Street bashing has become fashionable here eh?
Ok.. I made a comment on one of the threads here a couple of days ago.. and today when I check it .. I cann’t fukin beleive the tirade of personal attacks against me, baseless accusions and over-reaction of the highest order. Here’s the exact comment that drew all attention:
http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/02/26/ibos-ridiculous/
ROFL… too funny to comment on.
Didn’t satyam claim that this guy didn’t allow his personal political stance affect his BO-reporting? then how is it that such absurd verdicts are given for Jodha Akbar ? Am I missing something here?
As for jay.. well when he finally decided to use the same methodology for every movie regardless of who stars in it, then we can talk of him. Rest he doesn’t have anything.. those other guys at least have a direct contacts with the distributers, have more collections data at hand, have access to other factors such as cinema count, distribution prices and what not.. All jay has is a methodlogy using a few centres from Taran’s IFM.. and even there not only does his totals not match up with his ource (Taran) but that methodlogy that he uses doesn’t consistent for every film. Changes and modifications are made if, say , his system yields a greater total for a SrK-starrer (for e.g. Chak De), or else making outragous unique changes to his method to ensure the lowest possible total for a movie like OSO. Jay is simply a toned down Vishal Gautam Nath in-disguise and there’s no other reason why satyam has been trying to held him high for the past 15-18 months. How long before, jay comes out in the clear like IBOS? or maybe, jay satyam and that vishal gautam nath can have a joint BO site… seems really practical .. doesn’t it. They all share the common cause and can work very well with each other.
And here’s the kinda reaction I got from this comment:
Qalandar - “I strongly disagree with the insinuation that satyam and jay shah are communal. This is in fact a pretty mystifying claim, for which street there is not a shred of evidence...”
som - “this was uncalled for. directing someone for being communal just because he does not agree with what you say is very ungracious and uncivilized…”
rockstar - “simply idiotic well one should not be fool to start branding people as that how will they react if others start calling them as the toned version of mr x or mr y for e.g osama - bin - laden”
rks “Some of the comments are outright deplorable.”
Now I take this very personally. I didn’t like it one bit. And I beleive that you guys owe me an apology on this matter. At no point in that comment, or anywehere else, did I mention anything that would suggest me referring to Satyam or jay as being communal. I find Jay to be biased in his reporting and fudges his numbers just the way mr. Vishal Gautam Nath does. How can Jay be communal when I have always claimed the biggest beneficiary from his BO reports happen to be none other but Aamir Khan…and more than often a Hrithik happens to be at the receiving end of his reports. Even with Satyam, on any BO debate here on NG, he has happened to be on the pulling down mode where a Hrithik is concerned.
Having said that, Jay is one very biased person, and happens to have a very particular dislike for certain stars, (just like satyam..though satyam makes it way more obvious) and that dislike shows up in his BO reports just as Vishal Gautam’s Nath did… but there some of you didn’t see (more liek.. didn’t admit seeing) for quite a long time. With jay.. as I mentioned in that particular comment itself, he modifies his whole methodlogy to deal with a SrK movie (e.g. Chak De and OSO) if it happens to yield a total on the higher end. Just as mr. Vishal Gautam Nath, whose totals not only showed ridiculous fudging, but changed the whole system of his tables to help certain stars. For example his top grossers table was modiied to sort in order of top gross totals instead of top net totals to accomodaten Abhishek starrer Guru at the top of the list.
As for the Vishal-Satyam-jayshah union, it stems up from the obvious hypocrisy on Satyam’s part. We all knew all along how fuked up IBOS and their numbers were, how obvious the biases in its BO reports were, how ridiculous the sits’s commentary was… everyone but a satyam and Jay (yes.. read any of jay’s comments on IBOS vs BOI posted more than a couple of months ago) tried to defend it.. constantly and almost always with the most absurd of logics… until.. and yes until .. IBOS went berserk and crossed all limits, making it too fukin obvious even for the biggest of Bachchan fanatics to stand by it. It came down to matter of personal credibility. And even you put that all aside ..and, say, all that was still okay.. But what about satyam’s preference for numbers? It wasn’t that long ago, when satyam considered IBOS to be the “gold standard” as far as BO reporting is concerned. And today, he goes around on every thread signing off his support to Jay and his reports being the “gold standard”. And in the middle, during the transition period, he has a very interesting stance. He’d take Jay’s total ahead of all others. then he had IBOS.. and only after that came BOI, Joginder and the rest. But the interesting part is that them “Boi/joginder/tango and the rest” almost always produced totals closer to that of jay than IBOS had… So if jay had a 5. BOI had a 4 and IBOS had a 3, going by satyam’s stance here means 3 and 5 is more likely to be the correct number than a 4. That’s stupid.. and shows obvious hypocrisy. Now when a person like that goes on rooftops announcing his support for jayshah.. it’s only natural for one to put the three (satyam, jay and Vishal Gautam Nath) in an alliance of sorts.
