Women in Popular Tamil Movies
S. Sankarapandi
Hi,
As I have promised earlier, I am attempting on a series of postings about
the status of women in popular Tamil movies. Cinematic portrayal, like any
other form of art, is made up of concrete social relations and works within
some set of socially accepted ideologies. The representation of women in
cinema has been a serious issue of debate amongst the feminists and other
liberal thinkers. I recently read one such analysis of the popular Tamil
movies `veLLiththiraiyil vIraangkanaikaL' by T.S.Raveendra Das in SubhamankaLaa
which provides me a basis for writing this thread. Since that essay gives a
fairly complete inclusion of most of the popular Tamil movies, I translate most
of the contents of that article and add my comments when needs elaboration. I
expect the netters to contribute more for this discussion, because cinema and
politics are like eating `laddus' for TN Tamils :-)
In our societies, there are four views among women themselves towards the
status of women. a) to accept the life as such without questioning, b) if the
existing life is not acceptable, to keep away from those `unacceptable'
aspects, c) start hating the `unacceptable' life and trying to lead an a
different life which may be wrong or socially unacceptable, and d) struggle
hard to live a life which is suitable or of liking. Almost all the stories,
dramas and cinemas which have been made thus far, incorporate one of these
aspects.
Since cinema age started from dramas and dramas' journey started from
epics and puranas, the cinematic depiction of women also carried ancient
orthodoxial stories in the beginning. caaviththiri, cakkubhaai, cakunthalai,
cathi sulOchanaa, ceethaa vana vaacam, cathi akalyaa, thiraubathi
vasthiraabharaNam, naLa thamayanthi, nalla thankaaL, naLaayini, kaNNaki,
arichchandraa etc contained only those century-old stories and they too
insisted the male chavunistic concept, `kallaanaalum kaNavan, pullaanaalum
purushan'. They preached that a woman should love and worship her husband
even if the husband is immoral and tortures her. There are still some movies
coming in this decade which inject this concept at a subtle level.
Rarely, purana stories too had brave women characters and `nIlakEci' was
one such example. `nIlakEci' was a women who cleverly took her wicked husband
to a mountain top and killed him. It took several years for Tamil movie-world
to present this story (in 1950, it was made in `manthiri kumaari' by our CMs,
MK and MGR together). She was the first brave woman in Tamil movies.
After becoming tired of such puranic characters, Tamil cinema fans
demanded a new trend but unfortunately the movie world produced the same wine
in a different cup. kaNavanE kaN kaNda theivam, paanai pidiththavaL
paakkiyacaali, peN kulaththin pon viLakku, maNNukkERRa ponnu, enkaL veettu
mahaalakshmi, thaali bhagyam, peN theivam, peNkaL veettin kaNkaL, manaivi oru
maNikkam.. the list still continues.. The titles themselves talk about the
stories and they sermonise how women should behave.
There are also movies which preach how women should not behave. In such
movies those `bad' women come as prostitutes, seductive and blackmailing or
women breaking good families etc. thaaci abharaanji (1944), thaacippeN (1943),
harithaas (1944), raththak kaNNIr (1954) depict `other' women as prostitute or
concubine. The only act of defiance which is legitimized is the woman's fight
to regain her husband from the clutches of the `other' women. This is
generally achieved through self-sacrifice and fervent prayer. These `other
women' are the resultant of a convenient antithesis of the `good' women. They
are generally modern, materialistic, promiscous, ambitious and often display
short hair. Women viewers strongly identify with the `good' women and distance
themselves from the `other'.
aayiram thalai vaankiya apUrva cinthaamaNi (1947), aaravalli cUravalli
(1946), thUkkuth thUkki (1954) and kulE pahaavali (1955) etc portray adamant,
arrogant and egotist women who should be considered abnormal and non-conformist
women. Even if they were queens, they had to obey men to be finally treated as
`normal' women.
In the same style, there are more movies during the modern days which we
will see in the next posting.
..... To be continued
S. Sankarapandi
S. Sankarapandi
In my last posting, we saw some old movies which succeeded in punishing
the non-conformist or abnormal women. But that was not over with the old
movies. MGR-Sarojadevi's `periya idaththup peN' (1963), Shivaji-Jeyalalitha's
`pattikkaada pattaNamaa' (1972), Malliam Rajagopal's `cavaalE camaaLi' (1971),
Kamal-Ambika's `cakala kalaa vallavan' (1982) etc also fall under the same
category. These movies portray women characters who do not obey men because of
their urban education or wealth. They punish such women for their independence
and they force the gender ideology of being servile to men no matter whether
wives are educated or the husbands are illiterate.
`mEyar meenakshi', `aaNi vEr' etc are examples for women, irrespective of
their high positions in their public life, being obedient to their husband.
The former depicts a woman who, even after becoming the mayor, obeys an orderly
and marries him wheras `aaNi vEr' makes the heroine to resign her collector job
for the sake of her husband. They thus define a code for women's behaviour
which suggests self-sacrifice and complete extinction of their personality.
In some movies, the heroine makes many sacrifices for her husband who is
very noble in his character. Gemini Ganesan - Anjali Devi's `kaNavanE kaN
kaNda theivam'(1955), Gemini-Shivaji-Savithri's `peNNin perumai'(1956),
Sivaji-Saroja Devi's `paakap pirivinai' (1959), S.S.R-Vijayakumari's `Saradha'
(1965), Rajesh-vadivukkarasi-Bhagya Raj's `kannipparuvaththilE' (1979) depicted
the heroes as leprosy patient, mentally affected and physically handicapped
respcetively in the former three movies and as sexually impotent in the latter
two movies. Since they were good and noble, the wives loved them and accepted
to live with them. We cannot find fault with these movies; but one could ask
is there any movie which picturized a story in which the hero accepts the
heroine irrespective of her physical disabilities. (I remember seeing some
Rajini Kanth movie but I dont remember exactly. Any takers ?)
There were also many heroines who blamed their fate for their lover or
husband being a criminal and chose to accept them. One may defend this as
as a realistic portrayal because we see such women in our life. Tamil film
world which thrives on fantasies is not really interested in realism. This
type of stories provide them an opporunity to reach the viewers emotionally and
make money out of it. Reflection of the whole society realistically helps the
appreciation of the art. But publicizing rare and anamolous stories in the
name of realism, only creates more such characters in real life because the
relation between the society and art is very dynamic. Sridhar's `thEnilavu'
(1961), MGR's`kannith thaai' (1965) etc represented such women. Karunanithi's
`pUmaalai' (1965) presents the heroine who lives with her husband even after
knowing the fact that he was the one who had raped her in darkness many months
before their marriage. A wife (M.N.Rajam) sympathesizes with her husband
(P.S.Veerappa) though he attempted to kill her child in order to obtain his
enemy's wife (movie : Mahadevi, 1957).
Though the husband is hated by the whole village because of his notorious
character, the wife does not utter a single word in Mahendran's `udhirip
pUkkaL' (1979), Ramarajan's `naanum intha vUruthaan' (1990), Karthik-Revathi's
`kizhakku vaacal' (1990) etc. In some respects, we can include Bharathi Raja's
`muthal mariyaathai' (1985) in this category. In this movie, the hero did not
speak to his wife even a single word in their whole life and did not have sex
with her so far, the simple reason was that the heroine loved a man of
different caste and had a child through him. For the sake of his family
prestige Sivaji marries her and hence the issue is not revealed out. This
movie was written and directed by Bharathi Raja who is known as `puthumai
iyakkunar' in Tamil. By saying this one does not overlook the artistic aspects
of the movie but the message, at its best, is nonsense.
..... To be continued
Discussions including flames are welcome !
S. Sankarapandi
Elangannan Arunan
>two movies. Since they were good and noble, the wives loved them and accepted
>to live with them. We cannot find fault with these movies; but one could ask
>is there any movie which picturized a story in which the hero accepts the
>heroine irrespective of her physical disabilities. (I remember seeing some
>Rajini Kanth movie but I dont remember exactly. Any takers ?)
** several lines deleted to save bw.
1)The Rajini Kanth-Revathi movie was Kai Kodukkum Kai in which Rajini lives
with Revathi even after knowing she was raped.
2)Neela Vaanam : Sivaji-Devika movie in which Sivaji lives with cancer
patient Devika. He refuses to marry again after her death.
3)Moonram pirai : No marriage in this movie. Kamala Hassan helps
Sri Devi when Sri Devi has some "no memeory from life before" disease.
When Sri Devi gets her memory back, she leaves (no fault of her).
4)Balachander's recent movie (Puthuputhu arthangal?) in which the hero
accepts a wife who was a bad person. In the same movie the second
heroine does the same. (accepts her bad husband)
5)There was a Vijayakanth-Radha movie very similar to Neela vaanam. Radha
dies eventually.
I am sure there were plenty of other movies in which heroine with
physical disabilities gets a "good" husband.
None of these compensates the way women are portrayed in general
in movies. I don't think it is just Tamil movies. In a recent Rajini
Kanth movie "Mannan" a successful business woman (heroine) eventually
learns her lesson and settles as a house wife. In the Dick van Dyke show
(one of the old TV shows that is repeated in Nickolodeon these days) I
was watching an episode recently. The husband is a famous show business
man. Wife takes care of home. At some point the husband needs a
secretary and couldn't find any. The wife works for him, takes care of
household business in the night (losing sleep). The husband thinks that
the wife is managing the house and work very efficiently and he is
afraid she might start working. The traditional wife remains the same.
>S. Sankarapandi
E. Arunan.
Srikant Sridevan
Excellent article by SS! (or is it SM? :-) )
I feel that there is some sort of feedback between the films and real
life in the sense that the movies portray unfair and sometimes quite
idiotic stereotypes of the all-sacrificing mother, evil modern girl who
is "tamed" by rustic hero, etc. :-) and women tend to accept these as
good role models and this acceptance is again reflected in the movies.
The prudish attitudes exhibited by the so-called virtuous women in the
movies are reflected in real life sometimes with ridiculous
consequences. I'm mainly thinking of the behaviour of women in buses in
Madras. I don't think that one has reserved seats which one can get
vacated with a single glare :-) anywhere else in India. I have seen
women sitting single file in crowded buses. I think part of it has to do
with extreme importance attached to the heroine reacted angrily to even
innocent touches by any guy other than the chosen one. :-) I think some
women take behaviour in the movies as a guideline for their interactions
with other people in real life also.
Of course I learnt to take advantage of this. Whenever I went to a Govt.
office alone I would be treated like a miserable puzhu-poocchi. :-) So
the way to attack that was to take my mother along. Miraculously like
Moses and the Red Sea, queues would part and my mother would go right up
to the front of the queue, get my work done and get back in half an
hour. The "Aamanga Madam, illaenga Madam"s were great fun to hear. :-)
Srikant
--
e-mail : s...@apollo.psrc.ncsu.edu | Legalize it,
| And I'll advertise it.
Disclaimer : All disclaimers except this one, apply. |
--
Affable
ssan...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (S. Sankarapandi) writes:
[deleted to save b/w]
> In my last posting, we saw some old movies which succeeded in punishing
That was really informative.
In Yesterday's Houston Chronicle, this piece appeared in the Luann
comic strip. Luann(LU) and Luann's friend(LF) are going for the meeting
"Career day today". Even though it's humorous, it clearly depicts the
day-to-day's women's life.
--------
LU: I wonder why women are so far behind men in this whole job thing?
LF: 'cuz men got a head start.
All through history males have been the hunters and wage earners,
while females cared for the home and the children.
But things are changing. Now women are allowed to be wage earners
and care for the home and the children.
LU: Wow. We're really making progress.
-----
Hey, working men who have working wives and working women out there!
Watching NFL, NHL,NBA (Watch for Houston Rockets in play-offs. They're
going to thrash LA clippers in the first round) will be more fun if you sit
beside your dear spouse after sharing all the household chores. :-)
[If all the men are like FFT, we may have to start to "masculinist"
movement in future. ;-) ]
Cheers,
Venkat
PS:Hey FFT! I've noticed, in all your postings, you put these
smileys :) and :(. What happened to your nose? :-) Did you disguise
yourself as Soorpanaka and appear before Laxman or what? ;-) Or do
you want to show yourself as not being nosey? ;-) I wonder how do
you wear your glasses without a nose. Are you, by any chance, related
to Pinocchio(sp?) ? ;-) Or am I ignorant of those smileys? Suresh
(@cs.uh.edu), can you help me out here?
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vijay Fafat
>[If all the men are like FFT, we may have to start to "masculinist"
>movement in future. ;-) ]
Whom do you think you're kidding? The feminist movement is a myth
created by all the married men, who're dead scared of their wives
[and for good reasons too :)]. Ask any such shackled specimen,
*in front of his mast..err...wife* and you'll see how there really
is a need for "masculinists" and not feminazis :-)
>PS:Hey FFT! I've noticed, in all your postings, you put these
>smileys :) and :(. What happened to your nose? :-) Did you disguise
>yourself as Soorpanaka and appear before Laxman or what? ;-) Or do
>you want to show yourself as not being nosey? ;-) I wonder how do
>you wear your glasses without a nose. Are you, by any chance, related
>to Pinocchio(sp?) ? ;-) Or am I ignorant of those smileys?
There you have the perfect proof for the need of masculinist
movement. You see, these women have a habit of punching you on the
nose at the slightest opportunity [and it's painful, believe me].
So I thunk I'll follow "Na rahega baans, na bajegi bansuri" [the
translation might sound ridiculous so I'll provide it :) : destroy
the bamboo and the flute won't play". No nose, no cry. PLus that
" :) " smilie misleads a lot of peepuls to have an image of a
5' 6", plump guy :-) :-)
FFT
"Captain, I wish you would'nt grin like a Cheshire cat"
Affable
writes:
>In article <1rbukr$2...@menudo.uh.edu> Venkatachalam Aruna
<ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu> writes:
>>[If all the men are like FFT, we may have to start to "masculinist"
It should be "a".
>>movement in future. ;-) ]
> Whom do you think you're kidding? The feminist movement is a myth
> created by all the married men, who're dead scared of their wives
> [and for good reasons too :)]. Ask any such shackled specimen,
> *in front of his mast..err...wife* and you'll see how there really
> is a need for "masculinists" and not feminazis :-)
this "Masculinist" movement in their next meeting's agenda. [Meeting is to be
held at Las Vegas, Nevada. Everybody is welcome. Dress: Informal, preferably,
a belt-displaying designer vEshti :) (Yes, cheshire cat's grin)for males and
pattu pudavai for females. Date: TBA, reason being FFT's $$$ hasn't yet come]
:-) :-)
> There you have the perfect proof for the need of masculinist
> movement. You see, these women have a habit of punching you on the
> nose at the slightest opportunity [and it's painful, believe me].
take this as a sincere advice from bhaiya to munnaa. ;-) Well, I'm not sure
whether you need any advice or not. Anyway, let me give the theory which
may be useful to others who might have been punched/snubbed really by
somebody.
Okay, let me quote my .sig first.
If you love something,set it free.
Journal on Neural Networks (Special issue: "Study of human nature for
Artificial Intelligence using neural networks" ) ;-) ;-)]
She/he might have punched you to set you free. Then you might have
retaliated to set her/him free.Now this becomes an ego problem of who has
to go back first. Sure, that quote is a double edged-sword. If you don't
exercise care in following that quote, then you are all set to lose her/him,
once for all. As generally, females are known for stubbornness[1], males are
adviced to go back first as there is nothing more to lose. :-) [Don't count
your pride. ;-)] Well, self-esteem comes into the picture only if a third
person comes to know how you were scorned by the second person. So, don't ever
let know others whatever happens to you. ;-) ;-)
Hope this theory is useful to you all. This theory's validity is not
proven.If anybody has some results after experimenting this theory,
I'll be happy to keep informed as the project on the "Study of human
nature" is still going on. You're under your own risk if you try this
theory and the author is not responsible for any consequences. ;-)
Good luck, FFT.
Foot note:
22)Michael Jackson and Geena Davis. (1990). "Why women are stubborn?" Psych.
Transactions on Neural Networks 1(1), 4-27.
Cheers,
Venkat
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vijay Fafat
>If what FFT says is true, FFT fan club will include a discussion about starting
>this "Masculinist" movement in their next meeting's agenda. [Meeting is to be
>held at Las Vegas, Nevada. Everybody is welcome. Dress: Informal, preferably,
>a belt-displaying designer vEshti :) (Yes, cheshire cat's grin)for males and
>pattu pudavai for females. Date: TBA, reason being FFT's $$$ hasn't yet come]
Have'nt had time to meet Clinty boy. Hillary has been asking for
weeks now. What to do? These imp. Vedic matters to attend...As soon as
I meet him, I'll press for the money. Hopefully, Congress shd pass
it without fuss. How much would be a reasonable amount? Or do I give
a blank cheque?
>Okay, let me quote my .sig first.
> If you love something,set it free.
> If it comes back, it is yours.
> If it does not, it never was.
I used to believe in this. Now find it plain bull. The loved ones have
a habit of leaving you most unexpectedly, never to return. Just hold
on to what you have and not try any foolish experimenting. That's
an advice from Moonna to Anna :-/
FFT
"Scotty, a handkerchief, pliss"
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
/**** Some portions deleted to save bw ****/
> `aaNi vEr' makes the heroine to resign her collector job
> for the sake of her husband. They thus define a code for women's behaviour
> which suggests self-sacrifice and complete extinction of their personality.
I remember an article in some Tamil magazine by Jayalalitha (yes,the present TN
CM) strongly criticizing this movie soon after this film was shown on TV. The
worst part of the movie was, the heroine, a dalit who grew up in a slum and was
an exceptionally bright student, came up in life through sheer hard work and
she gave up all that because of marriage to a guy she was betrothed to from
childhood. This guy had little interest to learn anything and was hell bent on
destroying the marriage unless she comes back and lives like another chErippeN.
The end was totally unnatural and I couldn't believe my eyes. What a wonderful
(sic) message for the people who need education the most : the dalits !
> `kizhakku vaacal' (1990) etc. In some respects, we can include Bharathi Raja's
> `muthal mariyaathai' (1985) in this category. In this movie, the hero did not
> speak to his wife even a single word in their whole life and did not have sex
> with her so far, the simple reason was that the heroine loved a man of
> different caste and had a child through him.
And we find movies like "mouna geethangaL" where the message is that even if
the man is unfaithful to his wife and the wife is hurt by this, his infidelity
should be treated as a "small mistake" and forgiven. This treatment is rarely
given to unfaithful wives, who, for convenience, are painted as vamps from
the beginning (an exception is Mahendran's "poottAdha poottukkaL", which was
a flop). Even topics which need more sensitive treatment like the sexual
desire of a woman who, due to some circumstances, ends up getting married to
an old man, are not given this treatment. These women end up being shown
as vamps - an example is the character portrayed by Silk Smitha in "moonRAm
piRai".
Another example of double standards is "mazhalaippattALam" - in the
original Hindi version, the hero, a widower with children marries the heroine,
a widow in similar condition. But for our Tamil film world, the heroine should
always be a virgin before marriage regardless of whether she marries one,
- so, they created the unnatural character of the heroine's sister, the
actual mother of the kids who dies in an accident along with her husband,
while the heroine (who is the spitting image of her sister, of course :-) )
pretends to be the mother to save the kids the shock. And some of her (adopted)
kids are quite old (about 10-12 yrs) - as if they can't make out the
difference !
Gayathri.
--
-----------------------------------------
email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
NAGARAJAN . SANKRITHI
>From: gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy)
>Subject: Re: Women in Popular Tamil Movies - Part II
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 00:21:11 GMT
---- The situation is a familiar one. These films further advocate male
chauvinism. I remember my class mates over 75% saying that females should be
subjected to male chauvinism and there is nothing wrong with that.
This situation is especially pathetic because these are the youth who come
out of high school in 1990.
I have to agree to you in that these films severely retard equal treatment
to females. These films have to be condemned by the magazines and
individuals.
Yeah! there is a highly biased rule of thumb regarding virginity and
faithfulness.
I am not able to figure out why such differences should exist.
When you consider all the organisms, humans who regard themselves as
highly evolved is the only organism that creates such differences. It is
natural to realise that male and female are equal. I don't know why
it is so hard for many of the males.
One more point, the tamil movies also entertain the type of humor
in which one individual's self respect is severely degraded. Like most
of the gowndamani---senthil joke scenes. We have also honored such
an act by giving best comedian award to Senthil.
Invariably, Senthil gets beat up badly and every one is supposed to
get amused by that.
nagarajan.
***********--********---*****-****--**
Life is a melody and let us all sing it.
Nagarajan Sankrithi
***********--********---*****-****--**
Nagarajn Sankrithi
1503-A N.12th Street Tel: (715)-392-6794
Superior, WI-54880. Internet: nsan...@hp.uwsuper.edu
Affable
writes:
>>Okay, let me quote my .sig first.
