repugnant to me (e.g. "man killing his own child"), I can imagine other times, places and people who would find that behavior acceptable, decent or glorious (e.g. "Agamemnon killing Iphigenia," "Abraham sacrificing Isaac"). For Breasty Beauty, an "old money" rich guy being normal and talking about his hopes and fears is decent and humble. A poor "backward caste" fellow expounding on the same content might be insolent or presumptuous.

true.. but i would be confused, say in Rio, Brazil where most wear generic t-shirts and shorts, and find it difficult to assess these attributes, i should think.

by MulaiAzhagi Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:28 pm

For Breasty Beauty, an "old money" rich guy being normal and talking about his hopes and fears is decent and humble. A poor "backward caste" fellow expounding on the same content might be insolent or presumptuous.

===> What makes you think so?

by garam_kuta Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:35 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote:For Breasty Beauty, an "old money" rich guy being normal and talking about his hopes and fears is decent and humble. A poor "backward caste" fellow expounding on the same content might be insolent or presumptuous.

===> What makes you think so?

Saar- en kElvikenna padhil ? do you agree that not using a single standard base line for judging virtues is OK with you ?

by MulaiAzhagi Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:54 pm

Gram Kuta,

Have you watched this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6evrEuHYk0I

My reply to you is this:

1. Even based on the same standard for an action, a person may be decent to someone and not for others.

2. When people say that someone is a decent person, it is based on a snapshot in time they have interacted with that person and found him to be good.

3. In fact, I know one person whom some people thought was a perfect gentleman. They were not there to watch him all the 24 hours. He was a wife beater. They were not aware of that aspect of his life. So they still continue to think he was a gentleman.

by Hellsangel Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:56 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote:
3. In fact, I know one person whom some people thought was a perfect gentleman. They were not there to watch him all the 24 hours. He was a wife beater. They were not aware of that aspect of his life. So they still continue to think he was a gentleman.

by garam_kuta Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:07 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote:Gram Kuta,

Have you watched this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6evrEuHYk0I

My reply to you is this:

1. Even based on the same standard for an action, a person may be decent to someone and not for others.

2. When people say that someone is a decent person, it is based on a snapshot in time they have interacted with that person and found him to be good.

3. In fact, I know one person whom some people thought was a perfect gentleman. They were not there to watch him all the 24 hours. He was a wife beater. They were not aware of that aspect of his life. So they still continue to think he was a gentleman.

so, bottom line - everything specific to context - no good or bad and no question of nallavara or kettavara ? yeah ?

by MulaiAzhagi Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:11 pm

so, bottom line - everything specific to context - no good or bad and no question of nallavara or kettavara ? yeah ?

===> Unless he is in the process of being physically attacked by his wife, a man who bets his wife is not a good person.

The bottom line is everyone is an indcent person by default.

by garam_kuta Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:13 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote:Gram Kuta,

Have you watched this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6evrEuHYk0I

Lovely song.. lovely Bharathi -10 w/o a question..perfect figure everywhichway.. one pretty, chiseled and graceful woman

by garam_kuta Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:16 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote:so, bottom line - everything specific to context - no good or bad and no question of nallavara or kettavara ? yeah ?

===> Unless he is in the process of being physically attacked by his wife, a man who bets his wife is not a good person.

The bottom line is everyone is an indcent person by default.

whoa ! Freudian slip?? let us begin with Dharma(n) of the pAndavAs

by Idéfix Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:11 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote:For Breasty Beauty, an "old money" rich guy being normal and talking about his hopes and fears is decent and humble. A poor "backward caste" fellow expounding on the same content might be insolent or presumptuous.

===> What makes you think so?

I was just speculating in order to illustrate my point about context. Not suggesting that it is your true perception.

by Idéfix Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:12 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote:so, bottom line - everything specific to context - no good or bad and no question of nallavara or kettavara ? yeah ?

===> Unless he is in the process of being physically attacked by his wife, a man who bets his wife is not a good person.

So far, so good.

MulaiAzhagi wrote:The bottom line is everyone is an indcent person by default.

Now, why is that?

by MulaiAzhagi Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:36 pm

panini press wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:so, bottom line - everything specific to context - no good or bad and no question of nallavara or kettavara ? yeah ?