And yes.. jayshah is a “toned-down” Vishal Gautam Nath because, though he’d lower a SrK’s films total and inflate an Abhsihek film’s total, he won’t do it as badly as Vishal Gautam Nath did. If Vishal went 10 cr lower on a SrK film, Jayshah goes 5 or 6 cr. (unless we are talking of OSO)
Rohit,
It is for a lack of better word, just a misunderstanding.
Your intentions are pure.
Lets not get hung up on one ...
Satyam, read jayshah's reply on screening. He will educate you a bit.
The most frustrating thing with it comes to ...
For my part, I'll say this, although I was initially going to give Rohit an email myself...
I've been a part ...
Gnight little bro. Hope by the time you wake , this all looks like a dream and not resemble a ...
I hope everything will be normal when i wake up tomorrow..
And this will be my last comment till Satyam shows ...
Have to leave for a meeting now. 
Rocky- Gusse mein log bahut kuch bol dete hain, they don't always mean it or regret it later.
Comment by texas_swat on 28 February 2008:
‘Qalandar - “I strongly disagree with the insinuation that satyam and jay shah are communal. This is in fact a pretty mystifying claim, for which street there is not a shred of evidence…”’
even me trying to find where did you mention ‘communal’ in your post ? maybe Qalandar was referring to some other post.
Comment by jayshah on 28 February 2008:
A few facts to take note of before you start this anti-SRK tirade. Another desperate attempt of course.
1) A new method was only employed for CDI. This ‘new’ method was repeated for TZP. BOTH films got 3CR stripped off them.
Now my higher end CDI total of 20.5CR is higher than any source out there. Where is the anti-srk bias here? and where is the pro-Aamir bias here? My TZP total is less than some sources for the first week !
2) A new method + the normal method was employed for OSO. Do not lie here ok. Get your facts absolutely right. People can access the columns and see this. Do not fall for the lies here.
Right I gave a figure of 35-37CR here for OSO.
EROS has said either a total of 54CR or 58CR is for OSO (Gross). At Nett/Gross % of 0.65 which is WHAT BOI EMPLOYS (look at all historical data) the Nett figure for OSO would be either 35CR or 37.7CR.
Now where is the anti-SRK bias here? 0.7CR worth? Your kidding me. 0.7CR is less than adding 2.5CR to the total.
Now on your comment. Whether it was communal or not, and I give you the benefit of the doubt here…it was still plain idiotic.
‘So if jay had a 5. BOI had a 4 and IBOS had a 3, going by satyam’s stance here means 3 and 5 is more likely to be the correct number than a 4.’
The analogy you are looking for is : If BOI had a 5, Jay had a 4 and IBOS had a 3. Usually my numbers are in the middle. Majority of the time. Satyam’s stance then is plausible and validated. He says 4 is close then 3 then 5 (maybe 3 & 5 vary - who knows, Satyam usually has his own idea of how much a film made and even his numbers have differed from mine in the past but we can manage to overcome that!!!). Not what you are suggesting. I’ll let Satyam correct you further…but it incorrect to suggest (a lie infact) that my numbers are higher than BOI’s. Generally my numbers are lower. And IBOS is even lower. Follow OSO, Partner, BB, HB, Welcome etc on this and you will see.
Comment by texas_swat on 28 February 2008:
“A new method was only employed for CDI. This ‘new’ method was repeated for TZP. BOTH films got 3CR stripped off them.
Now my higher end CDI total of 20.5CR is higher than any source out there. Where is the anti-srk bias here? ”
as for your CDI being higher than BOI…. who cares ? If your total for CDI total was 20.5cr, then Guru should be 18cr…. and this can be proved using your own method.
Comment by texas_swat on 28 February 2008:
“A new method + the normal method was employed for OSO. Do not lie here ok. Get your facts absolutely right. People can access the columns and see this. ”
I remember seeing your OSO analysis. You used the BOI Krish numbers to derive the OSO total. why ? Havent you all along argued that BOIs Krish numbers were incorrect and were very low…… and obviously using those numbers would result in a very low total for OSO.
Comment by texas_swat on 28 February 2008:
‘So if jay had a 5. BOI had a 4 and IBOS had a 3, going by satyam’s stance here means 3 and 5 is more likely to be the correct number than a 4.’
even me dont agree with this whole analogy. I always found jay to be somewhere between ibos and boi….. and that is why I think he was being commended for being unbiased. The pressumption here was that boi was also as much biased as ibos.
and such an arguement became a necessary condition for his defense.