>> If you love something,set it free.
>> If it comes back, it is yours.
>> If it does not, it never was.
> I used to believe in this. Now find it plain bull. The loved ones have
> a habit of leaving you most unexpectedly, never to return. Just hold
> on to what you have and not try any foolish experimenting. That's
> an advice from Moonna to Anna :-/
A side note:
I found out a perfect solution for this arranged marriage/love marriage
conflict and it is "fall in love with the `maamaa peN' " :-) [I'm not using
the term cousin here as it may give wrong interpretation here.Yep, my fiancee
is my "maamaa peN" and a request to netters: Please don't shatter my hopes by
saying it's medically proved that it's not advisable to get married with such
near relatives.]
Everybody involved is satisfied by this solution and I'm also happy
about it.When I'm in a parent position, definitely, I'll allow my kids to
go for love marriage irrespective of caste/religion/race/nationality etc.
Nope, I'm not blaming my parents. I blame the society and my parents
are part of it. Disgusted by the caste-ridden society that is prevailing
in India.
Any comments welcome.
Regards,
Balaji Kannan
Some random thoughts: Serious netters hit 'n' now:
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu 'Affable Khanna' writes :-)
>Okay, let me quote my .sig first.
>If you love something,set it free.
>If it comes back, it is yours.
>If it does not, it never was.
Works well with a boomerang [and at times ASLV rockets] :-)
With people, this is hardly ever true.
Humans, being intelligent (atleast they like to think that way :-))
tend to 'think' a lot. :-)A relationship will *flourish* only when
more feelings and less thinking goes into it. (kinda when you follow
your heart). When you start 'thinking' -> Selfishness pops up ....
Phut! All 'love' is sham after that. If you think a lot :-) you will
invariably come off with this feeling:
No one in this world is indispensable
Not your dearest friend, not your lover, not your wife, not your
sister/brother, not your dad, not even your mom ! The love in
all these relationships has varying degrees of selfishness to it
(hard to believe no ? :-)) All love in some way or the other
gratifies the ego. Egoless love is minuscule in this world.
Test it: Next time, when you call your friend try this:
1) Why should I call him/her ?
2) Will (s)he return my call ?
3) What is the short term 'gain' ?
4) What is the long term 'gain' ?
..............
When you sufficiently think about all these, you will be scared
to lift the receiver and dial the number :-) If you make a call
whenever you feel like it ( and don't think; obviously not if you
are short of dough) there is some amount of 'trueness' to your love.
Not otherwise. (Note: Sometimes we subconsciously ask these qns.)
Just some mumbling. In matters of the 'mind' anyone and everyone could
be right(or wrong :-)) Its all a matter of perspective !
cheers,
bk
"The capacity of human beings to bore one another seems
to be vastly greater than that of any other animal."
Vijay Fafat
>is my "maamaa peN" and a request to netters: Please don't shatter my hopes by
>saying it's medically proved that it's not advisable to get married with such
>near relatives.]
:-) Ok, I won't say that it *has* been medically proved :-)
>about it.When I'm in a parent position, definitely, I'll allow my kids to
>go for love marriage irrespective of caste/religion/race/nationality etc.
>Nope, I'm not blaming my parents. I blame the society and my parents
>are part of it. Disgusted by the caste-ridden society that is prevailing
>in India.
>Any comments welcome.
since you asked for it [though no offence intended]. And definitely
it's not directed at affable.It's one
thing to be disgusted with something and quite another to do something
about it. The situation persists since none of the generations has had
the guts to stand up for what it believes in. One screams a lot about
dowry and how one must fight parental pressures blah blah. But when it
comes to self, it's always, "I don't want to hurt my father since I've
promised him" kind of attitude. And while this might seem inflamatory
or stinging, I've found my North Indian friends to be more rebellious
whereas the South Indians have come across as the meek, submissive
kind who do feel that their society is much too philistine and
rotten but feel too helpless to do anything about it. Like a friend
who could'nt marry the girl he loved sinec he had a sister who would
not have got married out of the stigma associated with a sister whose
brother dares to break the shackles. Perhaps you peepuls should
talk about this rather than some arcane stuff about the "glorious past"
FFT
"Men with more conviction and courage...that's what we need on the
ship, Scotty"
ps: note that I have *not* said the North Indians are more liberated. That's
just a personal experience. it would be more fruitful to flame me on other
points than at that one.
Devanand V. Palaniswami
>life in the sense that the movies portray unfair and sometimes quite
>idiotic stereotypes of the all-sacrificing mother, evil modern girl who
>is "tamed" by rustic hero, etc. :-) and women tend to accept these as
>good role models and this acceptance is again reflected in the movies.
>Of course I learnt to take advantage of this. Whenever I went to a Govt.
>office alone I would be treated like a miserable puzhu-poocchi. :-) So
>the way to attack that was to take my mother along. Miraculously like
>Moses and the Red Sea, queues would part and my mother would go right up
>to the front of the queue, get my work done and get back in half an
>hour. The "Aamanga Madam, illaenga Madam"s were great fun to hear. :-)
IMO, in India, women are considered to be more virtuous and dignified
than men. In the US, women can do anything and everything that a man
can do. BUT, can you imagine an Indian mother smoke? An American wouldn't
mind his mother smoking or drinking.... But wouldn't an Indian son be
disgusted with his mother if she were to do these things???
And I think Indian women ARE respected for such virtuous-ness
exhibited by them (and expected of them...). I would link the "mother_can_
get_things_done_quickly_in_a_line/queue" thing to this...... I doubt
if a highly westernized Indian girl would get the same treatment if she were to
try to "jump the line".
True, women are being exploited in India.... And being portrayed in movies in
a wrong way. BUT, there is some thing in an Indian woman that distinguishes
herself from Indian men AND/OR women of other nationalities...
Probably that is what they are trying to portray in Indian films.
I am sure many of us would like that our women retain this
nature peculiar to them.
DEV
V. Nagarajan
.
.
[lots'a corny stuff deleted]
>I am sure many of us would like that our women retain this
>nature peculiar to them.
You know this gives me an idea. Sadhus are generally well respected
in India. Why don't you become one yourself so that this aspect
of our culture is continued.
- Nagarajan
Sarath Krishnaswamy
|>
|> Some random thoughts: Serious netters hit 'n' now:
Uh-oh. I must not be a serious netter :-)
|>
(stuff deleted)
|> Test it: Next time, when you call your friend try this:
|>
|> 1) Why should I call him/her ?
|> 2) Will (s)he return my call ?
|> 3) What is the short term 'gain' ?
|> 4) What is the long term 'gain' ?
|> ..............
|>
|> When you sufficiently think about all these, you will be scared
|> to lift the receiver and dial the number :-) If you make a call
|> whenever you feel like it ( and don't think; obviously not if you
|> are short of dough) there is some amount of 'trueness' to your love.
|> Not otherwise. (Note: Sometimes we subconsciously ask these qns.)
|>
|> Just some mumbling. In matters of the 'mind' anyone and everyone could
|> be right(or wrong :-)) Its all a matter of perspective !
|>
|> cheers,
|> bk
Actually when I first read this I thought the above guidelines
were pretty good w.r.t. posting on the net!
Unfortunately, it breaks down in the next paragraph; I'm not sure that
constant repeated posting is indicative of love.... Then again,
constant repeated phone messages don't necessarily indicate that
feeling either, do they? :-)
Net-lover,
Sarath.
--
*********************************************************
* Sarath Krishnaswamy *
* MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory *
* 545 Technology Square room 828 *
* Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 253-1513 *
* skri...@ai.mit.edu *
*********************************************************
Srikant Sridevan
>Some random thoughts: Serious netters hit 'n' now:
The same applies. Serious readers please skip.
>ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu 'Affable Khanna' writes :-)
>
>>Okay, let me quote my .sig first.
>>If you love something,set it free.
>>If it comes back, it is yours.
>>If it does not, it never was.
>
> Works well with a boomerang [and at times ASLV rockets] :-)
> With people, this is hardly ever true.
>
Thats very true.
> Humans, being intelligent (atleast they like to think that way :-))
> tend to 'think' a lot. :-)A relationship will *flourish* only when
> more feelings and less thinking goes into it. (kinda when you follow
> your heart). When you start 'thinking' -> Selfishness pops up ....
What you say is true. But I think in every relationship, there comes a
stage when there is quite a bit of thinking involved. I think the
selfishness helps you to sort out your feelings at an early stage and
avoids hurt and disappointment later on.
> Phut! All 'love' is sham after that. If you think a lot :-) you will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think so. Feel selfish for a while, then you'll automatically
stop thinking :-). At least, that was my experience.
> No one in this world is indispensable
>
That *has* to be understood.( Except oneself, of course. :-) )
> Test it: Next time, when you call your friend try this:
>
> 1) Why should I call him/her ?
> 2) Will (s)he return my call ?
> 3) What is the short term 'gain' ?
> 4) What is the long term 'gain' ?
> ..............
>
> When you sufficiently think about all these, you will be scared
> to lift the receiver and dial the number :-) If you make a call
> whenever you feel like it ( and don't think; obviously not if you
> are short of dough) there is some amount of 'trueness' to your love.
> Not otherwise. (Note: Sometimes we subconsciously ask these qns.)
>
I think that in the beginning when there is some novelty to the
relationship, one would call whenever one felt like but at some later
point one *does* begin to think selfishly. If the relationship is really
strong, it will revert to unselfishness and from then on, at least for
me I never used to think at all. :-)
> Just some mumbling. In matters of the 'mind' anyone and
>everyone could
> be right(or wrong :-)) Its all a matter of perspective !
>
Yep. What works for one, may not for the other.
Special Disclaimer: I am a cynic.
Affable
writes:
>In article <1rgua3$j...@menudo.uh.edu> Venkatachalam Aruna
<ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu> writes:
>>is my "maamaa peN" and a request to netters: Please don't shatter my hopes by
>>saying it's medically proved that it's not advisable to get married with such
>>near relatives.]
> :-) Ok, I won't say that it *has* been medically proved :-)
>>about it.When I'm in a parent position, definitely, I'll allow my kids to
>>go for love marriage irrespective of caste/religion/race/nationality etc.
>>Nope, I'm not blaming my parents. I blame the society and my parents
>>are part of it. Disgusted by the caste-ridden society that is prevailing
>>in India.
>>Any comments welcome.
> since you asked for it [though no offence intended]. And definitely
> it's not directed at affable.It's one
> thing to be disgusted with something and quite another to do something
> about it. The situation persists since none of the generations has had
> the guts to stand up for what it believes in. One screams a lot about
> dowry and how one must fight parental pressures blah blah. But when it
> comes to self, it's always, "I don't want to hurt my father since I've
> promised him" kind of attitude. And while this might seem inflamatory
was. When I was in India I fell in love with one girl of different
caste.(before starting to love my "maamaa peN") I know all along my mother
is very,very.....(extremely) sensitive and she won't take this matter
very lightly. When I hinted about the girl, she completely collapsed.
(I don't want to give complete details of my mom's condition as I don't want
speak ill of my mom. She is a real gem except that occasion.) If she had even
1% guts to face the life and the slandering society,I'd have become rebellious,
like you say. I don't blame her. She was brought up like that. She is very much
afraid of the society. Yes, I failed in convincing her to lose her inhibitions.
You go for love marriage, because you know the girl before marriage and
she knows you and you can decide whether you're compatible to each other.
So I know my "maamaa peN" and she knows me from our childhood. Both the parents
agree for the marriage. That's why I've written, I've found a perfect solution
for arranged marriage/love marriage conflict to satisfy everybody involved.
This solution may be the only way for many of you out there who doesn't like
arranged marriages. But one of my friend says she prefers arranged
marriages as she would find thrill in finding out all his attitude/behavior/
idiosyncrasy etc. after the marriage and believes he also would find same
thrill/pleasant suspense in knowing her. I think she has a valid point.
> or stinging, I've found my North Indian friends to be more rebellious
> whereas the South Indians have come across as the meek, submissive
> kind who do feel that their society is much too philistine and
> rotten but feel too helpless to do anything about it. Like a friend
> who could'nt marry the girl he loved sinec he had a sister who would
> not have got married out of the stigma associated with a sister whose
also had some problems with her parents and they convinced her if she
marries a different caste person, her sisters won't get married as the
girl would be stamped as "oDukali". (bk, to translate) So I blame neither
her nor her parents because they don't want to spoil other people's
lives for selfish interest. So, the entire blame goes to the the stinking
society. Agreed, if we go on blaming like this, who will tie the bell to
the cat? That's why I told "When I'm in parent position [long way to go :-)],
I'll allow my kids to marry of their own choice".
> brother dares to break the shackles. Perhaps you peepuls should
> talk about this rather than some arcane stuff about the "glorious past"
>
> FFT
> "Men with more conviction and courage...that's what we need on the
> ship, Scotty"
courage in the crucial situation. Well, you may not be convinced for
which I'm least bothered. (If you're least bothered about what others/
society think/thinks, then you can do whatever, you feel as right.
This quality, my mom lacked.)
Regards,
Venkat
PS: Even if I had gone against my parents, that marriage wouldn't have worked
as I told you, the girl was convinced by her parents not to marry other
caste person. I've forgotten her completely but yet to forget the dreadful
moments when I slightly hinted about the girl to my mom. Well, that was
not true love and we were slightly interested in each other and before giving
any false hope to her, I wanted to find out whether it'd work or not.
PPS: For those who have gutsier parents, go all out to find a suitable
companion irrespective of his/her caste. In my case, I was lucky to find
a compatible person in my "maamaa peN". So, I don't have any regrets
about losing the first girl. [In retrospect, I think, I was in
infatuation. "Sour grapes", huh? ;-) ]
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affable
>Some random thoughts: Serious netters hit 'n' now:
>ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu 'Affable Khanna' writes :-)
>
>>Okay, let me quote my .sig first.
>>If you love something,set it free.
>>If it comes back, it is yours.
>>If it does not, it never was.
>
> Works well with a boomerang [and at times ASLV rockets] :-)
> With people, this is hardly ever true.
Hey,bk, you missed my whole point. I asked the netters to exercise
care in following that quote and usually the problem turned out to be
an ego problem.
Random thoughts are quite true.
Cheers,
Venkat
Srikant Sridevan
In article <C63rx...@athena.cs.uga.edu>, deva...@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Devanand V. Palaniswami) writes:
>IMO, in India, women are considered to be more virtuous and dignified
>than men. In the US, women can do anything and everything that a man
>can do. BUT, can you imagine an Indian mother smoke? An American wouldn't
>mind his mother smoking or drinking.... But wouldn't an Indian son be
>disgusted with his mother if she were to do these things???
>
I think not. Why would you be disgusted with your mother for anything?
Disappointed maybe. I think if you're exposed to ladies who smoke from
the very beginning, you would not squirm if you saw your mother with a
cigarette in hand. Why don't you feel disgusted with your father if he smokes?
>And I think Indian women ARE respected for such virtuous-ness
>exhibited by them (and expected of them...). I would link the "mother_can_
>get_things_done_quickly_in_a_line/queue" thing to this...... I doubt
>if a highly westernized Indian girl would get the same treatment if she
>were to
>try to "jump the line".
>
Do you really believe "virtuous-ness" should be a criterion for
"cutting" the queue? Why do you assume that the westernized girl is not
virtuous? I think these incorrect attitudes are reinforced by the movies
and thats not good.
>True, women are being exploited in India.... And being portrayed in
>movies in
>a wrong way. BUT, there is some thing in an Indian woman that
>distinguishes
>herself from Indian men AND/OR women of other nationalities...
>Probably that is what they are trying to portray in Indian films.
>
It would be wonderful if this distinguishing factor was not forced by
society and society's expectations on women. But thats whats happening.
>I am sure many of us would like that our women retain this
>nature peculiar to them.
>
On their own. Of their own free will. Without fear of social censure if
they don't conform.
>DEV
Bala SWAMINATHAN
>In article <930426182...@mib10.eng.ua.edu> bka...@mib10.eng.ua.edu
>(Balaji Kannan) writes:
>>Some random thoughts: Serious netters hit 'n' now:
>>ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu 'Affable Khanna' writes :-)
>>
>>>Okay, let me quote my .sig first.
>>>If you love something,set it free.
>>>If it comes back, it is yours.
>>>If it does not, it never was.
>>
>> Works well with a boomerang [and at times ASLV rockets] :-)
>> With people, this is hardly ever true.
You have observed quite nicely. Note the usage "IT" in Affable's .sig !!!
>[*kasappaana unmaikaL neekkappattuLLana*]
> Hey,bk, you missed my whole point. I asked the netters to exercise
>care in following that quote and usually the problem turned out to be
>an ego problem.
>Random thoughts are quite true.
On a similar note. How many of us tell our loved one the magic phrase,
"I love you?" How often? Is it only during sex? (seriously)
BTW: Have you ever told your loved one what do you mean by 'I love you?'
"I enjoy your company.
I think about you," are somethings I mean by "I love you."
What does "I love you" mean to you? Have you told your loved one?
natpudan
S_Bala
--
____________________________________________________________________
| Time looks like an innocent thing; but verily it is a saw that |
| is continually sawing away the life of a man. -- Valluvar |
|__________________________________________________________________|
Raghavan Jayaraman
Supposed to be a quip??? Hope U'r not aiming for Kanchi peetam!!!!!
raghavan
Balaji Kannan
skri...@ai.mit.edu (Sarath Krishnaswamy) writes:
>Uh-oh. I must not be a serious netter :-)
Iam having difficulty believing that, ever since you posted
the more kuzhambu recipe :-)
>Actually when I first read this I thought the above guidelines
>were pretty good w.r.t. posting on the net!
>Unfortunately, it breaks down in the next paragraph; I'm not sure that
>constant repeated posting is indicative of love.... Then again,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are baba, all is love only :-) Can fall in any of the
following categories:
1) love for net.discussions (discussionphile)
2) love for harassing others (sadist)
3) love to be flamed (masochist)
3) self-love (narcissist)
>constant repeated phone messages don't necessarily indicate that
>feeling either, do they? :-)
The 'commercial' people would swear otherwise ! :-)
>Net-lover,
Then you must be a 'net'-gain-er too :-)
>Sarath.
>--
>*********************************************************
>* Sarath Krishnaswamy *
>* MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory *
>* 545 Technology Square room 828 *
>* Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 253-1513 *
>* skri...@ai.mit.edu *
>*********************************************************
cheers,
bk
"Fault is thick where love is thin"
Balaji Kannan
ssd writes:
[..]
>What you say is true. But I think in every relationship, there comes a
>stage when there is quite a bit of thinking involved. I think the
>selfishness helps you to sort out your feelings at an early stage and
>avoids hurt and disappointment later on.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, we are talking of love here. If there is *true love* where
is the qn. of hurt and disappointment ? IMO, 'Selfishness' manifests
as hurt and disppointment at some stage or the other. I am not saying
u can't think and resolve; only that when you 'think' you oftentimes
--> selfish. True love is a very difficult concept :-)
[..]
1)
>Special Disclaimer: I am a cynic.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2)
>point one *does* begin to think selfishly. If the relationship is really
>strong, it will revert to unselfishness and from then on, at least for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>me I never used to think at all. :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cynic --> Never stops to think; Not only does he never to stop to
think, he never stops to think that the world is a 'sham'
[always disbleieves and attributes motives]
Now, don't you think somewhere something is wrong in the above two ?
Yo ssd, at this rate I will become a cynic :-)
Affable
>office alone I would be treated like a miserable puzhu-poocchi. :-) So
>the way to attack that was to take my mother along. Miraculously like
>Moses and the Red Sea, queues would part and my mother would go right up
>to the front of the queue, get my work done and get back in half an
>hour. The "Aamanga Madam, illaenga Madam"s were great fun to hear. :-)
for university/college cultural festivals.
Typically they would say to some male students: " You three go with
those two girls to those shops." Of course, in the absence of the
girls. If you go to collect funds without a gal by your side, it's
proved you'll be chucked out empty-handed. Since, by and large, male
volunteers outnumber the female volunteers, the gals had to work overtime.
No offence intended to anybody. Just a realistic observation.
Regards,
Affable
>skri...@ai.mit.edu (Sarath Krishnaswamy) writes:
>>Uh-oh. I must not be a serious netter :-)
> Iam having difficulty believing that, ever since you posted
> the more kuzhambu recipe :-)
daily one recipe. :-)
> 2) love for harassing others (sadist)
> 3) love to be flamed (masochist)
> 3) self-love (narcissist)
(eg) Mathai in A.C.Kerala. :-)
somebody. :-)
Chandrasekhar Kambhampati
Am poking my nose in with a great deal of trepidation. BUt then I
couldn't pass this chance up!
bka...@mib10.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan) writes:
> Yo ssd, at this rate I will become a cynic :-)
aren't you one already! ;-)
>cheers,
>bk
>"Fault is thick where love is thin"
"Where Love is thick, fault is also thick"
love ----> ego -----> fault
It is not reversible - that is when love is thin - it doesnot mean fault is
thin.