===> Unless he is in the process of being physically attacked by his wife, a man who bets his wife is not a good person.
So far, so good.

MulaiAzhagi wrote:The bottom line is everyone is an indcent person by default.
Now, why is that?

===> I was responding to garam Kuta.

If you really start considering every action by a person, there may be at least one act which could be considered indecent by someone. On that basis, everyone is indecent by default.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:31 am

panini press wrote:Perceived decency, humility and humanity involved in a particular behavior are all functions of: (a) the social milieu, (b) the background of the person exhibiting that behavior, and (c) the background of the person doing the perceiving...some behaviors... blahblahblah... indecent...blahblah...human repertoire... blahblahblah...repugnant... blahblah... other times, places and people... blahblah... acceptable... blahblahblah... rich guy... blahblah... his hopes and fears... blahblahblah... decent and humble...

i am indeed privileged to learn panini's uncertainty principle directly from the master prevaricator himself.

may i summarize press-ji's pearls of wisdom?

"whether or not boobsy kapasi is decent and humble depends on the kaashTu of the observer and the kaashTu of the observed, and how diligently the observer and the observed perform their kaashT duties. moreover, the product of the standard deviations of the measured decency and humility is constant."

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:48 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
panini press wrote:Perceived decency, humility and humanity involved in a particular behavior are all functions of: (a) the social milieu, (b) the background of the person exhibiting that behavior, and (c) the background of the person doing the perceiving...some behaviors... blahblahblah... indecent...blahblah...human repertoire... blahblahblah...repugnant... blahblah... other times, places and people... blahblah... acceptable... blahblahblah... rich guy... blahblah... his hopes and fears... blahblahblah... decent and humble...
i am indeed privileged to learn panini's uncertainty principle directly from the master prevaricator himself.

may i summarize press-ji's pearls of wisdom?

"whether or not boobsy kapasi is decent and humble depends on the kaashTu of the observer and the kaashTu of the observed, and how diligently the observer and the observed perform their kaashT duties. moreover, the product of the standard deviations of the measured decency and humility is constant."

considering that he always gets caught whenever he starts prevaricating, i would hesitate to label him a 'master prevaricator'.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:41 am

Hellsangel wrote:Translation: HK outed me and destroyed the aura of mystery and invincibility I had.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote: boobsy has also told us about hiding his true business accounts in the computer of one of his employees. are you naive enough to wonder why? that he's an idiot to boast about his deeds is a different matter.

i have enemies who have more information about me than you do and who are writing to the IT dept. everyday.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:02 am

Where are Maulana Merlot and Rashmunullah Jehadi ?

I defer my comments on this very important thread.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:01 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Where are Maulana Merlot and Rashmunullah Jehadi ?

I defer my comments on this very important thread.

Uppili (Marathaadi Samiyaar) claiming that he is 100 % convinced that Merlot Daruwala is a brahmin and that he thinks the reasons Merlot shows disrespect to hinduism are the same reasons why his own father (i.e. Uppili's father) shows disrespect to hinduism. The same Uppili gleefully goes around claiming in public that Merlot is a muslim maulana, a jehadi, a bomb thrower, etc etc. If some terror attack takes place and Merlot has not been posting for some time Uppili immediately questions the whereabouts of Merlot and on his return sometimes asks Merlot what he has been up to. These old tricks of Uppili are now exposed since he has confessed that he has total belief that Merlot is a hindu brahmin.

Uppili, thanks for calling me a brahmin in your own way.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:24 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.

Why do you think that he made that statement?

What did you do to him to engender that response?

why would you think that a habitually dishonest person is decent? boobsy has bragged here about hacking into other people's accounts and reading their private communication with others. not only did he do the deed, he bragged about it! boobsy has also told us about hiding his true business accounts in the computer of one of his employees. are you naive enough to wonder why? that he's an idiot to boast about his deeds is a different matter.

and why would you think that a fat person who boasts about and posts photos of the truckload of rich but uninteresting food his cook makes for him is humble? why would he post photographs of his corpulent self and sagging breasts at chat? could that be because boobsy conforms to an indian, especially northindian, value system by which fat, obviously well-fed men are considered powerful and wealthy, especially by uneducated rural people?

apparently, uneducated, rural folk are not the only ones who are naive.