Comment by texas_swat on 28 February 2008:
btw who is this Vishal Gautam Nath ?
Comment by Ravi on 28 February 2008:
I really find it funny that of all people SP thinks he deserves an apology, wow buddy if we need to start doing that , you would owe tons of people apologies before you get one for this(rightly or wrongly).
Comment by sandy on 28 February 2008:
Street: I wouldn’t be able to tell about the other grouses you have against Satyam, Q or Jay but I can say that Jay’s margin of error is minimal compared to some of the other so called experts. Forget about his ‘intent’ (because that is something we can all be guilty of in varying degrees, so no point harping on it) but I don’t think he’s ever gone drastically wrong with any verdict on any film. It’s not like how Taran called Don just an ‘above average’ film or how BOI called JA a hit in the first week or IBOS calling it a disaster! Rediff does some awful BO reporting. Even the other ‘respectable’ names aren’t exactly a paragon of honesty.
It’s precisely because there is a semblance of reason and logic behind what Jay says that people seek to ‘counter’ his analysis. Again I have no issues with that, if people argue with him in a civil manner, without resorting to abuses.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 February 2008:
Street: given that IBOS is most known on NG (in light of the site’s recent “commentary” on Jodha-Akbar) for its communal tendencies, it strikes me as disingenuous to claim that when you said satyam was supporting Jay only because he was a mini-Vishal Nath or whoever you were referencing a tendency to fudge numbers rather than the communalism charge (especially when in the past you have been known to make such charges, at least against satyam). I’m hardly the only one to come to that conclusion, as comments from several other members, from som to jingchak, made clear on that thread. Accordingly, no apology will be forthcoming. However, since you now say that you did NOT mean any such thing, I take you at your word.
Comment by rockstar on 28 February 2008:
appology LMAO
street check never told u communal or any personal thing i just replied from quote and tried to find out reasoning from there btw vishal ganesh or whatever if he is the same guy abhihrithik in other forum( most of the thing he say it is in ibos i guess) he is a highly communal figure( no offense ) his name is synonymous with communal coding so if u say his name first thing will strike is communalism only
Comment by jayshah on 28 February 2008:
Guys lets leave this one. I’ll believe Street here. One think I dislike is this prejudice bullshit. Either people being prejudice or people accusing others of being - the latter can to be classed as bullying or ostracising someone. The IBOS guy is clearly a nutcase so its clearcut and we can hang him upto dry. With Street - I’ve read the comment and my only initial reaction was that it was idiotic. In fact I read the comment not to differently from Street’s explanation here. It still doesn’t change the fact that IMO the comment is wrong, rude, obnoxious and downright malicious. And though I read the intent differently - there is obviously an issue Street has with me. It is not only me, but potshots are always flying towards Satyam or Akshay. Potshots have flown to Rangan & one or two others. Its all noticeable.
I suggest this to stop or to at least be displayed in an appropriate manner. If displayed appropraiately I can at least defend my case. With the above comment Street made, there is not much to defend because most of it is just random personal slurs.
Comment by Jesse on 28 February 2008:
“And yes.. jayshah is a “toned-down” Vishal Gautam Nath because, though he’d lower a SrK’s films total and inflate an Abhsihek film’s total”
Jay: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you really have to start writing columns for just SRK fans. No number crunching and logistics necessary, just pull out a number and make sure its close to that of BOI’s whose primary audience also is SRK fans. If you want to make a few converts who will jump off BOI’s bandwagon for yours, all you need to do is have the highest numbers out there.
Comment by satyam on 28 February 2008:
Street: I am going to cut to the chase here. I’m still not sure how we’ve established that the communal views on display on IBOS also suggest a fudging of the numbers? I’ve expressed some thoughts on this before but one doesn’t logically follow from the other. It’s like saying that someone who’s communal is also an embezzler at work!
But going by your logic you shouldn’t accept anything Tango says because he’s personally attacked me on communal grounds many many times in the past. Why? Because he felt I was supporting Hindu actors and not Muslim ones. Leaving this aside he too attacks IBOS in communal ways by constantly referring to the IBOS guy as ‘Ganesh’. Why? He has accepted that’s not the guy’s name. It’s like attacking a Muslim by calling him ‘Mohammed’. Is it fair to attack even the right winger by calling such a person ‘Ganesh’? Why should ‘Ganesh’ be a standard for a right wing ostracization?