BUt then if one is truely unselfish, and or selfless then that person
loves everybody - and that person doesnot really see any difference
between things around him!
contradictions!
cheers, and regards
chandrasekhar
Asokan S.
: In my last posting, we saw some old movies which succeeded in punishing
: the non-conformist or abnormal women. But that was not over with the old
: movies. MGR-Sarojadevi's `periya idaththup peN' (1963), Shivaji-Jeyalalitha's
: `pattikkaada pattaNamaa' (1972), Malliam Rajagopal's `cavaalE camaaLi' (1971),
: Kamal-Ambika's `cakala kalaa vallavan' (1982) etc also fall under the same
: category. These movies portray women characters who do not obey men because of
In fact, 'cakala kalaa vallavan' was admittedly a remake of MGR's
'periya idaththup peN'. Both movies were big hits (although seperated by
about 20 years) substantiating the fact that our audiences love (then
and now) the male chauvanistic stuff.
: but one could ask
: is there any movie which picturized a story in which the hero accepts the
: heroine irrespective of her physical disabilities. (I remember seeing some
: Rajini Kanth movie but I dont remember exactly. Any takers ?)
In the movie 'nenjathai killathae', Mohan marries a handicapped girl (in
a wheelchair) albeit as a sign of repentence for his ill-treatment of
his ex-girlfriend, Suhasini.
: In some respects, we can include Bharathi Raja's
: `muthal mariyaathai' (1985) in this category. In this movie, the hero did not
: speak to his wife even a single word in their whole life and did not have sex
: with her so far, the simple reason was that the heroine loved a man of
: different caste and had a child through him. For the sake of his family
: prestige Sivaji marries her and hence the issue is not revealed out. This
: movie was written and directed by Bharathi Raja who is known as `puthumai
: iyakkunar' in Tamil. By saying this one does not overlook the artistic aspects
: of the movie but the message, at its best, is nonsense.
I remember understanding the characters in this movie in a different
light. The reason for Sivaji's not consummating his marriage of many
years in this movie, I thought, was the basic nature of his vixenly wife
added to the fact that he was forced into the marriage. Also, he gets
himself into that situation only to save the honor of this very woman
who ill-treats him. So, IMO, this movie is not a good example of female
oppression.
While I am no fan of Bharathirajaa's, I have to admit that the movie
'pudiya vaarpugaLL' was pretty radical (to our audiences, atleast) in
that it recommends removal of even the all-holy "thaali" if the marriage
is not the one the bride wanted. If I remember correctly, there is a
caption at the end of the movie (make audible by the director's voice
for the sake of the illiterate) which justifies the name of the movie by
pointing to the main characters as people different from the stereotypes
of our movies(society??).
: Discussions including flames are welcome !
Just a few of my thoughts.
: S. Sankarapandi
asokan.
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
/** Some portions deleted, no comments on them... */
> You go for love marriage, because you know the girl before marriage and
> she knows you and you can decide whether you're compatible to each other.
> So I know my "maamaa peN" and she knows me from our childhood. Both the parents
> agree for the marriage. That's why I've written, I've found a perfect solution
> for arranged marriage/love marriage conflict to satisfy everybody involved.
> This solution may be the only way for many of you out there who doesn't like
> arranged marriages.
Isn't this like arranging the marriage for oneself rather than letting others
do it for one ? Methinks 'love' is when one *can't help loving* and respecting
the person for his/her qualities which seem irresistible and love is something
that happens, not arranged to suit one's convenience (it may coincide with one's
convenience in terms of caste etc but this, if it happens is a coincidence)....
What your solution seems to imply is *arranging* one's marriage with
someone of the same caste, acceptable to parents and self and that's it. Hmm,
interesting :-).... Or maybe I am a hopeless romantic..(*slap on the forehead* ?
Nah...I'm proud of it ! :-) ).
> But one of my friend says she prefers arranged
> marriages as she would find thrill in finding out all his attitude/behavior/
> idiosyncrasy etc. after the marriage and believes he also would find same
> thrill/pleasant suspense in knowing her. I think she has a valid point.
Of course there's the chance that several of these surprises may be
unpleasant...
> > or stinging, I've found my North Indian friends to be more rebellious
> > whereas the South Indians have come across as the meek, submissive
> > kind who do feel that their society is much too philistine and
> > rotten but feel too helpless to do anything about it. Like a friend
> > who could'nt marry the girl he loved sinec he had a sister who would
> > not have got married out of the stigma associated with a sister whose
> *slap on the forehead* :) [plagiarized] Afterwards, I found out that girl
> also had some problems with her parents and they convinced her if she
> marries a different caste person, her sisters won't get married as the
> girl would be stamped as "oDukali". (bk, to translate) So I blame neither
> her nor her parents because they don't want to spoil other people's
> lives for selfish interest. So, the entire blame goes to the the stinking
> society.
I don't think so. About blaming the society I mean. I think individuals are
to be blamed as well for not being brave enough to stand by their convictions.
I think if people go ahead and get married without being afraid of such
taboos, a lot of these taboos would go away. I haven't come across a family
where there has been an inter-caste marriage and the younger siblings stay
unmarried all their lives because of that ( I even have a friend whose
grandparents were of different castes and unlike what people fear, all
their children and grandchildren have had no trouble finding spouses). So
I don't think this is a question of "selfish interest" or anything. I think
it's people (or parents) who quash other people's desires with their fears
(of siblings remaining unmarried) are the ones who are being selfish -
they want others to live their lives according to their wishes - sort of
like remote control (this might not be their intention, the intention might
have been to protect the man/woman in question from society but this is
what it ends up to - the individual in question doesn't have a choice as
far as choosing his/her spouse is concerned)...
Besides, some people who get married to someone else (not the lover) would
either be miserable or make the spouse miserable at least for some years
(unless it's a love marriage again).
However, a lot of parents have the ultimate 'asthram' (weapon) - threat of
suicide. It works in many cases, as the son/daughter buckles down on this
threat, but frankly, I find such an attitude - 'marry whom I want you to
or else I'll commit suicide' extremely selfish and totally disgusting.
Again, these are just my $0.02 worth to the discussion and are just my
views. No offense meant to "Affable" or anyone else.
> Agreed, if we go on blaming like this, who will tie the bell to
> the cat? That's why I told "When I'm in parent position [long way to go :-)],
> I'll allow my kids to marry of their own choice".
I remember my parents when I was young. Whenever we watch a movie in which
the hero & heroine have problems getting married due to caste reasons, my
mother who usually is the talkative of the two, used to say "Why can't these
people let them get married ?". But now, in a similar situation, she starts
opposing the lead pair. What a volte face ! I guess this is the subconscious
fear of society and also the realization that her children are no longer
children...I think Bharathiyar has written a poem on this about lovers
being loved by everybody if they are seen in plays, poems, novels etc but
when it is real life, people just try their best to destroy such love.
Anyway, good luck Affable ! To your children I mean :-)....[long way
to go].
Balaji Kannan
Some more cynical dabble. Disbelievers of Cynicism :-),
please skip this one ! Others, read at your own risk
and feel free to disbelieve :-)
(Bala SWAMINATHAN) writes:
>>>Okay, let me quote my .sig first.
>>>If you love something,set it free.
>>>If it comes back, it is yours.
>>>If it does not, it never was.
>>
>> Works well with a boomerang [and at times ASLV rockets] :-)
>> With people, this is hardly ever true.
>You have observed quite nicely. Note the usage "IT" in Affable's .sig !!!
I gave Affable more credit than that... Is "THAT" my fault ?? :-)
[...]
>On a similar note. How many of us tell our loved one the magic phrase,
>"I love you?" How often? Is it only during sex? (seriously)
If you *really* love someone, why would you stop to tell it ??
You'll just keep on loving.... :-) When you tell someone
"I love you"
1) You are unsure if the other person is also in love with
you and are testing the waters, so to say.... (insecure)
2) Your love is conditional upon being loved in return. Most
"I love you" -love falls in this category. If you want a
modern term, we can call it Mutually Assured Love :-)
[For example a mother never tells "I love you". Not often.
She just loves you.....]
3) If you stretch 2) a bit you will see that all love is
mostly self-love.
"I love you" during sex is because "it" thru "you" is gratifying to the
"I". If "it" is not gratifying to "I", I may not say that "I love you".
I dunno. I could be wrong. But if you want to be a good cynic, Bala, u
shd dissect the language, dissect the 'coded' language :-)
If I have 'surrendered to God' I won't keep telling everyone, "I have
surrendered to God; I have surrendered to God ....". To see surrender
to God, you should watch your mom/dad performing pooja or reciting
shlokas ! "I" will mostly likely 'vanish' when I surrender to God and
won't be 'thinking' about my surrender to God..... Otherwise, I have
only surrendered --> "I".
>BTW: Have you ever told your loved one what do you mean by 'I love you?'
>"I enjoy your company. I think about you," are somethings I mean by "I love
>you."
When you start 'explaining' something that you *feel* for someone, it
is usually that you are thinking more about *you*. Think about it :-)
>What does "I love you" mean to you? Have you told your loved one?
My mother *never once* TOLD me that she loves me....
Need one say more :-)
Disclaimer: I am no exception to any of the Cynical Laws of the Universe!
Obviously :-)
>natpudan
>S_Bala
>--
cheers,
bk
"I am humble. Indeed, *I* am very very humble..... "
Affable
(Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
[Thanks to GK for posting a woman's opinion on this thread.]
>Isn't this like arranging the marriage for oneself rather than letting others
>do it for one ? Methinks 'love' is when one *can't help loving* and respecting
my fiancee comes to know, I can play safe. :-) Just kidding. I know her
very well and vice versa. That's why I'm posting in the public forum without
any inhibitions.]for my languishing mind, subconsciously, I must have
been looking for the same caste girl and my "maamaa pEn" came into fill
the void.
>the person for his/her qualities which seem irresistible and love is something
>that happens, not arranged to suit one's convenience (it may coincide with
one's
>convenience in terms of caste etc but this, if it happens is a
coincidence)....
>What your solution seems to imply is *arranging* one's marriage with
>someone of the same caste, acceptable to parents and self and that's it. Hmm,
>interesting :-).... Or maybe I am a hopeless romantic..(*slap on the forehead*
?
>Nah...I'm proud of it ! :-) ).
>> But one of my friend says she prefers arranged
>> marriages as she would find thrill in finding out all his attitude/behavior/
>> idiosyncrasy etc. after the marriage and believes he also would find same
>> thrill/pleasant suspense in knowing her. I think she has a valid point.
>Of course there's the chance that several of these surprises may be
>unpleasant...
her. [Yes, she is reading SCT. No offence meant, friend.]
>
>I don't think so. About blaming the society I mean. I think individuals are
>to be blamed as well for not being brave enough to stand by their convictions.
>I think if people go ahead and get married without being afraid of such
>taboos, a lot of these taboos would go away. I haven't come across a family
>where there has been an inter-caste marriage and the younger siblings stay
>unmarried all their lives because of that ( I even have a friend whose
>grandparents were of different castes and unlike what people fear, all
>their children and grandchildren have had no trouble finding spouses). So
>I don't think this is a question of "selfish interest" or anything. I think
>it's people (or parents) who quash other people's desires with their fears
siblings, she was ready to crush her love/desire. [She is now married and
blessed with a kid(pbly kids now)and she is very happy with her family life.]
>(of siblings remaining unmarried) are the ones who are being selfish -
>they want others to live their lives according to their wishes - sort of
>like remote control (this might not be their intention, the intention might
>have been to protect the man/woman in question from society but this is
>what it ends up to - the individual in question doesn't have a choice as
>far as choosing his/her spouse is concerned)...
and find your spouse of your own. You can easily find out the parent's
ultimate "asthram" is really true or a just a faked one to prevent the kids,
if you know your parents well enough and how they usually deal an all
important situation.
>Besides, some people who get married to someone else (not the lover) would
>either be miserable or make the spouse miserable at least for some years
>(unless it's a love marriage again).
>However, a lot of parents have the ultimate 'asthram' (weapon) - threat of
>suicide. It works in many cases, as the son/daughter buckles down on this
>threat, but frankly, I find such an attitude - 'marry whom I want you to
>or else I'll commit suicide' extremely selfish and totally disgusting.
seen such a sensitive person in my life. Even if she had 1% (yes, just
one%) guts, I'd have become rebellious.
>Again, these are just my $0.02 worth to the discussion and are just my
>views. No offense meant to "Affable" or anyone else.
lots of guys and gals who don't know what to do.
>I remember my parents when I was young. Whenever we watch a movie in which
>the hero & heroine have problems getting married due to caste reasons, my
>mother who usually is the talkative of the two, used to say "Why can't these
>people let them get married ?". But now, in a similar situation, she starts
>opposing the lead pair. What a volte face ! I guess this is the subconscious
>fear of society and also the realization that her children are no longer
>children...I think Bharathiyar has written a poem on this about lovers
>being loved by everybody if they are seen in plays, poems, novels etc but
>when it is real life, people just try their best to destroy such love.
picture. I can't explain vividly what was the situation in my case
in a public forum, more than this.
>Anyway, good luck Affable ! To your children I mean :-)....[long way
>to go].
What about me? I also need it for the success of my love marriage/
arranged marriage.:-) :-)
Regards,
Venkat
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ravi 'Kity Bum' Sundaram
> In fact, 'cakala kalaa vallavan' was admittedly a remake of MGR's
> 'periya idaththup peN'. Both movies were big hits (although seperated by
> about 20 years) substantiating the fact that our audiences love (then
> and now) the male chauvanistic stuff.
>
> asokan.
And majority of those who love it are women!
I hate to generalise and stereotype, but women seem to be less
sympathetic to other women.
maNi rathnam made the highly image concious super heros of TN
kamal and rajani marry non-virgins in two of his movies.
(naayakan and thaLapathi) Hope the movie moguls of TN note the
audience acceptance. Of course 'sippikkuL muththu' dealt with
it too but it had to make the hero a simpleton.
K Balachandar made another simpleton 'anumandhu' marry a girl
seduced by her employer in 'nizhal nijamaakirathu'. Interestingly
the employer turns around and comes back to her but SHE rejects him
for anumandu.
jayakaanthan, despite being a self-proclaimed aRivu-jeevi, could
not make Ganga marry anyone! (sila nEraNGaLil sila manitharkaL,
oru natikai naatakam paarkkiRaaL)
Are there more instances?
One institutionalised revolting idea is :"If a woman is raped,
she has to marry the rapist"
Ravi Sundaram
UTA
Aero
_________________________________________________________________________
Srikant Sridevan
In article <930427062...@mib10.eng.ua.edu>,
bka...@mib10.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan) writes:
>>What you say is true. But I think in every relationship, there comes a
>>stage when there is quite a bit of thinking involved. I think the
>>selfishness helps you to sort out your feelings at an early stage and
>>avoids hurt and disappointment later on.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[bk's fundaes on true love deleted] :-)
>>Special Disclaimer: I am a cynic.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>2)
>
>>point one *does* begin to think selfishly. If the relationship is really
>>strong, it will revert to unselfishness and from then on, at least for
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>me I never used to think at all. :-)
I was talking about my personal experience which proved my cynical
attitude wrong. Thats what propbably confused you. :-)
> Now, don't you think somewhere something is wrong in the above two
>?
> Yo ssd, at this rate I will become a cynic :-)
>
Hey, its good for health.
>cheers,
>bk
>
>"Fault is thick where love is thin"
>
Its just that I'm prepared for change in relationships and I know that
people will change their feelings towards one another causing hurt. I
think that pretending this doesn't happen is foolish. Thus I conclude I
am a cynic. While the going is good I enjoy :-) butI'm always prepared
for some disappointment. I don't feel "How could he/she do this". If you're a
believer in the good side of human nature, you'll probably trust in the
other person totally and this leads to extra disappointment and hurt in
case of jilting.
Does that clarify things? Further points pliss email. Will be able to
explain *with* personal examples. ;-)
Sundara Pandian
>
[....]
> jayakaanthan, despite being a self-proclaimed aRivu-jeevi, could
> not make Ganga marry anyone! (sila nEraNGaLil sila manitharkaL,
> oru natikai naatakam paarkkiRaaL)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow me to make a quick correction. The sequel is NOT `oru nadikai
naadakam paarkkiRaaL', but the story `Gangai engE pOgiRaaL'. I think
you are probably confused because Srikanth and Laxmi who played Prabhu
and Ganga in the movie version of `sila nErangaLil sila manidharkaL'
also acted in the lead roles in the movie-version of `oru nadikai
naadakam paarkkiRaaL'.
> Ravi Sundaram
> UTA
SP
Bala SWAMINATHAN
>
>
>Some more cynical dabble. Disbelievers of Cynicism :-),
>please skip this one ! Others, read at your own risk
>and feel free to disbelieve :-)
>
>(Bala SWAMINATHAN) writes:
>
>>On a similar note. How many of us tell our loved one the magic phrase,
>>"I love you?" How often? Is it only during sex? (seriously)
>
> If you *really* love someone, why would you stop to tell it ??
Dunno. My guess is that the 'someone' might like to be told.
> You'll just keep on loving.... :-) When you tell someone
> "I love you"
>
> 1) You are unsure if the other person is also in love with
> you and are testing the waters, so to say.... (insecure)
> 2) Your love is conditional upon being loved in return. Most
> "I love you" -love falls in this category. If you want a
> modern term, we can call it Mutually Assured Love :-)
> [For example a mother never tells "I love you". Not often.
> She just loves you.....]
That's because in our society it is not everyday that we see
others expressing their feelings openly. It is even hard to
have an open conversation with family members, in our society.
> 3) If you stretch 2) a bit you will see that all love is
> mostly self-love.
>
> "I love you" during sex is because "it" thru "you" is gratifying to the
> "I". If "it" is not gratifying to "I", I may not say that "I love you".
> I dunno. I could be wrong. But if you want to be a good cynic, Bala, u
> shd dissect the language, dissect the 'coded' language :-)
>
> If I have 'surrendered to God' I won't keep telling everyone, "I have
> surrendered to God; I have surrendered to God ....". To see surrender
> to God, you should watch your mom/dad performing pooja or reciting
> shlokas ! "I" will mostly likely 'vanish' when I surrender to God and
> won't be 'thinking' about my surrender to God..... Otherwise, I have
> only surrendered --> "I".
bk is getting more philosophical (meaning confusing:-)) than cynical.
I guess, I had confused you and every one. Here, in the *US*, mom and
a child exchanging 'love u' themes is not uncommon.
Well, even my office mate does this often with her mom/husband/etc.
over the phone, at least while ending the conversation.
>>BTW: Have you ever told your loved one what do you mean by 'I love you?'
>>"I enjoy your company. I think about you," are somethings I mean by "I love
>>you."
>
> When you start 'explaining' something that you *feel* for someone, it
> is usually that you are thinking more about *you*. Think about it :-)
This is the second part of the query. If we start putting our feelings
in words, then we may have to know what we mean by them.
>
>>What does "I love you" mean to you? Have you told your loved one?
>
> My mother *never once* TOLD me that she loves me....
So? Has she ever told you that she didn't like you :-) (no offence)
> Need one say more :-)
Family members with whom you have lived for quite some time are different
from a new companion. Unless you tell her it is not easy that she can
understand your love. Further, words can complement your actions.
Suppose you go to a restaraunt, unless you tell the waitron she may not
know what you like or don't like. But your mon doesn't need to know this.
It is not that she *just knows*. Your mother knows because she knows you
and your eating habits for a long time.
If you have an acquaintence or a relationship, it is not a bad idea to
frame your feelings in words. (What's the point of all these Birthday
greetings, New year wishes etc.? These convey the message that we have
not forgotten them.) I am sure a phone call or a greeting on you birthday
from your mom will definitely make you happy. Shouldn't one try to make
his/her loved one happy? If saying, 'I love you' makes a friend happy,
let us say it.
cheers
S_Bala
(well, on the other hand, if you get a call this year for your bday, you
start expecting it for the next year. If you don't get a call for a year,
you may tend to think that you were forgotten, etc. This is another
story. Sheesh..)
Balaji Kannan
Affable writes:
---------------
[..]
>>"Fault is thick where love is thin"
>bk,why this quote? Don't say you're also punched in your nose by
RamaRama! Why should love always be between a boy and a girl ?
[now, don't read too much into it :-)] About being punched in
my nose, I usually avoid the Mike Tysons and Thelma & Louises:-)
I am NOT a masochist !
