Situations & Scenarios

Man 1 says to man 2: "Yo wazz happenin', bee?"

YOU EFFING RACIST. Just 'cause he speak like that don't mean he's a black dude. You and your fucking stereotypes. You oughta be ashamed of yourself.

Situations where the line: "The game has changed" really isn't the right thing to say. This is a reference to B.B. King, who truly meant it when he repeated the line: "The Thrill Is Gone". Anyway:

1. Woman tells man: "I'm pregnant".

Man tells woman: "THE GAME HAS CHANGED!"

2. Scene: A Funeral

The priest is giving the eulogy. "....and may his soul rest in-" "THE GAME HAS CHANGED"- the zombie.

3. KERPLUNK!

"The game has changed!!"

Bad situations for your folks to walk in on you:

1. Kid is sitting alone in the room. It's the middle of the night. No lights on, no fans on, all windows shut, all doors shut. The kid kneels and starts praying: "Lord, i'm deeply in love with you, will you be my one?"

2. Scene: The classroom. The blackboard reads: PRACTICALS. Below that, in the bottom left corner, in small font, reads: "Sex Education". The kid is standing in front of the full class completely naked, trying to pick a suitable candidate from the class. The parents walk in and say: "But this is a boys school".

Sexist Scenarios:

1. Board outside swimming pool reads: "NO BITCHES ALLOWED."

2. GAY MARRIAGE SYNDICATE

"We're like women, only we don't nag and have penises."

3. Bhutta waala on the rounds on Malabar Hill, screaming: "Nice, fresh, long and thick." This isn't really sexist, but at the time of my doodling in class (which was when i came up with all of this), i didn't realize that. However, i'm not about to edit it out just because of it's non-sexist nature. Come on, give me a break.

PS: There's this thing that Aniket does, where at the end of every post, he adds the song he's currently into. It's his thing, but i love, and so i'm going to rip it off. So right now, i'm into Slow Cheetah - Red Hot Chili Peppers; and all of the Across The Universe OST.

PPS: 'Bhutta' in hindi means corn. There are these vendors all over Mumbai who wheel these carts everywhere and sell corn at a cheap rate. This is for those who aren't from India. For noone, basically. If you aren't from India, then wow, i've gotten fucking big, man. Yeah!

I Seek Reassurance

Y'know, it might sound VERY childish of me to say this, but fuck that: i need comments. I need to know that people are reading my shit, man; and not just by fucking clustr maps (which is awesome, bee-tee-double yew). I don't mean only comment on this post (which is also highly unlikely), check the others as well. It actually would mean a lot to me; and if you know me, or think you know me, you'll know that i'm not generally this emo. I'm also known as 'no-emotion man', so this is quite a big deal for me.

You can comment even if you're not part of blogger/blogspot, and you can also comment as anonymous. So please do!

PS: Sentences should never start with an 'and'. I hate that word with a capital A. It should only be in y'know, the opposite of caps. Right, well.

SEINFELD VS friends

I realize that i'm alienating a significant portion of my audience (i like to kid myself) with this post, but you know what they say: "If one must alienate, then alienate", "Aliens are for outer space" and of course the famous "Life is like a box of aliens that've eaten all your chocolate". That feeling of religious terror that you're feeling right now, that's also tearing at your intestines is just that stomach problem you're having, and that feeling of insanity is just normal. It seems to me that insane people (mentally challenged) who suffer from stomach problems are quite fucked. The one place where people can be sane is in the loo. Let's face it: how many different ways and methods of excreting exist? It is the definition of sanity, in my opinion, and someone mentally challenged with a stomach problem has nothing to live for. You follow my chain of thought?

Yes, nothing to live for except for Seinfeld, of course. That's right. I just connected the numbers 1 and 2 to sitcoms, which, by an eerie coincidence are 2 in number (in this post, anyway). Yes, an unbiased analytical analysis of these two sitcoms.

For those of you who don't live in India, here's how it is here: we are overdosed on these two sitcoms. Three channels on daily tv have Friends on different timings (without fail, everyday), and there are weekly 'Friendathons', for those family get togethers on the weekends. Seinfeld used to be a daily show, but after about 4 years, they shifted to weekly 'Seindathons'. So basically, everyone in India who watches western channels, who has someone in that family who watches these channels or lives in the urban culture at the very least has seen 10 episodes of both these shows. Well, maybe more of Friends, but whatever.