Finally like Tango I find your anti-IBOS stance on grounds of communalism rather cynical (much like some others here). Because you guys have tried everything in the world to suggest the numbers on the site are not accurate. The communal commentary is another excuse to whack the site. Now there might be good reasons for doing so anyway but these are not the right ones. Of course whether it’s you or Tango (and I’ve provided examples) or some others here, no one really strikes me as being the paragon of enlightenment in any matter!
So again the reason I stress this point somewhat is not because I agree with the commentary. Everyone here knows my political views. But I am challenging this notion where if someone is on the far right he or she is also ‘dishonest’. The implications are obvious.
Comment by satyam on 28 February 2008:
Here’s an older comment in a similar context:
“This is truly a very bad piece and for many of the reasons Qalandar points out. But this also connects with some other things we’ve been discussing in other threads. It is always very dangerous to substitute history as an empirical area of study with mythologized versions. The piece here is a classic example of when history becomes a free for all.
At the same time I think Tango is rather cynically exploiting the politics of the site to undermine their box office claims. There are always reasons to disagree with the box office numbers of any Indian source and IBOS is no exception but I resist completely the logic whereby because someone is on the right (even offensively so by my standards) the figures from such a source automatically become questionable. One might be on the right, even on the extreme right as a matter of political ideology, but this does not mean that one is also dishonest and busy manipulating box office numbers. The two are entirely separate matters. In fact this kind of criticism and logical slippage points inadvertently to another equally objectionable ‘couple’. The idea that because one is a Hindutva ideologue one is also ‘dishonest’ and ‘disreputable’! What is being attempted here is to use political ideology to attack a source on the numbers.
Now IBOS should not be having so much political commentary on a box office site. They’ve especially been on a tear with the JA issue. But as Qalandar points out this has always clearly been an ideological issue. The site has always been more supportive of Hrithik than Abhishek as is evident from the Krrish numbers (16 crores higher than BOI’s!) or KMG (6 crores higher than BOI’s) and so forth but also from the very negative and very personal commentary that appears on Abhishek from time to time. But to get back to the ideological point, if JA does not do well enough, IBOS will certainly see it as a triumph (in their terms) of the Hindu right defeating the bankrupt secularism (all of this in their terms once again) of the Indian political establishment and their elites.
I can’t speak for others but I will never be need to be told by a self-confessed Thackeray lover about by associations with anyone based on political ideology!”
Comment by Nitesh on 28 February 2008:
“just pull out a number and make sure its close to that of BOI’s whose primary audience also is SRK fans”
why the no of srk FANS REDUCED SO DRASTICALLY in NG after OSO?
Where are the likes of Sunny, nithi_s(two most prolific writers on SRK), etc…are they waiting for Rab Ne..? for their info..that movie will release later this year…so they have enuf time…to be happy, satisfied, content and confident, they can play Akshay Kumar Fan till then
and contribute to NG. There are lots (of tussle) coming….;)
Comment by satyam on 28 February 2008:
And here’s a working example of the above comment:
“Ravi: I think calling it ‘genocide’ is going too far but I’m glad you brought it up. This is the context within which much of the IBOS commentary has come about. If you thought that someone was unleashing genocide you could hardly condone a film that ‘white-washes’ such a personage. It would be hard to make a film totally sympathetic to Hitler for example!
The history in JA has certainly been falsified because Akbar at that young age was very much the ‘holy warrior’. But I disagree with your genocide characterization as Akbar was not engaging in this by any means. Because Akbar was not systematically going after ‘Hindus’ at any point of his career. The campaigns against Chittor or Ranthambor for example were really meant to break the backs on Rajput resistance. And really these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Akbar however was a ‘happy warrior’ throughout his life but he warred very democratically against Hindu and Muslim rulers of every stripe!
The one thing the film does get right, though it again falsifies the time period, is that Akbar did indeed lift the religious taxes on Hindu pilgrims. Furthermore he made government grants available to Hindus, Buddhists and so on, which luxury was reserved only for the Muslim clergy. Beyond a point Akbar even did an Ataturk on the Muslim clergy and just about did a purge. This then continued through Jehangir’s reign but then beginning with Shah Jehan the clergy made a comeback. Shah Jehan was far more interested in being the Muslim emperor and really Aurangzeb continued that policy and perhaps took it to a more extreme conclusion. But Shah Jehan has had a good press, something that he probably does not entirely deserve. In any case Akbar is really the enlightened monarch of his age, not just by Indian standards, but really even by the global standards of his time.
Also remember, all slaughter is not genocide. Otherwise we’d be calling Asoka a master of genocide as well!
But I will concede with respect to JA that for a film that has some pretensions of realism the Akbar presented here is the stuff of fantasy.”