>somebody. :-)
*sneeze!* :-)
You taking a census of people punched in their noses ?? :-)
No, I wasn't 'knocked out' by any girl; why, I haven't jumped into
the ring yet :-) [I'll post disclaimers for quotes next time :-)]
chandrasekhar writes:
--------------------
>aren't you one already! ;-)
I would be lying if I said I don't have a cynical streak in me ...
But then so do most people .... ofcourse one can always deny it ;-)
>>"Fault is thick where love is thin"
>"Where Love is thick, fault is also thick"
>love ----> ego -----> fault
I meant 'other' people's 'faults' whom you are in 'love' with.
You are talking about your own 'fault'.
>It is not reversible - that is when love is thin - it doesnot mean fault is
>thin.
That quote is 'reversible' [you seem to have misread it].
"Where love is thick, fault is thin"
>BUt then if one is truely unselfish, and or selfless then that person
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Selflessness (true) is possible. But it is highly improbable !
One in a million ??
>loves everybody - and that person doesnot really see any difference
>between things around him!
Does "*I* don't see the difference" necessarily
===>
Differences don't exist .... ??
>contradictions!
>cheers, and regards
>chandrasekhar
cheers and regards,
bk
"...Ma kuru dhana jana yuvvana garvam, harathinimesha kaalaa sarvam;
-------- Bhaja Govindam
"..Don't be Proud of your "possessions" (wealth, youth, relationships...)
Time (death) will destroy everything in 'no time'....."
Vijay Fafat
>What does "I love you" mean to you? Have you told your loved one?
like someone said, "Life is one foolish thing after another, love
is two foolish things after one another"
FFT
"*****, I love you" :-)
Vijay Fafat
>Isn't this like arranging the marriage for oneself rather than letting others
>do it for one ? Methinks 'love' is when one *can't help loving* and respecting
>the person for his/her qualities which seem irresistible and love is something
>that happens, not arranged to suit one's convenience (it may coincide with one's
>convenience in terms of caste etc but this, if it happens is a coincidence)....
>What your solution seems to imply is *arranging* one's marriage with
>someone of the same caste, acceptable to parents and self and that's it. Hmm,
yo yo, designer veshtie, don't try to avoid this particular portion of
the post when you post a reposte :)
>interesting :-).... Or maybe I am a hopeless romantic..(*slap on the forehead* ?
>Nah...I'm proud of it ! :-) ).
and is someone going to tell me Gayathri is male? I once fell in
love with a Meenakshi who turned out to have deep voice and a
healthy moustache :^).
>> lives for selfish interest. So, the entire blame goes to the the stinking
>> society.
>
>I don't think so. About blaming the society I mean. I think individuals are
>to be blamed as well for not being brave enough to stand by their convictions.
>However, a lot of parents have the ultimate 'asthram' (weapon) - threat of
>suicide. It works in many cases, as the son/daughter buckles down on this
>threat, but frankly, I find such an attitude - 'marry whom I want you to
>or else I'll commit suicide' extremely selfish and totally disgusting.
The best antidote is : you also threaten with the same. "If you
suicide, then I suicide. If you live and not let live, then also
suicide" :-) Don't see how it can fail to work. Plus someone
shd get a taste of the same medicine, na? :)
>when it is real life, people just try their best to destroy such love.
>Anyway, good luck Affable ! To your children I mean :-)....[long way
>to go]. ~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
I would'nt bet on this. Amma always said anna was fond of rapid
multiplication :^)
Moonna.
Affable
>
>"..Don't be Proud of your "possessions" (wealth, youth, relationships...)
> Time (death) will destroy everything in 'no time'....."
till I came to this statement which forced me to "down-to-earth" with a
thud. :-) A stark reality from the cynical pessimist?
Well,
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds;
and the pessimist fears this is true". -- Anonymous
Cheers,
Affable
>In article <C65F7...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu
(Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
> yo yo, designer veshtie, don't try to avoid this particular portion of
> the post when you post a reposte :)
site recently. I think our moonna was behind this group's creation.]
> and is someone going to tell me Gayathri is male? I once fell in
> love with a Meenakshi who turned out to have deep voice and a
> healthy moustache :^).
and don't moo against them. :)
>>when it is real life, people just try their best to destroy such love.
>>Anyway, good luck Affable ! To your children I mean :-)....[long way
>>to go]. ~~~~~~~~~~
>~~~~~~
> I would'nt bet on this. Amma always said anna was fond of rapid
> multiplication :^)
When are you going to learn from annaa's episode? :-)
> Moonna.
annaa.
Vijay Fafat
lines to make easy reading else moona's spec. no. going up :)
In article <1rhluv$o...@menudo.uh.edu> Venkatachalam Aruna <ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu> writes:
>speak ill of my mom. She is a real gem except that occasion.) If she had even
>1% guts to face the life and the slandering society,I'd have become rebellious,
>like you say. I don't blame her. She was brought up like that. She is very much
>afraid of the society. Yes, I failed in convincing her to lose her inhibitions.
well, the same applies to peepuls who justify dowry, no? Afraid
the caste peepuls would jabber if a suitable amount did not grace
the occasion? [only difference may be the intensity]. Now in your
case, perhaps things ended well for whatever reasons. But if the girl
had really pinned hopes on you and etc etc, what then? Are that girl's
hopes easily dispensable just because she's not of your family? Should
she get the stick for what is basically your own limp-wristedness?
And if you do not have the courage of conviction, shd you be falling in
love in the first place and destroying someone else's life?
[the "you", btw, refers to the general one and not Affable].
>agree for the marriage. That's why I've written, I've found a perfect solution
>for arranged marriage/love marriage conflict to satisfy everybody involved.
ergo, don't fall in love outside your caste, don't try to stand
against what you consider to be "wrong" so that you don't dissatisfy
anyone and in general, play along with the system. In which case, I
would think one loses the right to bemoan and crib about the rotten
state of the society, right?
>arranged marriages. But one of my friend says she prefers arranged
>marriages as she would find thrill in finding out all his attitude/behavior/
>idiosyncrasy etc. after the marriage and believes he also would find same
>thrill/pleasant suspense in knowing her. I think she has a valid point.
kind of blind date, huh? :-) Nope, much too risky for comfort.
>*slap on the forehead* :) [plagiarized] Afterwards, I found out that girl
>also had some problems with her parents and they convinced her if she
>marries a different caste person, her sisters won't get married as the
>girl would be stamped as "oDukali". (bk, to translate) So I blame neither
>her nor her parents because they don't want to spoil other people's
>lives for selfish interest. So, the entire blame goes to the the stinking
>society. Agreed, if we go on blaming like this, who will tie the bell to
>the cat? That's why I told "When I'm in parent position [long way to go :-)],
>I'll allow my kids to marry of their own choice".
Perhaps. I've known people who had love marriages in their time but
when it's come to their own children, they've insisted on same-caste
criterion. And it's not even a question of whether you will or will
not allow your kids to break the tradition. It's about whether *you*
who had complained about the state of the system, had the guts to
change it instead of meekly following the herd.
>If the entire family's welfare is not under stake,I'd be having more
>courage in the crucial situation.
I find it a very convenient excuse, the "family welfare" argument.
Under that scheme :), one can have quite a few exemptions :-)
And if the family is the only thing one is worried about, regardless
of the issue at stake, then one might as well stop blaming the
society.
>PS: Even if I had gone against my parents, that marriage wouldn't have worked
>as I told you, the girl was convinced by her parents not to marry other
>caste person. I've forgotten her completely but yet to forget the dreadful
>moments when I slightly hinted about the girl to my mom. Well, that was
>not true love and we were slightly interested in each other and before giving
>any false hope to her, I wanted to find out whether it'd work or not.
The moot question, of course, is : what if you two had got involved
way too deeply before mom objected....
FFT
"Scotty, for heaven's sake, you can't love that Arachnoid! She's
not even your own species!!"
Vijay Fafat
>> yo yo, designer veshtie, don't try to avoid this particular portion of
>> the post when you post a reposte :)
> Enough of mooing, cowboy.:-)[alt.cows.moo.moo.moo appeared in our
>site recently. I think our moonna was behind this group's creation.]
Moore and moore allegations :(. How cowme I'm always the
scapegoat..cow..goat...? :-)
>>>Anyway, good luck Affable ! To your children I mean :-)....[long way
>>>to go]. ~~~~~~~~~~
>>~~~~~~
>> I would'nt bet on this. Amma always said anna was fond of rapid
>> multiplication :^)
>How many times I've told you not to believe/follow whatever ammaa says?
>When are you going to learn from annaa's episode? :-)
I am already learnt. Told shocked parents from childhood only. No
meddling in me affairs :). They're kind of orthodox but know it's
useless talking to me :-)
FFT
"Scotty, time to post anudder matrimonial"
Balaji Kannan
b...@wucs1.wustl.edu (Bala SWAMINATHAN) writes:
>> If you *really* love someone, why would you stop to tell it ??
>Dunno. My guess is that the 'someone' might like to be told.
Why ?? Maybe because your 'love' [here I am assuming that you are
*doing* a lot of things to express your love that are tangible and
intangible] isn't convincing enuff. --> Unsureness, Insecurity in
the relationship !! Just maybe, if you spend more time loving the
person instead of increasing the number of "I love you"s you won't
need to say that... [Spontaneity in saying these things is a li'l
different. But, when it is premeditated, when you think of doing it
to *make* someone happy, all may not be well with that relationship]
Plus:
All of us are insecure for various reasons. For eg, one reason common
for all of us is Death. We all seek/need reassurance that we are WANTED
in this world. We momentarily transcend those insecure feelings when
someone tells us that we have reason enuff to exist ....
No, I am not kidding or confusing ! Atleast not my intention to :-)
>That's because in our society it is not everyday that we see
>others expressing their feelings openly. It is even hard to
>have an open conversation with family members, in our society.
I said *A* mother... You are right about Indians not expressing
feelings in public. But, does a Indian mother not love her kid
because she doesn't SAY "I love you" ?? Do Indian kids think that
their moms and dads don't love them as a result ?? I think not.
>bk is getting more philosophical (meaning confusing:-)) than cynical.
How nice it is to confuse others (¬ be confused oneself) ! ;-)
[No maibombs please :-)] This will be my last post on this thread
on the net.
>I guess, I had confused you and every one. Here, in the *US*, mom and
>a child exchanging 'love u' themes is not uncommon.
>Well, even my office mate does this often with her mom/husband/etc.
>over the phone, at least while ending the conversation.
Maybe, the rate at which someone SAYS "I love you" and EXPECTS "I love
you" directly increases as the insecurity in the relationship. I am
not saying one can't say it spontaneously; just that when you do that
under the 'fear of consequence' something else is wrong with the relat-
onship.... When you *think* I should SAY it, you are seeking reciprocity
usually !
>This is the second part of the query. If we start putting our feelings
>in words, then we may have to know what we mean by them.
I think most who understand English will know that "I love you"
--> I ENJOY *your* company. Only to someone who does not know
English you will have to interpret what it means. Or when you
are expecting something in return ....
>> My mother *never once* TOLD me that she loves me....
>So? Has she ever told you that she didn't like you :-) (no offence)
(no offence was taken)
And if she TOLD me that she loves me, am I to take it that she
loves me .... ?? Why ?? How do you in effect know that someone
loves you ?? Is it because someone TELLS you or is it because
someone loves you ? [You ultimately do resort to her 'actions',
the spontaneity of her feelings to 'verify' it right ?? All
I am saying is, THAT seems quite enuff for one to know 'love'
When you think "I have to say", "I have to be told", then there
is an uneasiness (insecurity) in that relationship]
>Family members with whom you have lived for quite some time are different
>from a new companion. Unless you tell her it is not easy that she can
>understand your love. Further, words can complement your actions.
Honestly tell me, when you TELL someone "I love you" don't you
do it with the expectation of 'Will she/does she love me and
say it too ?" Don't you have 'reciprocity' in mind.?? You wish
to be loved in turn no?
Just imagine this :-)
P1: Hey, I love you.
P2: 1) So, what's new about that ?? :-)
2) *mumbles* What a pest ! :-)
3) Maintains silence
4) I love you too
It is not difficult to see to which one of this P1 will respond
with more "I love you"s , more love bunnies and what-have-yous in
the future ..... Love, dear friend, feeds the self and it is a
very mutual feeling when two people love. You feed *my* self. I
will feed *your* self. Selfless love needs lesser and lesser
"I love you"s and more and more love. You will just love the
person even if it doesn't gratify you the way amorous love does
and won't feel the need to TELL the object that you love that
you indeed love it. Mother Teresa's love, and love of a lot of
social workers is of this kind and a lot more nobler than the
love we usually 'encounter'. But if you are a diehard cynic, you
could argue that these people are motivated by the desire to
please 'God' or are seeking solace/peace of mind for themselves
by helping others; so even their love isn't entirely selfless.
But if you tell all these things people may nominate you for a
Nobel prize in Uninhibited Cynicism :-) and brand you a Cynical
crackpot. So let us keep this to ourselves ;-)
>Suppose you go to a restaraunt, unless you tell the waitron she may not
>know what you like or don't like. But your mon doesn't need to know this.
>It is not that she *just knows*. Your mother knows because she knows you
>and your eating habits for a long time.
Hmmm. Would that mean that a waitress who knows what I like and
order in a restaurant regularly and gets me those things every
night loves me, say like my mother ? Afterall the waitress has
also now learnt what I order and what I don't, what I like and
what I don't .....
IMO, this analogy is weak.
>If you have an acquaintence or a relationship, it is not a bad idea to
>frame your feelings in words. (What's the point of all these Birthday
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>greetings, New year wishes etc.? These convey the message that we have
They make a point .... :-)
>not forgotten them.) I am sure a phone call or a greeting on you birthday
>from your mom will definitely make you happy. Shouldn't one try to make
I am not saying no. Phone call or a B.day card is sent because
of the 'distance' involved in the relationship. One can't hug
someone when sooo much distance is involved no ?
Long distance is the biggest villain in relationships and you
will have to try some way of conveying your feelings. Even here,
an explicit "I love you" may have more to it than meets the eye.
>his/her loved one happy? If saying, 'I love you' makes a friend happy,
>let us say it.
sure. I won't stand in the way :-)
>cheers
>S_Bala
>(well, on the other hand, if you get a call this year for your bday, you
>start expecting it for the next year. If you don't get a call for a year,
>you may tend to think that you were forgotten, etc. This is another
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>story. Sheesh..)
It is the same story.... You are spiltting it into Baagam 1 Baagam 2
etc :-)
Disclaimer: I am not a cynic though at times I use cynicism as a
shield against disappointment and hurt (Like SSD said).
We all do that...
cheers,
bk
"...Ma Kuru dhana jana yuvvanna garvam; harathinimesha kaalaa sarvam..."
Chandrasekhar Kambhampati
Tis a little bit early in the morning.
bka...@ho10.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan) writes:
>
>chandrasekhar writes:
>--------------------
>>aren't you one already! ;-)
> I would be lying if I said I don't have a cynical streak in me ...
> But then so do most people .... ofcourse one can always deny it ;-)
Its very difficult to hide this cynical streak! And so it is also very
difficult to deny this.
>>>"Fault is thick where love is thin"
>>"Where Love is thick, fault is also thick"
>>love ----> ego -----> fault
> I meant 'other' people's 'faults' whom you are in 'love' with.
> You are talking about your own 'fault'.
No, I am not talking about my fault here. You love someone very dearly.
You know him/her very well - warts and all sort of a thing. In other
words you also recognise the faults in your loved ones. It works both ways hereALso by the mere fact of loving someone very dearly, can blind you to
the obvious faults of the loved. Thats why
where love is thick fault is thick
where love is thick fault is thin
In both cases its your ego at work. Your ego will not let you see the
other persons fault and as far as you are concerned this person cannot
be faulted. Again, its your ego (that you are a great soul), that make
syou see all the faults of the other person. What you do is a different
matter?
Now if fault is being used to mean something else - in a different
context - as in whose fault is it when love is thin and it reaches it
break point! Ah! thats another matter really. And thats something which
is beyond the realms of objective discussion. You could say the same
about the rest of this post - but then .......well we can always site
exceptions.......and the apportionment of fault is dependent as to how
closely you are alligned to either of the people involved.
Again, if you are saying that the total amount of fault (fault = fault
of person A + fault of person B (whom person A loves)) when fault is
thin or thick - perhaps your quote may mean something. However, the
context is important. (JUst the original signature - from which this
thread started)
>>It is not reversible - that is when love is thin - it doesnot mean fault is
>>thin.
> That quote is 'reversible' [you seem to have misread it].
> "Where love is thick, fault is thin"
>>BUt then if one is truely unselfish, and or selfless then that person
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Selflessness (true) is possible. But it is highly improbable !
> One in a million ??
Ah, Yes! Absolutely true! Thats why we don't get a Buddha every year.
>>loves everybody - and that person doesnot really see any difference
>>between things around him!
> Does "*I* don't see the difference" necessarily
> ===>
> Differences don't exist .... ??
No, "*I* don't see the difference" doesnot imply that differences don't
exist. Differences are there. IF everyone were the same this world
would be pretty boring - in fact we would all agree to such an extent
that we would not be having this discussion. In terms of loving a
person - a truely selfless person would be able to love all in the same
way - form him/her there really isn't ever the case that he/she loves
him/her more then someother him/her. Thats what I meant by "that person
doesnot really see any difference between things around him!".
The signature which started of this discussion, was trying to mirror
this aspect - but introduced a human element into it. Thats why if you
love something you set it free - if the damn thing comes back its your
to keep. The second part is the human dimension!
>"...Ma kuru dhana jana yuvvana garvam, harathinimesha kaalaa sarvam;
> -------- Bhaja Govindam
>"..Don't be Proud of your "possessions" (wealth, youth, relationships...)
> Time (death) will destroy everything in 'no time'....."
Now, if you truely followed this - you are selfless! BUt assuming that
we are all falable human beings - there are two aspects to this
a) you are scared of loosing your possessions - and hence pretend a
lack of attachment
b) you are scared that these possessions would hurt your ego in some
way sometime - and hence pretend a lack of attachment
both these cases highlight one aspect of the selfish nature of ourselves.
regards
chandrasekhar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
na kankse vijayam krsna na ca rajyam sukhani ca kim no rajyena
govinda kim bhogair jivitena va
I do not long for victory, O Krsna, nor kingdom nor pleasures. Of what
use is kingdom to us, O Krsna or enjoyement or even life?
(Radhakrishnans comments : In moments of great sorrow we are tempted to
adopt the method of renunciation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Affable
writes:
>yo Designerji, one request. When you follow-up, pliss leave suitable blank
>lines to make easy reading else moona's spec. no. going up :)
Your wish granted.
>
>In article <1rhluv$o...@menudo.uh.edu> Venkatachalam Aruna
<ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu> writes:
> well, the same applies to peepuls who justify dowry, no? Afraid
> the caste peepuls would jabber if a suitable amount did not grace
> the occasion? [only difference may be the intensity]. Now in your
> case, perhaps things ended well for whatever reasons. But if the girl
I must thank God for that.
> had really pinned hopes on you and etc etc, what then? Are that girl's
That was nipped in the bud, buddy. :-( No pinned hopes.
> hopes easily dispensable just because she's not of your family? Should
Not like that. I didn't know whether the girl would go against her parents.
If I had been deeply invloved, I'd probabaly had gone against my parents,
despite my mom's extreme sesitivity.
> she get the stick for what is basically your own limp-wristedness?
Then in that case, our girls also deserve blame. Think of this situation:
I went against my parents and we were involved deeply. What if she had
ditched me then as a victim of her parent's conspiracy for the sake of her
siblings? Then in that case I'd be the loser and because of that deep
invlovement, I'd not have enough strength to come up and fall in love
with another girl (my "maamaa peN"). She(that girl) didn't give enough
encouragement to me and I could see her wavering mind. Then I decided to
take the initiative and before giving her false hopes, I took the matter to
my parents and caught in the storm. You may ask, for my life matter,
why I decided to take the matter to my parents. Agreed, it's not a
correct decision. The reason is hopes should not turn out *false*.
Even then, I was certainly interested in the girl
and then found out she wouldn't go against her parents mainly due to
the sake of her siblings. Instead of putting the blame on her, I always
put the blame on my *innocent* (not so innocent) parents.
> And if you do not have the courage of conviction, shd you be falling in
> love in the first place and destroying someone else's life?
This holds good for our dear girls also. They deserve more blame then
the males. Usually, the girls don't go against their parents. I can
cite another incident in my life.
But enuff of it. Now I'm really happy with my "maamaa peN".
> [the "you", btw, refers to the general one and not Affable].
Thanks for the generic *you*. I certainly feel our girls(Some exceptions
are there) need more courage than the males. Hope, FFT's *slaps on the
cheeks* makes all out there to realize everything.