Seinfeld: The Show About Nothing. Those 4 very basic characters; one appropriately slapstic (i love him DESPITE his racist-ness), one appropriately woebegone; one funny guy and one normal ocd infested girl. No storyline of speak of, no time capsule, barely any continuity and below average acting. Humour based on a dry interpretation of everyday events and absurd turns and reactions of characters in the show. There's a whole bunch of recurring characters, some of whom are neurotic at the very least, and most of whom are related to or have dated the lead 4. Purely situational comedy, continuous breaking of that fourth wall and no sentimental moments whatsoever. I love it.

Friends: The Feel Good One. The 6 basic characters with a HUGE recurring character cast. At least a third of the show has sentimental moments to it, and it displays a huge array of emotions and eventualities. It covers almost every aspect of the middle class life (the American one, anyway), and hence has the widest target audience. It has won the most shite because of this, and is by popular consent the most watched shite internationally. I don't give an octopus' tentacle (arseblog reference!) about the actual facts. This is my interpretation.

It must be said that Friends had a HUGE array of celebrities who guest starred in some episode or the other, while Seinfeld did too, but significantly less. Another very important point. Elaine, the lead female character in Seinfeld was NOT hot. As opposed to the 3 women in Friends, who are all shown to be very hot etc etc. Elaine, in my opinion, was deliberately shown as NOT hot to further her character as one of the four. Despite the fact that she was and is hot, the Seinfeld people didn't use that aspect of her in the series, spare a few moments.

I enjoy Friends a lot, mostly when Chandler's there in the scene, but almost every episode i change the channel when it turns sentimental as opposed to just plain funny. This may be because the target audience is more female oriented, but whatever. The point is, at these overtly sentimental moments, i cringe and change the channel. This has NEVER happened with Seinfeld. Of course, this may be because of the opposite of Friends with target audience thing, but whatever.

For me, Seinfeld over Friends, any day. Balls to sentimentality. Don't get me wrong, i do like chick flicks.

PS: I don't need research for this post. I've seen 'em all! Anyway, i don't research, that's just not how i function.

The True Fan

What is a true fan? I'm talking about football, of course; but this can branch off into any sport. There's always the hatred of the 'non-true' fans by the 'true' fans.

The True Fan must know everything, and if someone tells him something about his own team, then he must say: "Yes, of course. I knew that already. Hunh!". The true fan must feel a compulsive hatred bred in him by other earlier true fans of non-true fans and other such fosers. The true fan must also scream very loudly every time a goal is scored/saved/good pass/good play/good tactic/good skill/water boy/any event happens. Okay, i'm branching off into football now, but you can derive what you will from here. It involves using your brains.

If the fan does not know shit, then he is not a true fan.

I had a lot of more points, but i forgot them all. Maybe i'll put them up later. Maybe i've already put them up and you don't realize. Maybe i should stop breaking the fourth wall or however that phrase applies to blogs.

PS: Fosers = fucking posers

PPS: I keep saying 'he'. If ever a feminist reads this page/blog and gets highly upset at the 'he' usage, my mission will be completed. For it is but an honour to piss off a feminist.

Just That Phase

I won't apologize, but i will stare. It's only fair.

Everyone goes through it.

It doesn't matter if your post is small, just updating is adequate. Look at all the 'most read' blogs. They're updated every day.

Y'know?

Why So Honest?

I've just realized that i can't write about a lot of stuff here, because i've put my name on this site. Most of the people who do bother to read this will know me, but what if my family happens to stumbleUpon (i wish) this site? I mean, i don't want them to know some shite about me, man. Some shite that i have no issue telling everyone else. The answer is an anonymous blog. Yes. I will make a blog where i'll talk about all of my misdeeds etc, especially shite that i don't want my folks to know (For example, my WEED habits. Hah! Just a joke).

A special prize to he (not she, HE) who manages to find it!

PS: Women are allowed to search for it, i just don't like that they don't like when 'he' applies to humans in general. Fucking nakhreybaazes. I hate you, Reena.

Movies with Folks

The best way to bond with family is a nice family outing, right? With no distractions and suchshite. Where the intent is just to chill out, relax and have a good time. More like a vacation, preferably far from home, but definitely away from it. Of course, in these hectic times, we don't get time for family bonding. So we resort to the next best option: Movies.