HK is overweight but he is not obese. nothing wrong with him posting pictures of food his cook has been making for him. I have seen food blogs where the writers post pictures of food they have been eating. in the north indian value system fat people are not considered attractive anymore (although this may have been true at one time). This is one reason why if any south indian woman comes to act in hindi movies she knows that she has to quickly shed weight. Sridevi was ridiculed for her 'thunder thighs' when she first arrived to the hindi movie industry (before she shed weight and became fit). In general, women in south indian movies (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam) are fatter than their hindi movie counterparts.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:30 am

Rashmun wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.

Why do you think that he made that statement?

What did you do to him to engender that response?

why would you think that a habitually dishonest person is decent? boobsy has bragged here about hacking into other people's accounts and reading their private communication with others. not only did he do the deed, he bragged about it! boobsy has also told us about hiding his true business accounts in the computer of one of his employees. are you naive enough to wonder why? that he's an idiot to boast about his deeds is a different matter.

and why would you think that a fat person who boasts about and posts photos of the truckload of rich but uninteresting food his cook makes for him is humble? why would he post photographs of his corpulent self and sagging breasts at chat? could that be because boobsy conforms to an indian, especially northindian, value system by which fat, obviously well-fed men are considered powerful and wealthy, especially by uneducated rural people?

apparently, uneducated, rural folk are not the only ones who are naive.

HK is overweight but he is not obese. nothing wrong with him posting pictures of food his cook has been making for him. I have seen food blogs where the writers post pictures of food they have been eating. in the north indian value system fat people are not considered attractive anymore (although this may have been true at one time). This is one reason why if any south indian woman comes to act in hindi movies she knows that she has to quickly shed weight. Sridevi was ridiculed for her 'thunder thighs' when she first arrived to the hindi movie industry (before she shed weight and became fit). In general, women in south indian movies (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam) are fatter than their hindi movie counterparts.

Even many south indian movie male stars are fat; this could never happen in hindi movies. To give an example, the malayalam film industry superstar Mohanlal is definitely fat.

by Idéfix Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:43 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:kaashT duties

100 times:
kaashTu, not kaashT
kaashTu, not kaashT
kaashTu, not kaashT

by garam_kuta Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
MulaiAzhagi wrote:
FF thinks that I am naive because I thought you were a decent and humble human being.

Why do you think that he made that statement?

What did you do to him to engender that response?

why would you think that a habitually dishonest person is decent? boobsy has bragged here about hacking into other people's accounts and reading their private communication with others. not only did he do the deed, he bragged about it! boobsy has also told us about hiding his true business accounts in the computer of one of his employees. are you naive enough to wonder why? that he's an idiot to boast about his deeds is a different matter.

and why would you think that a fat person who boasts about and posts photos of the truckload of rich but uninteresting food his cook makes for him is humble? why would he post photographs of his corpulent self and sagging breasts at chat? could that be because boobsy conforms to an indian, especially northindian, value system by which fat, obviously well-fed men are considered powerful and wealthy, especially by uneducated rural people?

apparently, uneducated, rural folk are not the only ones who are naive.

HK is overweight but he is not obese. nothing wrong with him posting pictures of food his cook has been making for him. I have seen food blogs where the writers post pictures of food they have been eating. in the north indian value system fat people are not considered attractive anymore (although this may have been true at one time). This is one reason why if any south indian woman comes to act in hindi movies she knows that she has to quickly shed weight. Sridevi was ridiculed for her 'thunder thighs' when she first arrived to the hindi movie industry (before she shed weight and became fit). In general, women in south indian movies (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam) are fatter than their hindi movie counterparts.

Even many south indian movie male stars are fat; this could never happen in hindi movies. To give an example, the malayalam film industry superstar Mohanlal is definitely fat.

ah..the shammi kapoor and neetu singh days you are referring to, i should think

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:17 pm

panini press wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:kaashT duties
100 times:
kaashTu, not kaashT
kaashTu, not kaashT
kaashTu, not kaashT

Luke is obviously free to change the spelling of a word he has himself coined.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com

To HK

To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK

Re: To HK