> ergo, don't fall in love outside your caste, don't try to stand
> against what you consider to be "wrong" so that you don't dissatisfy
> anyone and in general, play along with the system. In which case, I
> would think one loses the right to bemoan and crib about the rotten
> state of the society, right?
Precisely, buddy. As long as the young nubile females don't go against
their parents, why should I go? (*sarcastically*) Typically they say they
love their parents and need parent's approval, blah, blah... How many
girls out there would go against their parents? Please raise your hands.
I know, lots of males are ready to go against their parents if they find
a perfect match. These gals, they think too much and they want to plan
now itself for everything in the future. So , it doesn't work out.
[No offence intened to any girl out there who is not such a type.]
This is my last posting on this thread. The reason is not I dont' want
to discuss. I don't have time. If I want to graduate,[and to get
married :-)] I've get out of SCT [and the brat FFT ;-) who baits me]. At
this rate of posting, I'd be on the top of Sthan's list for April.
Regards,
Venkat
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
> In article <C65F7...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>
> >Isn't this like arranging the marriage for oneself rather than letting others
> >do it for one ? Methinks 'love' is when one *can't help loving* and respecting
> >the person for his/her qualities which seem irresistible and love is something
> >that happens, not arranged to suit one's convenience (it may coincide with one's
> >convenience in terms of caste etc but this, if it happens is a coincidence)....
> >What your solution seems to imply is *arranging* one's marriage with
> >someone of the same caste, acceptable to parents and self and that's it. Hmm,
>
>
> yo yo, designer veshtie, don't try to avoid this particular portion of
> the post when you post a reposte :)
>
>
> >interesting :-).... Or maybe I am a hopeless romantic..(*slap on the forehead* ?
> >Nah...I'm proud of it ! :-) ).
>
>
> and is someone going to tell me Gayathri is male? I once fell in
> love with a Meenakshi who turned out to have deep voice and a
> healthy moustache :^).
:-) :-) Rest assured, Fafat ! I no male and I no have a moustache except
the one which peepuls stuck on my face when I played a man in some high
school drama...
>
>
> >> lives for selfish interest. So, the entire blame goes to the the stinking
> >> society.
> >
> >I don't think so. About blaming the society I mean. I think individuals are
> >to be blamed as well for not being brave enough to stand by their convictions.
>
> >However, a lot of parents have the ultimate 'asthram' (weapon) - threat of
> >suicide. It works in many cases, as the son/daughter buckles down on this
> >threat, but frankly, I find such an attitude - 'marry whom I want you to
> >or else I'll commit suicide' extremely selfish and totally disgusting.
>
>
> The best antidote is : you also threaten with the same. "If you
> suicide, then I suicide. If you live and not let live, then also
> suicide" :-) Don't see how it can fail to work. Plus someone
> shd get a taste of the same medicine, na? :)
Nice solution, haan ? Perhaps you and Affable should jointly write a
book of solutions - him with his "maamaa peN" solution and you with
your "suicide" solution....
> >when it is real life, people just try their best to destroy such love.
> >Anyway, good luck Affable ! To your children I mean :-)....[long way
> >to go]. ~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~
>
> I would'nt bet on this. Amma always said anna was fond of rapid
> multiplication :^)
>
> Moonna.
Well, I just assumed that anna was a traditional "nalla paiyan" - but
can't say.... His "maama peN" is the best judge of that :-).
Bala SWAMINATHAN
> [No maibombs please :-)] This will be my last post on this thread
> on the net.
>
> love we usually 'encounter'. But if you are a diehard cynic, you
> could argue that these people are motivated by the desire to
> please 'God' or are seeking solace/peace of mind for themselves
> by helping others; so even their love isn't entirely selfless.
> But if you tell all these things people may nominate you for a
> Nobel prize in Uninhibited Cynicism :-) and brand you a Cynical
> crackpot. So let us keep this to ourselves ;-)
This reminds me of my Tamil aiyaa, in the high school, saying
(( o o o
. . .___ .___ ______ o ____ ______ ___ ./ .____ . __
| | |_|_ |_|_ / /\ | ___\_|/ /\ \/ /\ | ( / || | |__ | | |
|___|(_./ )(_./ )O \/ | \__/ |\)\/ /O \/ | O L__|| | | ||__|__|
| / / \______/
o o
o ____ .___ .___ ____ _ ___ .___ .___ . ._ _. .___ .___
___\_|/ /\ \ |_|_ |_|_ / /\ \( \| | |_|_ |_|_ |/ | \ |_|_ |_|_
\__/ |\)\/ /(__) (_./_)\)\/ / O | | (_./ ) (_./_)J| | |(_./_)(_./_)
/ (___/ ,___/
___ o ___ o o
/ (_) ___ . ________/ _ . __ _____ ______ ._ _.
[ _ ( / |/ /\ /\ || |_.| | | ( | / /\ | / | \ |
\_(_) O L__|O \/ \/ |\___||__|__| O | O \/ | | _|__|_|
(___/
___ o o o ))
/ (_). ..____.____ ____ .___. .. .. . .____ ______
[ _ | || | | | / /\ \ |_|_| || || | | | / /\ |
\_(_)|___|| | | | \)\/ /(__) |___||___||___ |___ | | O \/ |
/
BTW: what is the Tamil word for paradox?
(I don't think it is 'kutharkkam.')
natpudan
S_Bala
Affable
>can't say.... His "maama peN" is the best judge of that :-).
:-)No, no,I no "nalla paiyan". "thambi" is correct in what ammaa said in
rapid multiplication. :-) But I don't know whether my dear, old friend,
(G)Krishna(murthy) will remember me and provide enough wealth [it's not as
easy as "mOr kuzhmbu" recipe ;-)] when I go with "aval" (parched rice?) after
22 years and six months (i.e. 270 months). :-) :-)
Cheers,
Venkat
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balaji Kannan
Bala writes:
>BTW: what is the Tamil word for paradox?
I don't know the Tamil equivalent; a paradox is something that
is opposed to common sense but is not *logically* contradictory.
Now maybe someone can come up with a term if it does not already
exist.
>(I don't think it is 'kutharkkam.')
Kutharkkam is just cynical disbelief or so I would think.
[one of attributing ulterior motives to every human action
howsoever noble; which is what the quoted paragraph was]
>natpudan
>S_Bala
Vijay Fafat
>> she get the stick for what is basically your own limp-wristedness?
>
>Then in that case, our girls also deserve blame. Think of this situation:
>I went against my parents and we were involved deeply. What if she had
>ditched me then as a victim of her parent's conspiracy for the sake of her
>siblings? Then in that case I'd be the loser and because of that deep
tell me about it :(
>> And if you do not have the courage of conviction, shd you be falling in
>> love in the first place and destroying someone else's life?
>This holds good for our dear girls also. They deserve more blame then
>the males. Usually, the girls don't go against their parents. I can
>cite another incident in my life.
>But enuff of it. Now I'm really happy with my "maamaa peN".
I'd told you it was not directed towards you but in general
>Thanks for the generic *you*. I certainly feel our girls(Some exceptions
>are there) need more courage than the males. Hope, FFT's *slaps on the
>cheeks* makes all out there to realize everything.
No, most of the time, it's a lost cause.....
>> ergo, don't fall in love outside your caste, don't try to stand
>> against what you consider to be "wrong" so that you don't dissatisfy
>> anyone and in general, play along with the system. In which case, I
>> would think one loses the right to bemoan and crib about the rotten
>> state of the society, right?
>Precisely, buddy. As long as the young nubile females don't go against
>their parents, why should I go? (*sarcastically*) Typically they say they
so now the ego battle royale....hmmm, love certainly is'nt about
ego.
>love their parents and need parent's approval, blah, blah... How many
>girls out there would go against their parents? Please raise your hands.
>I know, lots of males are ready to go against their parents if they find
>a perfect match. These gals, they think too much and they want to plan
>now itself for everything in the future. So , it doesn't work out.
perhaps....
>This is my last posting on this thread. The reason is not I dont' want
>to discuss. I don't have time. If I want to graduate,[and to get
>married :-)] I've get out of SCT [and the brat FFT ;-) who baits me]. At
>this rate of posting, I'd be on the top of Sthan's list for April.
huh? Whaddya think I've been trying to do for the past week, haan?
Sthanuji thinking of embarrassing with his most prolific title and
I'm not about to disappoint him :).
FFT
"Scotty, ever wondered if it's more profitable to be a
misogynist, in terms of happiness?"
Vijay Fafat
>> and is someone going to tell me Gayathri is male? I once fell in
>> love with a Meenakshi who turned out to have deep voice and a
>> healthy moustache :^).
>
>:-) :-) Rest assured, Fafat ! I no male and I no have a moustache except
>the one which peepuls stuck on my face when I played a man in some high
>school drama...
I'm wont to believe that, esp. since you're not posting from USC ;-).
Now I wonder about the effect if I revealed I'm a svelte femme fatale
hiding behind a mask for so long..... :). Look ma, no moustache!
>> The best antidote is : you also threaten with the same. "If you
>> suicide, then I suicide. If you live and not let live, then also
>> suicide" :-) Don't see how it can fail to work. Plus someone
>> shd get a taste of the same medicine, na? :)
>
>Nice solution, haan ? Perhaps you and Affable should jointly write a
>book of solutions - him with his "maamaa peN" solution and you with
>your "suicide" solution....
Unfortunately, his Mama hen-peck :) solution applies only to a
restricted class of peepuls [talk about philistinism! :)]. So
per force, poor boors like me have to hunt for own fodder on the
other side of the fence [where, unfortunately, the world is'nt so
genteel and kind :(]. Now if I can just get my leg free from that
blasted fence-wire......
>> I would'nt bet on this. Amma always said anna was fond of rapid
>> multiplication :^)
>>
>> Moonna.
>
>Well, I just assumed that anna was a traditional "nalla paiyan" - but
>can't say.... His "maama peN" is the best judge of that :-).
huh? what's the connection between "nalla paiyyan" and "non-rapid
multiplication"?? You mean "like begets like unlike nalla paiyyans
who don't beget at all"? Honestly, you must be a feminazi! :^)
FFT
"Scotty, if we put 2 rabbits in a transmutator, how many will
come out?"
Vijay Fafat
>:-)No, no,I no "nalla paiyan". "thambi" is correct in what ammaa said in
>rapid multiplication. :-) But I don't know whether my dear, old friend,
>(G)Krishna(murthy) will remember me and provide enough wealth [it's not as
~~~~~~~~~~~
>easy as "mOr kuzhmbu" recipe ;-)] when I go with "aval" (parched rice?) after
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now I wonder what you might be referring to :-J :-J
Vijay Fafat
> a paradox is something that is opposed to common sense but is not
> *logically* contradictory.
Actually, there are two kinds of paradoxes : those which are logically
consistent but cause confusion due to a wrong interpretation by common
sense - Relativity paradoxes fall in this category - and those which
are logically contradictory because of internal inconsistency or some
other pathological problem. This second kind is a real painful beast
and usually leads to some basic change in the way you think. For eg.,
Russell's set paradox.
FFT
"This is a false statement" - Epiminedes paradox.
Affable
>In article <1rmebr$d...@menudo.uh.edu> Venkatachalam Aruna
<ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu> writes:
>
>>:-)No, no,I no "nalla paiyan". "thambi" is correct in what ammaa said in
>>rapid multiplication. :-) But I don't know whether my dear, old friend,
>>(G)Krishna(murthy) will remember me and provide enough wealth [it's not as
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>easy as "mOr kuzhmbu" recipe ;-)] when I go with "aval" (parched rice?) after
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You dingaling:), I implied,when I'm in Kushela's (sp?), position with
27 kids :-) :-),I may seek help of (G)Krishna(murthy) and it may be difficult
for Krishna to give that enormous wealth(???) for the old friend.
> Now I wonder what you might be referring to :-J :-J
*sigh* fun is totally lost when you explain word by word to imbeciles. :-)
Or is it a bait for me to go on wasting time in posting in SCT?
[My advisor seriously thinks I'm doing some work always, as I'm sitting
in front of the terminal always. :-)]
Venkat
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balaji Kannan
chandrasekhar writes:
[...]
> Selflessness (true) is possible. But it is highly improbable !
> One in a million ??
>Ah, Yes! Absolutely true! Thats why we don't get a Buddha every year.
Karna - in the Mahabarata - epitomises selflessness of the most noble kind
Never hesitated to part with any of his 'possessions'. Parting with something
which puts one's life in jeopardy is something one does when
1) Faculty to think is lost
2) Think along the line: My 'attachment' to this object will
be temporary. If someone needs it ----> I *shall* give it
no matter what the consequences to me as a result.
Karna's was the second kind. Feel like giving --> I'll give it
Our disbelief can at times be so overwhelming to even categorize 2) as 1)
:-) [Invites "Seriyaana Mental case pa andha aalu. edha ketaalum kuduthidar
aan" :-)]
In day-to-day life we can find 2) in a lot of instances that does not put
one's own life in jeopardy. What one does not see is a *consistent* parting
away with 'possessions' (consistent selflessness) like Karna did.
[In times of emergencies, we can see that "goodness' , " selflessness" etc
is there aplenty. A railway accident or an inferno or ..... brings it to
the surface]
Buddha's was total renunciation. A Denial of the 'self'. His idea was
Attachment ----> Sorrow
If I can overcome attachment, I can avoid sorrow and that was his advice
to his followers too. "Don't crib about sorrow when you also want to
'attach' to something" [not exactly the way I put it ;-)]
Karna's was more mortalish !!
/* Rest of your post has been deleted as I don't have anything different/new
to say.. Thanks for chipping in ! */
Note to Bala: In a way, what you quoted does qualify as a paradox. Only
problem is that in human behavior it is very difficult to prove
something is logically consistent.[Everything can be reduced
----> "I". But the "I"s can always deny it u see :-)]
>In moments of great sorrow we are tempted to
>adopt the method of renunciation
Sometimes, you brood for no reason. Just some mental exercising...:-)
Vijay Fafat
>You dingaling:), I implied,when I'm in Kushela's (sp?), position with
>27 kids :-) :-),I may seek help of (G)Krishna(murthy) and it may be difficult
>for Krishna to give that enormous wealth(???) for the old friend.
>> Now I wonder what you might be referring to :-J :-J
>*sigh* fun is totally lost when you explain word by word to imbeciles. :-)
actually, fun is lost when annas can be dense as an evergreen Sylvan
forest and not understand the meaning of " :-J "....:) And to think
you're getting married.... :^)
>Or is it a bait for me to go on wasting time in posting in SCT?
Have you noticed the demographic change on sct?? There seem to be
less than 7 posters left now :-) I wonder how many have stopped
reading ;-)
FFT
"Captin, most of the Romulan ships have jumped into subspace and
fled"
"No, Scotty, they're hiding behind their cloaking devices, ready
to spring at any moment"
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
> In article <C679s...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>
> >> and is someone going to tell me Gayathri is male? I once fell in
> >> love with a Meenakshi who turned out to have deep voice and a
> >> healthy moustache :^).
> >
> >:-) :-) Rest assured, Fafat ! I no male and I no have a moustache except
> >the one which peepuls stuck on my face when I played a man in some high
> >school drama...
>
>
> I'm wont to believe that, esp. since you're not posting from USC ;-).
> Now I wonder about the effect if I revealed I'm a svelte femme fatale
> hiding behind a mask for so long..... :). Look ma, no moustache!
So ? For one you don't have much data about me either... There are
possibilities you ignore, no ? These are
a) I may be a grandma with several bEtas and bEtis with munnas, pappus
and tinkus of their own (a grandma who may give younger-sisterly
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
advice to you on your matrimonials) ...
b) I may be a femme fatale with non-heterosexual tendencies ;-) (in which
case *both* men and women may be in trouble).
c) I may be an avatar of Jai Maharaj ;-) hiding under a feminine name like
Gayathri with a phony email address in a place far, far away from Hawaii.
d) I may be one of the types who start calling all men "bhaiya" (you know
the types).
See ? Tough life if one wears one's heart on his/her sleeve, no ? The
heart gets exposed to all the elements (pun intended)....
> >
> >Nice solution, haan ? Perhaps you and Affable should jointly write a
> >book of solutions - him with his "maamaa peN" solution and you with
> >your "suicide" solution....
>
>
> Unfortunately, his Mama hen-peck :) solution applies only to a
> restricted class of peepuls [talk about philistinism! :)]. So
> per force, poor boors like me have to hunt for own fodder on the
> other side of the fence [where, unfortunately, the world is'nt so
> genteel and kind :(]. Now if I can just get my leg free from that
> blasted fence-wire......
I know. Just remember the advice about the dangers of wearing your heart
on your sleeve :-)...
>
>
> >> I would'nt bet on this. Amma always said anna was fond of rapid
> >> multiplication :^)
> >>
> >> Moonna.
> >
> >Well, I just assumed that anna was a traditional "nalla paiyan" - but
> >can't say.... His "maama peN" is the best judge of that :-).
>
> huh? what's the connection between "nalla paiyyan" and "non-rapid
> multiplication"?? You mean "like begets like unlike nalla paiyyans
> who don't beget at all"? Honestly, you must be a feminazi! :^)
Na, Na ! That's not what I meant....Me very innocent. I meant nalla paiyyan
in the sense that he didn't lie when he said "long way to go" in his own
posting - see ? 8-( (innocent, utterly-shocked-by-such-accusations look).
Gayathri.
(Sheesh ! Why do I get this feeling that I'm violating the first principles
of my .sig ?)
Balaji Kannan
Gayathri (boy,girl,mustachioed eminence,maami,paatti,nooneknowswho)
writes :-)
>(Sheesh ! Why do I get this feeling that I'm violating the first principles
>of my .sig ?)
Here are a few questions for you to ponder. [kinda mock-serious]
1) How do you classify trouble - the personal noun ?
(don't tell me someone who asks qns.
is one ;-). don't also tell me "OK , I
won't tell you" :-))
2) How does one (ok you) trouble trouble ?
(don't tell me by answering the qns. :-))
When you start troubling trouble, you are asking for more trouble don't
you think ?? Just some troubling thoughts :-)
A grandma with several betas and betis haan ??
This grandma has enthu to post on newsgroups ?? Interesting! :->
Disclaimer: I have nothing against the grandmas who anyway are
posting :-)
>--
>-----------------------------------------
>email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
>Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
cheers,
M. Sundaramoorthy
>In article <1rmjqn$m...@menudo.uh.edu> Venkatachalam Aruna <ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu> writes:
>
>>Or is it a bait for me to go on wasting time in posting in SCT?
>
> Have you noticed the demographic change on sct?? There seem to be
> less than 7 posters left now :-) I wonder how many have stopped
> reading ;-)
Yeah. Old peepuls retire. New annas and munnas come in.
This is a sign of Tamil Society and Culture coming to an end. (Is
there any reference in the Vedas?. FFT, watch carefully the conv.
in soc.cluture.vedic.langots, when KT's turn comes).
It is time to change the name of SCT to
soc.culture.anna.munna.kanna(bk).krishna(gk)......(maama
peNNa, if joins anna soon)...
FFT, I teach you Tamil you teach me FFT :-)
First lesson: anna and vedicists
(a) Arunachalam - Tamil equivalent Annamalai
so,
aruna = anna
(b) Chemisty - Tamil equivalent is vEdhiyal
so,
Vedicist = Chemist
(Was Benzen struture known to Vedicists, before Kekule dreamt
three snakes ...? )
>
> FFT
>
--
M. Sundaramoorthy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
sun...@esv1.hsis.uci.edu
Vijay Fafat
>So ? For one you don't have much data about me either... There are
>possibilities you ignore, no ? These are
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've already said I'm a Pollyanna :-)
>
>a) I may be a grandma with several bEtas and bEtis with munnas, pappus
> and tinkus of their own (a grandma who may give younger-sisterly
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> advice to you on your matrimonials) ...
Holy Matahari! To think I'm being subtly accused of covert line-maroing
right inside the bastion of the die-hard Tamils! egads!! *fingers
clenched between teeth, hair standing upright with fright*
*sheepish look* yes, yes, one can always do with a sister [though
given the vanity of women, I'm not sure about the younger part ;-)]
>b) I may be a femme fatale with non-heterosexual tendencies ;-) (in which
> case *both* men and women may be in trouble).
I would rather think a man [or men :)] was [were] delivered from the
pains of life! ;-)
>d) I may be one of the types who start calling all men "bhaiya" (you know
> the types).
yes, didi, I know the ayyoamma type girls :)
>See ? Tough life if one wears one's heart on his/her sleeve, no ? The
>heart gets exposed to all the elements (pun intended)....
and you call yourself a hopeless romantic...sheesh! what a slur
on us dreamer kind... :-)
>> other side of the fence [where, unfortunately, the world is'nt so
>> genteel and kind :(]. Now if I can just get my leg free from that
>> blasted fence-wire......