A Random Paragraph: People can be judged while watching movies. Most basically, they can be divided into two categories:

a) The Talkers: Them who talk throughout movies, who comment on every possible thing, try their best to discredit the movie, try their best to predict the outcome, and voice each and every thought that passes through their heads. Their enjoyment is directly proportional to the amount spent talking during the actual running of the film.

b) The Silent Watchers: Them who watch the movie in silence, taking in every detail, and appreciating every little nuance that the movie brings to you. They are ideal to have around if you don't understand what's going on in the movie. The movie must be paused for a sufficient explanation. For them, the most cathartic experience is a movie spent in total silence. Enjoyment is inversely proportional to the amount spoken (by anyone) during actual running time of the movie.

Anyway, as i was saying, family vacations became too much too often, so families decided to settle for a more cheap method of bonding: Movies. "The full family goes to watch a movie and bonds so well" is such a feel good sentence that every guilt-ridden family member aches to be able to say it out loud. While watching movies with family, a little enjoyment is tripled in the head of the watcher, just to appease his own dissonance. But still, you know, the comparatively more formal atmosphere of the movie hall can still control the family in terms of loud criticism.

More recently, with the introduction of piracy in people's daily lives, the family outing has been reduced to mere movie watching on the tv in the living room. Now the younger generation is asked to download movies on the computer, transfer them on to usb drive/cd/dvd and watch them via the dvd player. This is the extent to which the family outing has been diluted. Anyway, this isn't the point of this blog.

I watch movie occasionally with my folks, and i've grown to fucking hate it. They ruin the movie! -After Da Vinci Code, my father kept laughing every time we passed a gutter. He'd nudge me and tell me: "The tomb of Mary Magdalene is in there".

-After Harry Potter, my pop would keep poking me with wooden sticks and scream "Expecto Patronum"

I could give you more examples, but you get the idea.

Finally, to the point of this long (needless) post. I just saw Ocean's Eleven with my folks in my hall on the tv via dvd etc. I loved the movie. But i couldn't fucking enjoy it at ALL. My pop kept rambling about the importance of subtitles and he kept bitching about the strong accents. They kept losing dialogue, and i had to keep pausing and explaining. They never understood what was going on, and in the end, they just criticised the movie. They criticised Ocean's Fucking Eleven. THAT is how fucked up my movie-watching-with-parents-scene is.

Now, they're trying to convince me to watch Harry Potter with them. Sly fucks.

The Bias

Everyone knows what Malhar is. The biggest fucking festival that everyone loves to hate. EVERY participant complains, and EVERY volunteer justifies; and yet EVERY college tries its hardest to win, bad organization/attitude notwithstanding. It's Malhar, after all.

Malhar. With it's huge ass events and huge ass judges. Events like the band events, the dance events, the theater events etc etc all have renowned judges from all over. Renowned, UNBIASED judges. But anyway, let's look into that. What makes for a non-biased judge? How does the organizer foresee and prevent any objections that the contingents may have? Or at the very least ensure the judge's fairness evaluation?

Qualities of an Unbiased Judge:

1. They shouldn't know the name of the competing colleges (In case, they were ex-students or something like that).

2. They shouldn't BE in any competing colleges (For obvious reasons).

These, i think are the basic qualifications a judge at such a big festival should have.

Now, let's look at the acapella event. From what i hear ( i HOPE i'm wrong), a Third Year student (!) from Nirmala Niketan is the judge for the finals. He's not from a competing college, but still a STUDENT! More than that, an ex-Wilsonian student who's very vocal about his love for Wilson College. One can still argue that this doesn't mean he's biased, and that most judges are ex-students of some college or the other, and that there's no way he'd recognize the Wilson contingent anyway. Well here's this: he played in a band with Wilson CL's brother, and she calls him her 'rakhi brother'; and he is playing in a band with one of the acapella group members. And they BOTH know that he's gonna be the judge.

With all due respect to the judge, this may count for some sub-conscious bias, or at the very least it would play on his mind that he knows two of the singers in the Wilson group.

The same judge was there last year for the finals, too, and the same two people in the Wilson contingent were there last year too, and Wilson didn't even figure in the top 3. This can mean one of two things:

1. That Wilson simply weren't good enough, and the judge ruled fairly.

2. That the judge hates Wilson college, and hence deliberately low marks.

See, i know the judge, and he definitely won't be biased. At ALL. But that's not the point, is it? Any competing college, if they find out about this, can complain and bring this matter up, right? Malhar can always argue that he judged fairly last year, and so there shouldn't be a problem. But that doesn't matter to the college that raised the issue, right? The point is that there is enough evidence to show that he COULD be biased. End of story.

Personally, i don't care. It's probably better for Wilson that he's there. I should learn how to end blogs.