>
>I know. Just remember the advice about the dangers of wearing your heart
>on your sleeve :-)...
huh? what advice? I'm a bit hard of hearing [and limp a littil]
>> huh? what's the connection between "nalla paiyyan" and "non-rapid
>> multiplication"?? You mean "like begets like unlike nalla paiyyans
>> who don't beget at all"? Honestly, you must be a feminazi! :^)
>
>Na, Na ! That's not what I meant....Me very innocent.
nice sense of humour :)
>I meant nalla paiyyan
>in the sense that he didn't lie when he said "long way to go" in his own
>posting - see ? 8-( (innocent, utterly-shocked-by-such-accusations look).
nice acting too!!
>(Sheesh ! Why do I get this feeling that I'm violating the first principles
> of my .sig ?)
>Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
heard of "preaching is easier than practice"? :-J
FFT
"A bird in hand is more than one can ask for"
S. Sankarapandi
There is another type of movies which may look novel and different but
carefully provide the women with some stupid alternatives to escape from their
problems. They are very ridiculous and unusual too. Lalitha-Padmini's first
film `maNamakaL' (1951), Sujatha-Muthuraman's `vaazhnthu kaattukiREn' (1975),
MaNiyan's (Rojaramani-Muthuraman starring) `vayacup ponnu' (1978) and
Sripiriya-Sivakumar's `avan-avaL-athu (1980) etc are some examples.
When `maNamakaL' comes to know about the notoreity of her husband, she
pledges to live as a wife only for the outside world, not at home. In
`vaazhnthu kaattukiREn', the wife wants to protests the husband who visits
prostitutes and hence becomes herself a prostitute. In Sivashankari's
avan-avaL-athu, the heroine acts a surrogate mother to carry somebody's fetus
but finally treats him as her husband and has sex with him.
It is understandable that Sivashankari and Maniyan come up with such wierd
and stupid stories but even `progressive' writers like Jeyakanthan could create
a woman character who surrenders to the same man who raped her once (cila
nErankaLil cila manitharkaL). Parthiban's `puthiya paathai' is another foolish
movie which has been discussed in this newsgroup enough.
In the same series, `mankammaaL cabatham' (1949) can be included with
a very small difference. A woman hates her criminal husband and hence decides
to take revenge on him by getting a child through him and bringing him up to
fulfill that revenge. How can any woman bear a child through somebody after
beginning to hate him. (I have not seen this movie but there was a very
similar movie with the same name `mankammaaL cabatham' with Kamal as the son in
the eighties. I dont know whether it was just a remake of the old one).
There were also few movies in which a woman takes revenge of her husband's
enemies. annaiyin aaNai (1958), puNNiya pUmi (1978), kodi paRakkuthu (1988),
puthu nellu puthu naaththu (1990) are few examples.
Some cinema women wanted to escape from the life forced on them but then
later reconsidered and decided to accept the `reality' and hence changed their
attitudes. The heroines in Mahendran's `nenchaththai kiLLathE' (1980),
Manirathnam's `mouna raagam' (1986) and Bhagyaraj's `antha Ezhu naatkaL' (1981)
could not live with their loved ones for some reasons. Because of their
failure, they did not want to live with the persons they were got married and
decided to stay away from such life. But finally they are moved by the good
characteristics of their husbands and accept that life.
Jeyakantan's `oru nadikai naadakam paarkkiraaL' (1978) was also of the
same type. The heroine wants to get divorced due to some differences with her
husband but later she changes her mind seeing his humanist nature on many
occasions. All these movies except `antha Ezhu naatkaL' are quite decent
compared to many we have discussed earlier.
Bhagyaraj's `antha Ezhu naatkaL' showed his unprincipled talents which
would not hesitate in conveying any stupid and retrogressive message through
art forms. In this movie the heroine tells her husband about her pre-marital
love affair on the first night itself. The doctor husband, progressive in
his thinking, agrees to search for her previous lover and requests her to stay
in his house until then. But the lover who was traced after seven days gives
a big lecture on tradition and culture etc and rejects her. Actually Bhagyaraj
hinted in a magazine that he wrote this story based on comedy actor
Chandrababu's life but Chandrababu in his real life found the lover and they
married happily. Bhagyaraj wanted to develope a climax for his movie and hence
sacrificed her life and conveyed a very wrong message through this movie. The
irony is that the same Bhagyaraj wrote the story and screen play for Bharathi
Raja's `puthiya vaarppukaL' (btw, I consider this as Bharathi Raja's best movie
among all his movies) which has been discussed in this net by Mr.Asokan.
`puthiya vaarppukaL' had the climax just opposite where the heroine cuts her
`thaali' and throws away in order to marry her lover. But `antha Ezhu naatkaL'
lectures about the greatness of `thaali' and ruins the heroine's life. This
type of movies only suppress liberal thinking which would come spontaneously
from a woman.
Bhagyaraj's another absurd movie `mouna geethankaL' has already been
discussed by Gayatry.
... To be continued
S. Sankarapandi
Chandrasekhar Kambhampati
>> Selflessness (true) is possible. But it is highly improbable !
>> One in a million ??
>>Ah, Yes! Absolutely true! Thats why we don't get a Buddha every year.
> Karna - in the Mahabarata - epitomises selflessness of the most noble kind
> Never hesitated to part with any of his 'possessions'. Parting with something
> which puts one's life in jeopardy is something one does when
Yes, what you say is true. Selflessness taken by itself, - would yield the
example of Karna( he is afterall called Dana, veera, and Sura).
However, if he was selfish - initially - he would have become unselfish
and also have selflessness as one of his atributes. (selflessness,
selfishness etc are attributes here). Buddha was selfish to start with -
so were many other people in his mould. Selfish - to renounce the world,
leave his wife, soc etc to fend for themselves - so that he could attain
nirvana. Selfishness is one of the reprequisites to go down the path of
search for the ultimate truth - for you are single minded in your
objective and donot let anything else come in your way. BUt having
attained that which you seek - you become selfless and overcome
selfishness and are really not incumbered with the baggage ordinary mortals
carry around.
It is a funny paradox! I do agree.
> 1) Faculty to think is lost
But this is not selflessness - for if you thought all was not lost you
would give something which would put your life on the line.
> 2) Think along the line: My 'attachment' to this object will
> be temporary. If someone needs it ----> I *shall* give it
> no matter what the consequences to me as a result.
> Karna's was the second kind. Feel like giving --> I'll give it
SLight problem with this argument. Karna gave up his kavac and kundallu
to Indra - eventhough he did want to give it. He gave it up because he
had given his word - that is selfishness in a mortal sort of way. He
gave his word hence he could go back on it lest he get a bad name.
In that sense karna's selflessness was not of the second kind - he
didnot give up what he held dearly because he felt that it was just a
temporary attachment - but gave it up coz he gave his word to Indra!
> In day-to-day life we can find 2) in a lot of instances that does not put
> one's own life in jeopardy. What one does not see is a *consistent* parting
> away with 'possessions' (consistent selflessness) like Karna did.
Yes, it is true that we rarely see the consistent selflessness of the
Karna kind - in our day to day existence!
> Buddha's was total renunciation. A Denial of the 'self'. His idea was
> Attachment ----> Sorrow
> If I can overcome attachment, I can avoid sorrow and that was his advice
That is selfish to start with - if I can avoid attachemnt, I can avoid
sorrow - it is something I want - and forgetting the sorrow other around
me feel - the sorrow of my wife, kids, parents etc, etc, ect,....
> to his followers too. "Don't crib about sorrow when you also want to
> 'attach' to something" [not exactly the way I put it ;-)]
You never know. He could have said it in exactly the way you put it!
;-)
> Karna's was more mortalish !!
Buddha's was also mortalish - to start with - we made him immortal!
just as we also make Karna immortal - but in a different sort of way!
cheers
chandrasekhar
Chandrasekhar Kambhampati
Enjoying this series. Its pretty refreshing.
> There is another type of movies which may look novel and different but
>carefully provide the women with some stupid alternatives to escape from their
>problems. They are very ridiculous and unusual too. Lalitha-Padmini's first
They are not really ridiculous. For a start, films try to depict the
woman in some ideal way, hence they go in for the sati savitri type of
characters. Then along comes the idea that all is not hunkydory in the
real world - men are brutes, MCPs etc etctec. They have to rectify their
views/portrayal. Hence the ideas along the lines of " she pledges to live as a
wife only for the outside world, not at home" and some other bilge. They
contort themselves soo that they can still portray women as some sort of
a sati savitri. (It as if they are stuck in some pre-ordained synthesise
formula). By doing so they are not doing women any favours. They are
belittling their intelligence and ours as men. They add insult to injury
and are plain bloody downright patronising to women and society.
There really wouldnot be any problems at all if we did not take films as
a serious portryal of reality (in the Indian context). Then we could
laugh it of. Though I must admit that there are serious pitfalls in this
argument - such as a repeated veiwing of such films, we start taking it
for granted that women are like that etc, etc, etc,.......
Breaking this Gordian knot needs changes in ourselves (as individuals
first) and then and only then will society change. Getting one person
today to agree with some set of correct views (correct here is a
temporary thing) and values is perhaps a small step but is indeed
valuable....cliche time here....small drops make the ocean etc..., and also
women making serious attempts at changing attitudes - easily said then done....
.but then changes are on the way..we see it around us..........
chandrasekhar
Affable
>
> Yeah. Old peepuls retire. New annas and munnas come in.
> This is a sign of Tamil Society and Culture coming to an end. (Is
> there any reference in the Vedas?. FFT, watch carefully the conv.
> in soc.cluture.vedic.langots, when KT's turn comes).
>
> It is time to change the name of SCT to
>
> soc.culture.anna.munna.kanna(bk).krishna(gk)......(maama
> peNNa, if joins anna soon)...
How I wish this comes true soon. :-)
>
> FFT, I teach you Tamil you teach me FFT :-)
>
> First lesson: anna and vedicists
>
> (a) Arunachalam - Tamil equivalent Annamalai
> so,
> aruna = anna
>
> (b) Chemisty - Tamil equivalent is vEdhiyal
> so,
> Vedicist = Chemist
> (Was Benzen struture known to Vedicists, before Kekule dreamt
> three snakes ...? )
way. But I like it, since in SCT, it's easy to keep track of things
because of smaller proportion. Contradictory, huh? Can't help it. Hope
to see some good articles from you and also the drivel (bak-bak) from FFT.:-)
Earlier, all the articles were too serious and now it's too much fun.
Neither of them is good for health.[aLavukku minjinaal amudhamum nanjaagum]
:-) Let us have some variety.
Regards
Venkat
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RANGANATHAN A
>IMO, in India, women are considered to be more virtuous and dignified
>than men. In the US, women can do anything and everything that a man
^^^^^^^^^
Hey guys, u just got insulted here ! :-)
btw, r the indian women outside india no longer considered *more virtuous
and dignified than men* ? Totally curious !!
>can do. BUT, can you imagine an Indian mother smoke? An American wouldn't
>mind his mother smoking or drinking.... But wouldn't an Indian son be
^^^^^^^
but u r not exactly sure about this r u ? I mean there could be an Indian`
son who wouldn't mind his mother smoking.
Afterall, what is a cigarette ? smoking tobacco, if these sons can accept
their mother chewing pOyalai, why not smoking ? no differences, they would
still get cancer, just the type differs.
>disgusted with his mother if she were to do these things???
>
>And I think Indian women ARE respected for such virtuous-ness
>exhibited by them (and expected of them...). I would link the "mother_can_
I wonder, could it be becoz she conforms to the ideals of the man ??
If she doesn't, she gets no respect eh ?
>get_things_done_quickly_in_a_line/queue" thing to this...... I doubt
>if a highly westernized Indian girl would get the same treatment if she were to
and why is that ? I would be delighted if you could clarify ur statement.
Could u also define what u mean by "highly westernized Indian girl", please ?
Btw, r u aware that u have managed to insult the woman in india whom u
respect, when u say that she succeeds in jumping the line ?
But, if by ur definition "jumping the line" is part of virtuous-ness, then
I withdraw the above question.
Have u ever noticed how these westerners stand in lines when they have to ?
Would that not be the attitude of this h-w-I-g ?
>try to "jump the line".
>
>True, women are being exploited in India.... And being portrayed in movies in
>a wrong way. BUT, there is some thing in an Indian woman that distinguishes
>herself from Indian men AND/OR women of other nationalities...
Could that something be that she thrives on letting herself be exploited ???
>Probably that is what they are trying to portray in Indian films.
That her very existence is to be exploited by the INDIAN MEN who do respect her
eh ?
>
>I am sure many of us would like that our women retain this
>nature peculiar to them.
yet, no mention of what the indian woman would like for herself !
Should'nt the men who respect this virtuous woman also respect her
wishes ?
>
>DEV
regards,
arathi.
---
--
What we call the beginning is often the end
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
The end is where we start from...
- T.S. Eliot,"Four quartets"
RANGANATHAN A
>I think not. Why would you be disgusted with your mother for anything?
>Disappointed maybe. I think if you're exposed to ladies who smoke from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But why ?
>the very beginning, you would not squirm if you saw your mother with a
>cigarette in hand. Why don't you feel disgusted with your father if he smokes?
Won't u feel disappointed if ur father smokes ?
>
>Srikant
take care,
arathi.
Chandrasekhar Kambhampati
> (Was Benzen struture known to Vedicists, before Kekule dreamt
> three snakes ...? )
factual error I think! The vedicists knew that Benzene was a
cyclic molecule - and Kekule (having had a special sneek preview) said
he had a dream of six devils(imps) dancing around - and came up with the
Benzene Structure!
:wq
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
>
>
> Gayathri (boy,girl,mustachioed eminence,maami,paatti,nooneknowswho)
> writes :-)
>
> >(Sheesh ! Why do I get this feeling that I'm violating the first principles
> >of my .sig ?)
>
> Here are a few questions for you to ponder. [kinda mock-serious]
>
> 1) How do you classify trouble - the personal noun ?
> (don't tell me someone who asks qns.
> is one ;-). don't also tell me "OK , I
> won't tell you" :-))
Simple. The meaning varies depending on the situation. Try BK for
one :-) (try Fafat if you want another).
>
> 2) How does one (ok you) trouble trouble ?
> (don't tell me by answering the qns. :-))
By making statements like the one in parantheses in the answer to 1.
> When you start troubling trouble, you are asking for more trouble don't
> you think ?? Just some troubling thoughts :-)
I know. That's why I got the feeling I was violating the 1st principles of
my .sig.
> A grandma with several betas and betis haan ??
> This grandma has enthu to post on newsgroups ?? Interesting! :->
What to do ? If Jai Maharaj and Jayalalitha Jayaram start posting,
maybe (just maybe) paattis too would become enthu enough to flex
their muscles :-).
> Disclaimer: I have nothing against the grandmas who anyway are
> posting :-)
Me too. Nothing against grandpas (even those who post their own
matrimonials) or ask questions about troubles ... There I go
again troubling trouble !
> cheers,
> bk
>
> "...Ma Kuru dhana jana yuvvanna garvam; harathinimesha kaalaa sarvam..."
Gayathri.
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
> I've already said I'm a Pollyanna :-)
Shouldn't that be Polymunna :-)?
> >b) I may be a femme fatale with non-heterosexual tendencies ;-) (in which
> > case *both* men and women may be in trouble).
>
> I would rather think a man [or men :)] was [were] delivered from the
> pains of life! ;-)
Not so fast. Ever done some Mathematical theorem-proving ? The
existence of something doesn't preclude the existence of something
else. So, the existence of non-heterosexual tendencies may not
preclude heterosexual tendencies....get the point :-) ?
> >d) I may be one of the types who start calling all men "bhaiya" (you know
> > the types).
>
> yes, didi, I know the ayyoamma type girls :)
Sheesh ! Didi ? I already said that I'm much younger than peepuls
desperate enough to post matrimonials :-) (and you already said
that you are wont to believe me since I'm not from USC ;-)).
> >See ? Tough life if one wears one's heart on his/her sleeve, no ? The
> >heart gets exposed to all the elements (pun intended)....
>
> and you call yourself a hopeless romantic...sheesh! what a slur
> on us dreamer kind... :-)
Yes, hopeless romantic. But, wearing the heart on the sleeve may
wear one out soon enough to hit the bOthal (bottle), no ? And I'm
already living on credit cards (sigh)...it's a question of economics !
Don't have money to waste on bOthals...
> >I know. Just remember the advice about the dangers of wearing your heart
> >on your sleeve :-)...
>
> huh? what advice? I'm a bit hard of hearing [and limp a littil]
Never mind, FFT :-).
> >> huh? what's the connection between "nalla paiyyan" and "non-rapid
> >> multiplication"?? You mean "like begets like unlike nalla paiyyans
> >> who don't beget at all"? Honestly, you must be a feminazi! :^)
> >
> >Na, Na ! That's not what I meant....Me very innocent.
>
> nice sense of humour :)
What ! 8-(
>
> >I meant nalla paiyyan
> >in the sense that he didn't lie when he said "long way to go" in his own
> >posting - see ? 8-( (innocent, utterly-shocked-by-such-accusations look).
>
> nice acting too!!
Hmm... accusing innocent bhOli bhAli (appAvi) women like me of acting....
Anna is right - you certainly are a brat unlike Anna ;-)...
> FFT
> "A bird in hand is more than one can ask for"
Certainly....Only when it's hard to get even that does one post
matrimonials ;-)
Cheers,
Gayathri.
--
-----------------------------------------
email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
Srikant Sridevan
In article <36...@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, ran...@cs.uwindsor.ca
(RANGANATHAN A ) writes:
> In article <1993Apr26.2...@ncsu.edu> s...@apollo.psrc.ncsu.edu
> (Srikant Sridevan) writes:
> >I think not. Why would you be disgusted with your mother for
> anything?
> >Disappointed maybe. I think if you're exposed to ladies who smoke
> from
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> But why ?
>
> >the very beginning, you would not squirm if you saw your mother with
> a
> >cigarette in hand. Why don't you feel disgusted with your father if
> he smokes?
>
> Won't u feel disappointed if ur father smokes ?
>
You've answered your earlier question. Yes, I would feel disappointed
if my father smokes and it would be the same with my mom also. I value
both their lives equally. :-)
Srikant
--
e-mail : s...@apollo.psrc.ncsu.edu | Legalize it,
| And I'll advertise it.
Disclaimer : All disclaimers except this one, apply. |
--
Affable
>
>Hmm... accusing innocent bhOli bhAli (appAvi) women like me of acting....
>Anna is right - you certainly are a brat unlike Anna ;-)...
Oh Gawd! we've heard of "bhaiyya calling females" and rare "munni calling
males".But this is the first time, I'm seeing "bhaiyya calling grandma" ;-) ;-)
*sigh*. Anyway, if grandma is younger than 26 :-) [hota hai, hota hai. :-)
Yes, theoretically it's possible ;-)], let me retract that statement and
you're most welcome to call me "annaa" instead of "pEraaNdi". ;-) ;-)
Cheers,
Balaji Kannan
fa...@sal-sun37.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat) writes:
>Actually, there are two kinds of paradoxes : those which are logically
>consistent but cause confusion due to a wrong interpretation by common
>sense - Relativity paradoxes fall in this category - and those which
>are logically contradictory because of internal inconsistency or some
>other pathological problem. This second kind is a real painful beast
>and usually leads to some basic change in the way you think. For eg.,
>Russell's set paradox.
>FFT
>"This is a false statement" - Epiminedes paradox.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The original Epimenides paradox was:
Epimenedes: All Cretans are liars
Epimenedes was a Cretan.
The truth value keeps fluctuating based on the value you
momentarily assign to the statement. Martin Gardner had a
nice example to illustrate these semantic paradoxes:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On one side of a card you write:
The statement on the other side of this card is True
On the other side you write:
The statement on the other side of this card is False
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You keep turning the card till you --> crazy ;-)
As for Russel's set theory paradox, Bertrand Russell used
a 'barber's paardox' to demonstrate it.
I shave only those men in town and all those men who don't
shave themselves. ----- sign on a barber shop.
Qn. is ---> who shaves the barber ??
Vijay Fafat
>> I've already said I'm a Pollyanna :-)
>
> Shouldn't that be Polymunna :-)?
No! I'm single yet! :) :( But of course, once anna gets into
rapid multiplication, he'll probably be called "Pollymunna-wala" :-)
>> >b) I may be a femme fatale with non-heterosexual tendencies ;-) (in which
>> > case *both* men and women may be in trouble).
>>
>> I would rather think a man [or men :)] was [were] delivered from the
>> pains of life! ;-)
>
> Not so fast. Ever done some Mathematical theorem-proving ? The
> existence of something doesn't preclude the existence of something
> else. So, the existence of non-heterosexual tendencies may not
> preclude heterosexual tendencies....get the point :-) ?
while the expatiation on Existential theorem and a grazing reference
to Uniqueness is pretty lucid, you seem to have missed the Mutually
Exclusivity theorem. Now you could, of course, argue about it's
applicability in this particular case and I'd be hardput to find a
non sequiter in it due to incomplete data about your tendencies, I
still tht a discussion on such much would have been incomplete
without this short footnote :-)
>> >d) I may be one of the types who start calling all men "bhaiya" (you know
>> > the types).
>>
>> yes, didi, I know the ayyoamma type girls :)
>
> Sheesh ! Didi ? I already said that I'm much younger than peepuls
> desperate enough to post matrimonials :-) (and you already said
> that you are wont to believe me since I'm not from USC ;-)).
Who can fathom a woman's mind [existence theorem granted for personal
safety ;-)]? While the insinuation and implication are clear to
all but the densest, I'm double-minded about this invitation for a
"Tango in Paris and two-straws-in-the-same-glass-cold-drink-drinking"
[whoever said you're the only romantic, haan? :)] since you have a
track-record of twisting your own statements on the rebound :-) :-)
O, and btw, don't bet on the "younger" part. There's a good chance
you'll lose :)
>> and you call yourself a hopeless romantic...sheesh! what a slur
>> on us dreamer kind... :-)
>
> Yes, hopeless romantic. But, wearing the heart on the sleeve may
> wear one out soon enough to hit the bOthal (bottle), no ?
nope. The very word, "hopeless" precludes this.
> And I'm
> already living on credit cards (sigh)...it's a question of economics !
> Don't have money to waste on bOthals...
so be hopeless! :-)
>> >I know. Just remember the advice about the dangers of wearing your heart
>> >on your sleeve :-)...
>>
>> huh? what advice? I'm a bit hard of hearing [and limp a littil]
>
> Never mind, FFT :-).
sheesh! I think I just blew my opportunity for that Paris tango. I
swear I don't limp, I swear :-)
>> >Na, Na ! That's not what I meant....Me very innocent.
>>
>> nice sense of humour :)
>
>What ! 8-(
Try giving a woman a compliment.... :)
>> nice acting too!!
>
>Hmm... accusing innocent bhOli bhAli (appAvi) women like me of acting....
>Anna is right - you certainly are a brat unlike Anna ;-)...
thank you, thank you *bow*. If you be bholi-bhlai, then I certainly
am a brat :^) heh heh.
>> FFT
>> "A bird in hand is more than one can ask for"
>
> Certainly....Only when it's hard to get even that does one post
> matrimonials ;-)
:-) and one under a pseudonym too!
Badriprasad Sarvanandam :-)
Prabhu Balaraman
an entire article while posting replies...and yeah, lop
those huge .sigs too :)
----------------
"Look maa, no .sig"
V. Nagarajan
>
> There is another type of movies which may look novel and different but
>carefully provide the women with some stupid alternatives to escape from their
>problems. They are very ridiculous and unusual too. Lalitha-Padmini's first
>film `maNamakaL' (1951), Sujatha-Muthuraman's `vaazhnthu kaattukiREn' (1975),
>MaNiyan's (Rojaramani-Muthuraman starring) `vayacup ponnu' (1978) and
>Sripiriya-Sivakumar's `avan-avaL-athu (1980) etc are some examples.
>
> When `maNamakaL' comes to know about the notoreity of her husband, she
>pledges to live as a wife only for the outside world, not at home. In
>`vaazhnthu kaattukiREn', the wife wants to protests the husband who visits
>prostitutes and hence becomes herself a prostitute. In Sivashankari's
>avan-avaL-athu, the heroine acts a surrogate mother to carry somebody's fetus
>but finally treats him as her husband and has sex with him.
>
> It is understandable that Sivashankari and Maniyan come up with such wierd
>and stupid stories but even `progressive' writers like Jeyakanthan could create
>a woman character who surrenders to the same man who raped her once (cila
>nErankaLil cila manitharkaL). Parthiban's `puthiya paathai' is another foolish
>movie which has been discussed in this newsgroup enough.
The premise of maNamakaL, as you have outlined it, doesn't sound
weird at all. I think quite a few couples carry on appearing to have
normal relationship while, in fact, there may exist no intimacy or
anything approaching a normal relationship between them. This is
true even in this permissive society, but among those who consider
divorce to be a taboo or a sin. Among our middle class, which tends
to be traditional and conservative, what you describe is not uncommon.
But even if it were, the theme doesn't sound implausible.
On the other hand much too much is made out of our conservatism. The
bounds of our social behavior are quite elastic and what might be
glaringly aberrant and deviant, say, in this highly organized society,
may elicit only a few behind-the-back snide comments in ours.
By way of adding yet another wrinkle, I must say that we also tend
not to confront aberrance directly. For example, we had a teacher
(a confirmed bachelor) in high school who was in the habit of molesting
boys. There were a lot of rumors around but the adults pretended like
there wasn't much to it. "Oh Raju Sir, what do you know, he is a homo",
they would snicker. Finally, when the son of an influential
person was molested, they couldn't take it any more and Raju was
punished - he was transferred to another school! I digress...
Good show, Sankarapandi!
- Nagarajan
Sundara Pandian
> There is another type of movies which may look novel and different but
>carefully provide the women with some stupid alternatives to escape from their
>problems. They are very ridiculous and unusual too...
[....]
> It is understandable that Sivashankari and Maniyan come up with such weird
>and stupid stories but even `progressive' writers like Jeyakanthan could create
>a woman character who surrenders to the same man who raped her once (cila
>nErankaLil cila manitharkaL).
1. I agree with your general statement that JK's `sila nErangaLil sila
manidharkaL' is weird and unrealistic, but I like to make some
general comments on this book, and your reference to this movie.
2. JK provoked a controversy in the literary world by his short-story
`agni piravEsam' ( It came on Ananda Vikatan, 20 Nov '66 ). For
those, who have not read Ramayana, `agni piravEsam' refers to Sita's
entering the fire after Rama rescues her from the Lanka king Ravana
to prove her chastity (`kaRpu'). JK's short-story is about an
incident on a college-girl's life. On a rainy day, the girl takes
the lift someone passing in a car nearby her college gives her and
he seduces her in the car. When she returns home, she gets overcome
by a sudden fear and she cries when she tells her mother what happened.
Her mother, who is first shocked, tells the girl not to worry about
it and "purifies" her by bathing her daughter with water. She says
like the water is the fire that will purify her. This story which
came on AV provoked a big controversy. The purists were angry over JK's
short-story. (Balakumaran mentions this short-story in his interview
to Komal that I posted earlier. Balakumaran mentions the opposition
to JK's short-story when it first came and adds that today, even a
bucket of water is not necessary..)
3. There were some counter-stories to JK's `agni piravEsam', and in
a story by Vimala Ramani of the same title(67), the mother who bathes
her daughter (who was seduced) to purify her. But the girl burns
herself to death to prove her purity. In another story(67) by Jayalakshmi,
the girl, who was seduced, burns herself, turns ugly. She saves her
seducer from some thugs and now-changed-villain marries her.
4. I hope you get a general understanding of the reaction to JK's
short-story in the press. Whereas in JK's short-story, the girl
gets away without any `punishment', other writers call for a
punishment to the girl (as I noted in (3), the purists include
women writers also). Punishment or a bucket of water, whether such
a purification is necessary first of all, is a good question which
was not discussed in the `agni piravEsam' days however.
5. JK's `sila nErangaLil sila manidharkaL' starts with the general
question - what if the girl's mother does not take it easy ?
(JK says this in his preface to this novel.) The novel
also starts very much like in the `agni piravEsam' story.
Ganga is seduced by Prabhu who gives her a lift in his car on
a rainy day. Her mother is not so nice like the mother in the
short-story and discontinues Ganga's college studies and sends
her to her elder brother's house staying where Ganga completes
her studies. Ganga returns to the city when she gets a job.
The story `agni piravEsam' comes on a magazine and Ganga overhears
a talk between her mother and uncle, her mother or uncle talks
loudly if she is really courageous, she should find the guy
who seduced her and live with him. The rest of the novel is
about the realtionship that builds between Ganga and Prabhu.
As the title says, it is `sila nErangaLil sila manidharkaL'
meaning `some men at some times'. In the story, JK talks about
how the relationships between his characters change with time.
Prabhu, who seduced Ganga in the beginning, says in a later
part of the same story that Ganga is like a daughter to him,
and he welcomes steps for an arranged marriage for Ganga with
someone. Ganga's widow-mother and her brother and his family,
who once hated Prabhu, develop a good relation with him. But,
Ganga falls in love with Prabhu and refuses any arranged
marriage with others. Unlike the short-story `agni piravEsam',
this novel lacks a central theme, and talks randomly as the
title suggests. The public welcomed this novel when it was coming
as a serial, and because of the success of this serial ( in
`Dinamani Kathir' ?), JK wrote a sequel `gangai engE pOkiRaaL?'
which was more random than its predecessor. The less said about
is better.
6. JK wrote the screenplay of `sila nErangaLil sila manidharkaL'
also and the movie was directed by Bhim Singh. (It was his
last movie.) The movie featured some good performances by
Srikanth and Laxmi who played the roles Prabhu and Laxmi. Their
performance was so close to the original that I used to think
of Srikanth and Laxmi (their movie-roles) whenever I read
JK's Prabhu and Ganga. On a similar note, I also liked Laxmi's
acting in her role in the JK's movie `oru nadikai naadakam
paarkkiRaaL', though I did not like the story/movie. (This movie
came on Doordharsan once.)
SP
Vijay Fafat
In article <C694J...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>> 1) How do you classify trouble - the personal noun ?
> Simple. The meaning varies depending on the situation. Try BK for
> one :-) (try Fafat if you want another).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 2) How does one (ok you) trouble trouble ?
>
> By making statements like the one in parantheses in the answer to 1.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Huh? Me? ME? look at my cherubic, innocent face. Is that a face of
a criminal? A brat? A rabble-rouser? O! The ignominy! The shame of
it! My littil heart break :-(....
>Me too. Nothing against grandpas (even those who post their own
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>matrimonials) or ask questions about troubles ... There I go
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>again troubling trouble !
:-) ahem..err..is this some novel way of responding to a matrimonial
and being *cough cough* coy about it? :) Nalla peN.
>Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
so spake grandma hen :)
FFT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oie capn Hook, you beez careful; zat dirty 'ol croc eez waiting for ya.."
"Better croc than crooked femme, zat eez wat my faaazer alwez seez.."
"Faazzer always knows bezt. Buzz do you lizzin to ze faazer?"
"Nah.. ze son who leeziins to ze parenzz is no black seeep at all..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meenan Vishnu
>This reminds me of my Tamil aiyaa, in the high school, saying
>(( o o o
> . . .___ .___ ______ o ____ ______ ___ ./ .____ . __
> | | |_|_ |_|_ / /\ | ___\_|/ /\ \/ /\ | ( / || | |__ | | |
> |___|(_./ )(_./ )O \/ | \__/ |\)\/ /O \/ | O L__|| | | ||__|__|
> | / / \______/
> o o
> o ____ .___ .___ ____ _ ___ .___ .___ . ._ _. .___ .___
>___\_|/ /\ \ |_|_ |_|_ / /\ \( \| | |_|_ |_|_ |/ | \ |_|_ |_|_
>\__/ |\)\/ /(__) (_./_)\)\/ / O | | (_./ ) (_./_)J| | |(_./_)(_./_)
> / (___/ ,___/
> ___ o ___ o o
>/ (_) ___ . ________/ _ . __ _____ ______ ._ _.
>[ _ ( / |/ /\ /\ || |_.| | | ( | / /\ | / | \ |
>\_(_) O L__|O \/ \/ |\___||__|__| O | O \/ | | _|__|_|
> (___/
> ___ o o o ))
>/ (_). ..____.____ ____ .___. .. .. . .____ ______
>[ _ | || | | | / /\ \ |_|_| || || | | | / /\ |
>\_(_)|___|| | | | \)\/ /(__) |___||___||___ |___ | | O \/ |
> /
>
>BTW: what is the Tamil word for paradox?
>(I dont think it is kutharkkam.)
Actually, what Lord Buddha said were the following. In Tamil the use
of the word 'aasai' has created a lot of confusion.
Buddha said:
1. Sorrow exist (ie it is real)
2. These are two causes for the sorrow: 'avidya' and 'tanha' (in Pali)
3. The sorrow can be eliminated without a remainder
4. Eight fold path achieves this.
Now the word 'avidya' mean ignorance and 'tanha' means craving.
I think Mahaakavi SubramaNiya Baarathiyaars word for 'tanha' is
the correct one. He used the word:
o o o o
. __ ______ .___ .___ .____. . .___ .___ _ .
| | |/ /\ | |_|_ |_|_ | | | | | |_|_ |_|_( \ |
|__|__|O \/ | (_./_) (_./_)| | v_/|__)(__) (__) O \_/
So one should have desire (to do good). But should not have tanha.
>S_Bala
Meenan Vishnu
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
> In article <C695p...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
> >> I've already said I'm a Pollyanna :-)
> >
> > Shouldn't that be Polymunna :-)?
>
>
> No! I'm single yet! :) :( But of course, once anna gets into
> rapid multiplication, he'll probably be called "Pollymunna-wala" :-)
Oh, you are using the general meaning of munna rather than anna's meaning
(which is little brother - in case anna poses an 'eh ?'). But if you
are single, that shouldn't preclude existence of polymunnas either ;-). You'd
then be free for tangos in Paris too (I'm not very sure what exactly your
paras on tangoes meant but they sure sound romantic enough :-) for a
die-hard romantic like me (there, am I back in dreamer club ?) ) though
munnas can make things a little difficult.
> >> >d) I may be one of the types who start calling all men "bhaiya" (you know
> >> > the types).
> >>
> >> yes, didi, I know the ayyoamma type girls :)
> >
> > Sheesh ! Didi ? I already said that I'm much younger than peepuls
> > desperate enough to post matrimonials :-) (and you already said
> > that you are wont to believe me since I'm not from USC ;-)).
>
>
> Who can fathom a woman's mind [existence theorem granted for personal
> safety ;-)]? While the insinuation and implication are clear to
> all but the densest, I'm double-minded about this invitation for a
> "Tango in Paris and two-straws-in-the-same-glass-cold-drink-drinking"
> [whoever said you're the only romantic, haan? :)] since you have a
> track-record of twisting your own statements on the rebound :-) :-)
> O, and btw, don't bet on the "younger" part. There's a good chance
> you'll lose :)
Hmmm...did I give such an invitation or are you insinuating this in the
form of an insinuation attributed to me (btw, FFT, why do you speak in such
twisted sentences ? Innocent peepuls like me (really, no jokes this time)
have to read again and again to see what u mean...) ? Anyway, hope to
go on such a tango somewhere sometime with someone - sounds like fun,
so mebbe after finding a suitable someone. Hope I don't get despo enough
to post matrimonials :-) before that. Never mind about the "younger" part,
though.
And what stmts did I twist, pray ?
> > And I'm
> > already living on credit cards (sigh)...it's a question of economics !
> > Don't have money to waste on bOthals...
>
> so be hopeless! :-)
Nah... Can always find someone rich enough to buy me bOthals, but my
subconscious (call it my Scotty) says 'no, not advisable. there's a
question of ethics' (sigh). So, I reluctantly removed the heart from the
sleeve and put it back where it belongs !
> >> >I know. Just remember the advice about the dangers of wearing your heart
> >> >on your sleeve :-)...
> >>
> >> huh? what advice? I'm a bit hard of hearing [and limp a littil]
> >
> > Never mind, FFT :-).
>
>
> sheesh! I think I just blew my opportunity for that Paris tango. I
> swear I don't limp, I swear :-)
OK. I believe ya ;-)... Though I still can't understand this tango business
fully.
> >> >Na, Na ! That's not what I meant....Me very innocent.
> >>
> >> nice sense of humour :)
> >
> >What ! 8-(
> Try giving a woman a compliment.... :)
Hmm. OK, compliment taken - satisfied ? But how can I not be hurt if genuine
stmts are taken to be hee hee sentences ? (OK, I *was* joking that time).
> >> nice acting too!!
> >
> >Hmm... accusing innocent bhOli bhAli (appAvi) women like me of acting....
> >Anna is right - you certainly are a brat unlike Anna ;-)...
>
>
> thank you, thank you *bow*. If you be bholi-bhlai, then I certainly
> am a brat :^) heh heh.
See, this time I'm really (I swear) bhOli-bhAli. I still haven't understood
your convoluted insinuations of insinuations etc. But I have also said that
the tango sounds good though I don't understand it fully. So I tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth this time.
> >> FFT
> >> "A bird in hand is more than one can ask for"
> >
> > Certainly....Only when it's hard to get even that does one post
> > matrimonials ;-)
>
> :-) and one under a pseudonym too!
>
>
> Badriprasad Sarvanandam :-)
C U Badriprasad !
Gowramma Shivanandini :-)
--
-----------------------------------------
email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
Badrinarayanan Seshadri
some similar concept. (I forgot the title and
also the name of the characters)
There is a wealthy man who is a manager of some
company. He is married and has a grown-up daughter.
He has an anglo-indian lady secretary. The way
she dresses up herself, troubles our guy. One day,
during lunch time, when they are alone, he tries
to hold her and kiss her. She runs away from him
and tenders her resignation letter.
Overcome with remorse, he goes to her house and
apologises to her. The secretary, to his surprise
offers him a chance to have sex with her. (yes!!)
She tells him that if he has got it deeply in his
head a love for her flesh, the only way to remove
that is by giving him what he wants.
Ofcourse he refuses the offer and returns back.
--Badri.
(This story stands clearly in my memory but I have
forgotten much of it. I read it 8-10 years back. So
it is possible that I may have made some mistakes
above)
S. Sankarapandi
In article <930430030...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pand
ian) writes:
Other quite informative part onJeya Kanthan's novels was deleted.
>
>6. JK wrote the screenplay of `sila nErangaLil sila manidharkaL'
> also and the movie was directed by Bhim Singh. (It was his
> last movie.) The movie featured some good performances by
> Srikanth and Laxmi who played the roles Prabhu and Laxmi. Their
> performance was so close to the original that I used to think
> of Srikanth and Laxmi (their movie-roles) whenever I read
> JK's Prabhu and Ganga. On a similar note, I also liked Laxmi's
> acting in her role in the JK's movie `oru nadikai naadakam
> paarkkiRaaL', though I did not like the story/movie. (This movie
> came on Doordharsan once.)
>
> SP
>
I agree with your general comments on viewing `cila nEranagalil cila
manitharkaL' with other JK's novels. I also like Jeyakanthan's novels very
much and I consider him a successful serious writer in Tamil.
I read his novel `cila neRangalil cila manitharkaL' before seeing his
movie (about 10 years back). Somehow, I liked his novel but I did not like
the movie that much. This is inpite of very good performance by Srikanth and
Laxmi (I think Laxmi is one of the good actresses in Tamil because of the few
heroine-centered movies, though she overacts sometimes). The difference may be
because I feel Jeyakanthan in his novels whereas the movie brings the
characters in front of us and especially Laxmi produced Ganga very well. So I
forget JK in the entire movie and view the story through Ganga and carry a
messages through Ganga. I felt very angry with her for going to Prabhu again
and again.
Now, think about somebody who does not know JK and has not read his novel.
In another posting Nagarajan raised a question about `maNamaKaL'. I agree
with his remarks that `maNamakaL' not being `wierd' because there are many
such characters in real life because of their fear about being `divorcee' .
Partha Sarathi's posting of Ananda Vikatan presents the true picture about the
status of divorces in T.N. May be in 1950s, `maNamakaL' may be O.K. But if
`maNamakaL' is made in this decade, we can say that it reinforces the idea that
living in married life is better than being a divorcee, no matter how bad the
married life is.
Thanks for the comments of Chandra Sekhar and I agree with his general
opinions too.
S. Sankarapandi
--
S. Sankarapandi
ssan...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
> Paris-Tango :) writes:
Arre - it took me this long to comprehend the Paris Tango (sounds pretty
mathematical like the Pascal triangle, no ?)
> In article <C694J...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>
> >> 1) How do you classify trouble - the personal noun ?
>
> > Simple. The meaning varies depending on the situation. Try BK for
> > one :-) (try Fafat if you want another).
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> 2) How does one (ok you) trouble trouble ?
> >
> > By making statements like the one in parantheses in the answer to 1.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Huh? Me? ME? look at my cherubic, innocent face. Is that a face of
> a criminal? A brat? A rabble-rouser? O! The ignominy! The shame of
> it! My littil heart break :-(....
Arey O Fafat (now don't call me "Gabbar Singh ki aulAd" (offspring of
Gabbar Singh) - my surname proves otherwise) ! So you've started
stealing my lines, huh ? The innocent part I mean...
> >Me too. Nothing against grandpas (even those who post their own
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >matrimonials) or ask questions about troubles ... There I go
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >again troubling trouble !
>
>
> :-) ahem..err..is this some novel way of responding to a matrimonial
> and being *cough cough* coy about it? :) Nalla peN.
Mebbe. Nalla peN, huh ? Just mebbe :-). Mebbe you'll also find a Jai
Maharaj next to you when you embark on your Paris Tango ! Now don't say
I didn't warn you - I gave you a list of a, b, c, d clauses so that
you needn't sue me in future. I have all the netters (including my
non-brat anna) as "saakshi" for this....
> >Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
>
> so spake grandma hen :)
To grandpa cow (see, *I* didn't call you cow - I'm merely following in
anna's footsteps - very devoted thangai :-) )
> FFT
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Oie capn Hook, you beez careful; zat dirty 'ol croc eez waiting for ya.."
> "Better croc than crooked femme, zat eez wat my faaazer alwez seez.."
> "Faazzer always knows bezt. Buzz do you lizzin to ze faazer?"
> "Nah.. ze son who leeziins to ze parenzz is no black seeep at all..."
And this is the guy who calls himself cherubic, huh ? Nice cherub, indeed !
Gayathri.
--
-----------------------------------------
email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
Vijay Fafat
>> >> I've already said I'm a Pollyanna :-)
>> > Shouldn't that be Polymunna :-)?
>> No! I'm single yet! :) :( But of course, once anna gets into
>> rapid multiplication, he'll probably be called "Pollymunna-wala" :-)
> But if you
>are single, that shouldn't preclude existence of polymunnas either ;-). You'd
well, provided someone else is'nt averse to pollyanna *and* lottamunnas
;-)
>then be free for tangos in Paris too (I'm not very sure what exactly your
>paras on tangoes meant but they sure sound romantic enough :-) for a
>die-hard romantic like me (there, am I back in dreamer club ?) )
hah! If Paris-Tango piques your romantic buds, I'd love to know the
reaction to the description of "pitcher dance" :)...sigh..yea,
all dreamatic dreamatic.
>though munnas can make things a little difficult.
:-) you bet! And how! ;)
>> > Sheesh ! Didi ? I already said that I'm much younger than peepuls
>> > desperate enough to post matrimonials :-) (and you already said
>> > that you are wont to believe me since I'm not from USC ;-)).
>> safety ;-)]? While the insinuation and implication are clear to
>> all but the densest, I'm double-minded about this invitation for a
>> "Tango in Paris and two-straws-in-the-same-glass-cold-drink-drinking"
>
>Hmmm...did I give such an invitation or are you insinuating this in the
>form of an insinuation attributed to me
see what I meant by you twisting your statements on the rebound? :)
but I would'nt be able to answer that question on the grounds that it
might incriminate me ;-) :)
(btw, FFT, why do you speak in such
>twisted sentences ? Innocent peepuls like me (really, no jokes this time)
>have to read again and again to see what u mean...) ?
well, I have to live upto your expectations, right? ;-)
>Anyway, hope to
>go on such a tango somewhere sometime with someone - sounds like fun,
>so mebbe after finding a suitable someone.
Flame inciter alert : I doubt if a veshtie paiyyan would ever dare
to go on a Paris tango. It's much too romantic for them :) perhaps
a walk by the sea-side would be a big deal :-)
>Hope I don't get despo enough
>to post matrimonials :-) before that. Never mind about the "younger" part,
>though.
o no! I already said, age no bar, caste no bar :-) Feel free to apply.
>subconscious (call it my Scotty) says 'no, not advisable. there's a
>question of ethics' (sigh). So, I reluctantly removed the heart from the
>sleeve and put it back where it belongs !
WHAT? you dare say it's unethical to be hopelessly romantic? Bah!
never trust women....
>> sheesh! I think I just blew my opportunity for that Paris tango. I
>> swear I don't limp, I swear :-)
>
>OK. I believe ya ;-)...
so does that make me more elgible or what? :)
>Though I still can't understand this tango business fully.
Badriprasadji had clearly stated that all details in personal
communication only ;-). So no, such secrets won't be divulged.
>> >> nice sense of humour :)
>> >
>> >What ! 8-(
>
>> Try giving a woman a compliment.... :)
>
>Hmm. OK, compliment taken - satisfied ?
Try persiflage on a woman! :)
> But how can I not be hurt if genuine
>stmts are taken to be hee hee sentences ? (OK, I *was* joking that time).
Well, there's always amrutanjan, you know :), if you rem. my first
"matrimonial" :)
>> thank you, thank you *bow*. If you be bholi-bhlai, then I certainly
>> am a brat :^) heh heh.
>
>See, this time I'm really (I swear) bhOli-bhAli. I still haven't understood
>your convoluted insinuations of insinuations etc. But I have also said that
>the tango sounds good though I don't understand it fully. So I tell the
>truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth this time.
which is wanting to go on a Paris-tango, haan? ;-) ok, I'll take
your word about the bholi-bhali.
>> Badriprasad Sarvanandam :-)
>
>C U Badriprasad !
>
>Gowramma Shivanandini :-)
Shiva! :)
"Scotty, set course to Paris, mark 323.4, warp factor 1"
Vijay Fafat
>Arre - it took me this long to comprehend the Paris Tango (sounds pretty
>mathematical like the Pascal triangle, no ?)
It's more poetic and lyrical. Ever heard the theme music of
"Star wars"? The intense rhapsody and crescendo with which it rises
somewhere in the middle...well, Paris Tango is *that* musical :)
>> Huh? Me? ME? look at my cherubic, innocent face. Is that a face of
>> a criminal? A brat? A rabble-rouser? O! The ignominy! The shame of
>> it! My littil heart break :-(....
>
>So you've started
>stealing my lines, huh ? The innocent part I mean...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
first accuses of line maroing. Now talking about stealing. Hmmmm.... :)
>> >Me too. Nothing against grandpas (even those who post their own
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >matrimonials) or ask questions about troubles ... There I go
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> :-) ahem..err..is this some novel way of responding to a matrimonial
>> and being *cough cough* coy about it? :) Nalla peN.
>
>Mebbe.
I mean, first to call yourself grandma and then call me grandpa.. :)
Or are you from the mother's side? :-)
>Nalla peN, huh ? Just mebbe :-). Mebbe you'll also find a Jai
>Maharaj next to you when you embark on your Paris Tango ! Now don't say
>I didn't warn you -
heh heh. You don't know about the secret love affair between me and
Jai Maharaj :^)
>> >Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
>> so spake grandma hen :)
>To grandpa cow (see, *I* didn't call you cow - I'm merely following in
>anna's footsteps - very devoted thangai :-) )
fatal error. Gender mismatch. Cows can't be grandpas [unless, ofcourse,
they're from USC, the land of transgendrification :)]
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Oie capn Hook, you beez careful; zat dirty 'ol croc eez waiting for ya.."
>> "Better croc than crooked femme, zat eez wat my faaazer alwez seez.."
>> "Faazzer always knows bezt. Buzz do you lizzin to ze faazer?"
>> "Nah.. ze son who leeziins to ze parenzz is no black seeep at all..."
>
>And this is the guy who calls himself cherubic, huh ? Nice cherub, indeed !
yipes! Ok, must pacitheficate.
FFT
"Boss? da boss? you know da boss?"
"Whaddya mean, 'you know da boss?'?. *I* am da boss"
"Dat's impossible. Bosses is supposed to be smart. It's gotta
be a gurl boss"
hope you're in the pacific now :-)
Balaji Kannan
gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes :
>Simple. The meaning varies depending on the situation. Try BK for
^^^^^^^^^^
>one :-) (try Fafat if you want another).
^^^^^^^
*slap on the forehead* *one more slap on the forehead*
Guilt by association huh ?? ;-)
hey, my line-marOing tendencies aren't as leGENDERy :-)
I am also a seedha-saadha, bhola-bhaala, *fill in your choice term for
vaila viral vechcha kooda kadikka theriyadha paiyan :-)* ladka like you
[ok you are a ladki ;-)] u know ?? :-)
My friends have conspired on many occasions to drag me into some Abithaguja
laambaal [whoever the heck she is ;-)] affair. It beats me as to why such
a grotesque name was chosen .... One can't even think of a proper nickname
for such tongue-twisterinis [Abi? Abith? Gujal??... :-)]
>By making statements like the one in parantheses in the answer to 1.
If your focus was only on the parentheses, I'd be glad to let
that pass.... :-)
>What to do ? If Jai Maharaj and Jayalalitha Jayaram start posting,
>maybe (just maybe) paattis too would become enthu enough to flex
>their muscles :-).
Hmmm.. Paatis giving Thaathaas a run for their wits, er..
.... muscles what ?? :-)
>Me too. Nothing against grandpas (even those who post their own
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Salaam, Salaam didiji....! Such benevolence from a Paati
is usually hard to come by :-)
>matrimonials) or ask questions about troubles ... There I go
>again troubling trouble !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Methinks, you are already in deeeeep trouble.... :-)
cheers,
bk
"Grandpas of the world unite ! you have nothing to lose but your veshties" :-)
Sundara Pandian
>
>In article <930430030...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pand
ian) writes:
> I read his novel `cila neRangalil cila manitharkaL' before seeing his
>movie (about 10 years back). Somehow, I liked his novel but I did not like
>the movie that much. This is inpite of very good performance by Srikanth and
>Laxmi (I think Laxmi is one of the good actresses in Tamil because of the few
>heroine-centered movies, though she overacts sometimes).The difference may be
>because I feel Jeyakanthan in his novels whereas the movie brings the
>characters in front of us and especially Laxmi produced Ganga very well. So I
>forget JK in the entire movie and view the story through Ganga and carry a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>messages through Ganga. I felt very angry with her for going to Prabhu again
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and again.
^^^^^^^^^
I think I covered this in my last mail. This story/movie by JK is his
counter-story to `agni piravEsam'. Some purists, who glorify chastity,
could not accept JK's `agni piravEsam' and they wrote counter-stories
where they punished the girl who was seduced. `sila nErangaLil sila
manidharkaL' is JK's counter-story to his own short-story. The reason
Ganga keeps seeing Prabhu again and again, is, she could not live alone.
JK's `gangai engE pOgiRaaL?' begins with Ganga as an alcoholic when Prabhu
avoids seeing her...
>S. Sankarapandi
>ssan...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
SP
Balaji Kannan
fa...@phakt.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat) writes:
[..]
>I doubt if a veshtie paiyyan would ever dare to go on a Paris tango. It's
>much too romantic for them :) perhaps a walk by the sea-side would be a
>big deal :-)
*grimacing look!* Spoken like a true non-veshtied Casanova ......
Ah, but then, no one ever accuses a veshtie of promiscuity or marital
infidelity either ....
bk
V. Nagarajan
.
.
> In another posting Nagarajan raised a question about `maNamaKaL'. I agree
>with his remarks that `maNamakaL' not being `wierd' because there are many
>such characters in real life because of their fear about being `divorcee' .
>Partha Sarathi's posting of Ananda Vikatan presents the true picture about the
>status of divorces in T.N. May be in 1950s, `maNamakaL' may be O.K. But if
>`maNamakaL' is made in this decade, we can say that it reinforces the idea that
>living in married life is better than being a divorcee, no matter how bad the
>married life is.
Since I didn't read that article on the status of divorce in TN,
I can't tell where you are coming from on this issue. I don't think
the wider acceptance of divorce would by itself render the issue
under question obsolete. Why do some women continue to live in an
abusive situation in this country despite the relatively higher
degree of economic and social freedom that women here and now enjoy?
I contend that the situations that you dismiss off-hand as unrealistic
may not be so. These (marginal) issues are also worth exploring.
Secondly, you seem to take the position that cinema as a medium
has to represent a "progressive" point of view. At least that is the
impression I get from your critique. This is a position (whether
you have adopted it or not) I disagree with. We can examine an
issue and present it with all sorts of interesting possibilities
(and even turn them into morality plays) without moralizing.
Recipes don't make for either interesting life or interesting movies.
- Nagarajan
Vijay Fafat
>>I doubt if a veshtie paiyyan would ever dare to go on a Paris tango. It's
>>much too romantic for them :) perhaps a walk by the sea-side would be a
>>big deal :-)
>
> *grimacing look!* Spoken like a true non-veshtied Casanova ......
As if there was a species called "veshtied casanova" :^) ahh,
impossibility theorem :)
> Ah, but then, no one ever accuses a veshtie of promiscuity or marital
> infidelity either ....
making virtue out of necessity or what? :-)
FFT
"Scotty, how old is the ship?"
"She's in her early flirties, Captin"
Srikant Sridevan
In article <1rs40a...@phakt.usc.edu>, fa...@phakt.usc.edu (Vijay
Fafat) writes:
> Flame inciter alert : I doubt if a veshtie paiyyan would ever dare
> to go on a Paris tango. It's much too romantic for them :) perhaps
> a walk by the sea-side would be a big deal :-)
>
Old habits die hard. :-) Hey Fafat, the Last Tango in Paris stuff is old
hat! Sorry, fellow veshties, but Fafat was deluding himself too much and
I had to reveal the secret to him. What's currently in, is a trek in the
Bolivian Andes in summer. Walking hand in hand, admiring the snowy mountains
and the waterfalls... And then Rio! So we *do* go for walks by the
sea-side. Ah, Copacabana!;-)
Has anyone seen Last tango in Paris? Was it like what you expected it to be?
Sundara Pandian
>
>Actually, what Lord Buddha said were the following. In Tamil the use
>of the word 'aasai' has created a lot of confusion.
>
>Buddha said:
>1. Sorrow exist (ie it is real)
>2. These are two causes for the sorrow: 'avidya' and 'tanha' (in Pali)
>3. The sorrow can be eliminated without a remainder
>4. Eight fold path achieves this.
What you have quoted above are the four noble truths (Catvaari Arya
SatyAni) in the Buddha's Dhamma. As I have also read some Buddhist
texts, I like to quote these noble truths in an elaborate way.
1. Buddha's first noble truth is the noble truth of pain. Buddha
says, "Birth is painful; old age is painful; sickness is painful;
death is painful; sorrow, lamentation, dejection, and despair are
painful. Contact with unpleasant things is painful; not getting
what one wants ia painful. In short, everything that constitutes
human personality is painful."
2. Buddha's second noble truth is the noble truth of the cause
of pain. Buddha says, "The cause of pain is the craving for pleasure
and lust, for existence itself. It is this craving that causes the
living beings to be born again and again into this world of pain
and sorrow."
3. Buddha's third noble truth is the noble truth of the cessation
of pain. Buddha says, "When there is no craving for anything, the
cause of pain disappears. One is happy in this world, and one is
freed from rebirth."
4. Buddha's fourth noble truth is the noble truth of the path which
leads to the cessation of pain - the noble eightfold path: namely,
right faith, right resolve, right speech, right action, right living,
right effort, right thought, right concentration.
>Meenan Vishnu
SP
Srikant Sridevan
In article <1rsona...@phakt.usc.edu>, fa...@phakt.usc.edu (Vijay
Fafat) writes:
> > *grimacing look!* Spoken like a true non-veshtied Casanova ......
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> As if there was a species called "veshtied casanova" :^) ahh,
> impossibility theorem :)
>
Hey, hold your horses. The species exists. Its just that God has given
non-veshties with natural blinkers which save them the inferiority
complexes that would so easily arise if they were to see veshtied
casanovas. :-)
> > Ah, but then, no one ever accuses a veshtie of promiscuity or marital
> > infidelity either ....
>
> making virtue out of necessity or what? :-)
>
what. :-)
> FFT
Vijay Fafat
>> Flame inciter alert : I doubt if a veshtie paiyyan would ever dare
>> to go on a Paris tango. It's much too romantic for them :) perhaps
>> a walk by the sea-side would be a big deal :-)
>>
>
>Old habits die hard. :-)
*grin*
>Hey Fafat, the Last Tango in Paris stuff is old
>hat! Sorry, fellow veshties, but Fafat was deluding himself too much and
>I had to reveal the secret to him. What's currently in, is a trek in the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
talk about a deluded dude! :-) btw, the Tango stuff is vintage
romanticism..like seasoned wine. But I guess you kal ka chhokras
[tomorrows kids] don't know how to appreciate the golden stuff :)
>Bolivian Andes in summer. Walking hand in hand, admiring the snowy mountains
>and the waterfalls... And then Rio! So we *do* go for walks by the
>sea-side. Ah, Copacabana!;-)
Yea, I'll grant that you're a more evolved veshtie [anudder flame
alert! :)]. And how about clinking glasses of wine-and-orange by the
lagoon in the late evening, cooled by the gentle zephyr,with a crimson
sky and the distant sunset, huh? ayyyaayyaooow! :) sigh....
FFT
"Scotty, such reveries of the future :) are'nt good for health"
Vijay Fafat
>> > *grimacing look!* Spoken like a true non-veshtied Casanova ......
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> As if there was a species called "veshtied casanova" :^) ahh,
>> impossibility theorem :)
>
>Hey, hold your horses. The species exists. Its just that God has given
>non-veshties with natural blinkers which save them the inferiority
>complexes that would so easily arise if they were to see veshtied
>casanovas. :-)
yea. The dodo exists! :)
>> > Ah, but then, no one ever accuses a veshtie of promiscuity or marital
>> > infidelity either ....
>>
>> making virtue out of necessity or what? :-)
>
>what. :-)
now now, SSD, you must be more careful with that veshtie coming
loose at the slightest provocation :^)
FFT
" Mother computer, solve veshtie:Casanova :: dodo:exists "
Sridhar Vembu
I would be very interested to hear about anyone who has got married
thruough email! Why am I so curious? Well, I am getting married
in August and I "met" my about-to-be-wife on the internet! She
happened to be a friend of a friend. I didnt even meet her for
the first few weeks - it was all email and then later phone!
Since she spoke Tamil
with some Kannada accent, it was a lot of fun on the phone
to hear her speak!
Emailukku kOvilthan kattavEndum saami!
Sridhar Vembu
ve...@ee.princeton.edu
Prabhu Balaraman
..did this Gayathri-spouting-payyan mean to say tonga, the one like
a bullock-cart?!..anyway, I thought they had taxicabs out there..
Srikant Sridevan
In article <1rt1uo...@sal-sun37.usc.edu>, fa...@sal-sun37.usc.edu
(Vijay Fafat) writes:
> >Bolivian Andes in summer. Walking hand in hand, admiring the snowy mountains
> >and the waterfalls... And then Rio! So we *do* go for walks by the
> >sea-side. Ah, Copacabana!;-)
>
>
> Yea, I'll grant that you're a more evolved veshtie [anudder flame
> alert! :)]. And how about clinking glasses of wine-and-orange by the
> lagoon in the late evening, cooled by the gentle zephyr,with a crimson
> sky and the distant sunset, huh? ayyyaayyaooow! :) sigh....
>
My choice would be to admire the sunrise through the mountain mists,
huddled together in a blanket, sipping Masala Chaai (with ginger, of
course)! Tchah, I'm being baited into revealing such secrets! No more.
:-)
Srikant Sridevan
> >Hey, hold your horses. The species exists. Its just that God has given
> >non-veshties with natural blinkers which save them the inferiority
> >complexes that would so easily arise if they were to see veshtied
> >casanovas. :-)
>
> yea. The dodo exists! :)
>
Ay verily, in the form of non-veshtied casanovas... :-)
Balaji Kannan
fa...@phakt.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat) writes:
> As if there was a species called "veshtied casanova" :^) ahh,
> impossibility theorem :)
Like sighting a white crow what ?? :-) Maybe you haven't heard
about the Gemini Ganesans and Kamalahasans who have done their
bit to make us veshtied souls proud of other-worldly stuff too :-)
[Now don't read too much into it :-)]
>> Ah, but then, no one ever accuses a veshtie of promiscuity or marital
>> infidelity either ....
> making virtue out of necessity or what? :-)
Nah, nah, nah. Making virtue out of virility.... ;-)
cheers,
bk
Affable
>I would be very interested to hear about anyone who has got married
>thruough email! Why am I so curious? Well, I am getting married
>in August and I "met" my about-to-be-wife on the internet! She
There was one more such marriage, reported in SCI last year.
>happened to be a friend of a friend. I didnt even meet her for
>the first few weeks - it was all email and then later phone!
>Since she spoke Tamil
>with some Kannada accent, it was a lot of fun on the phone
>to hear her speak!
Congrats Sridhar and good luck. Your success should give a boost
to lots of people who are interested in alt.fishing (Courtesy:
Prabhu Balaraman). Best of luck, guys and gals.[and FFT who is
trying relentlessly to find one by putting his own matrimonials :-)]
You're not going to lose anything in trying. :-)
Cheers,
Venkat
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------