Comment by satyam on 28 February 2008:
I should finally note that people have made two claims against IBOS on the numbers using the communal backdrop:
1)That they support ‘Hindu’ actors. I think this is easily belied by the evidence. Aamir has higher numbers there for every film than at BOI!
2)That they do not support films with a secular agenda. Hence while they do support Hrithik they don’t support JA. Again belied by the evidence. RDB has the same secular agenda. The right is depicted in the most unflattering light in this film but the total is still higher than at RDB!
The whole problem with both theses is that either one doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and I could multiply the examples.
Again the political commentary is what I find repellant. But I do not say that because of this the numbers are wrong. I have disagreed with individual numbers many times as has Jay incidentally. The problem is that when one does someone like Tango suggests that this is conspiracy whereby one serves the interests of the site by actually disagreeing with the numbers! Don’t know about others here but I prefer James Bond!
Comment by Qalandar on 28 February 2008:
Very useful summary of the issues satyam — especially that last comment.
Comment by SHETTY on 28 February 2008:
“It’s like attacking a Muslim by calling him ‘Mohammed’. Is it fair to attack even the right winger by calling such a person ‘Ganesh’? Why should ‘Ganesh’ be a standard for a right wing ostracization?”
Hmmmmm.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 February 2008:
Re: “Hmmmmm.”
This might be the most cryptic comment ever posted on this forum.
Comment by SHETTY on 28 February 2008:
If his name is not Ganesh, then we have to stop referring him by that name
Comment by Qalandar on 28 February 2008:
Re: “If his name is not Ganesh, then we have to stop referring him by that name”
Agreed. Personally I don’t myself know what his name is; satyam has said it is “Vishal”, and Tango I think mentioned that his middle name is either “Gautam” or “Ganesh”.
Comment by SHETTY on 28 February 2008:
I really was in a feeling that his middle name is Ganesh
Comment by satyam on 28 February 2008:
His name is not Ganesh. This was something Tango and his friends dreamed up at Indolink when the guy started indulging in the same right wing commentary over there in his posts.
Tango knows this by the way, he’s been told many times, but he keeps bringing it up and then when challenged lets it go for a while.
But this is still the lesser matter. I have been attacked on communal grounds by him many times. He stopped doing this later because of certain reasons but I always found it offensive that he was doing so in the first place because I somehow didn’t like SRK and Salman and liked the Bachchans!
And what I still find offensive is this constant insinuation whereby someone on the right automatically becomes ‘dishonest’.
Comment by satyam on 28 February 2008:
And again how offended could one be by the IBOS commentary if one isn’t offended by Thackeray’s and continues to like him?! Here’s an older comment once again:
Also here’s one of many many Tango’s statements in support of Bal Thackeray:
““I say it gain, Balashahab is a true Nationalist and not like what is the perception””
But now see some Thackeray comments which also I’ve shown to Tango many times before and which don’t seem to change his opinion on Thackeray even if he seems to be very offended by the IBOS commentary (these are only some of Thackeray’s remarks and similarly Tango has supported Thackeray many times on NG despite such examples being provided):
“Views on Muslims
Thackeray’s views have typically been highly anti-Muslim, usually attacking them and occasionally sympathizing with them. His party is viewed as being anti-Muslim, though Shiv Sainiks officially deny this accusation. [4] When explaining his views on Hindutva, he has conflated Islam with violence and has called for Hindus to “fight terrorism and fight Islam”.[14] In an interview in Suketu Mehta’s book ‘Maximum City’, he advocates the hanging of Indian Muslims and mass expulsion of Muslim migrants from neighboring Bangladesh.
In the 1980’s he had stated that:
“They [Muslims] were spreading like a cancer and should be operated on like a cancer. The…country should be saved from the Muslims and the police should support them [Hindu Maha Sangh] in their struggle just like the police in Punjab were sympathetic to the Khalistanis.” [15]
Bal Thackeray criticized and challenged Indian Muslims through his party newspaper, Sāmna, around the time the 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished by members of the Shiv Sena and the BJP in the northern town of Ayodhya, on December 6, 1992. The claim of many Hindus is that the Babri Mosque was built on the demolished ruins of a Hindu temple in the 16th century, and is believed by many to be the Ram Janmabhoomi (birthplace of the Hindu God Rama, an avatar of Vishnu, one of the Trimurti of the Hindu Pantheon).
The Justice Srikrishna Commission of Enquiry, which investigated the ensuing communal riots in Mumbai, indicted Thackeray for sparking anti-Muslim violence, which led to more than 1,000 deaths in several ensuing riots, many by having kerosene poured on their bodies while alive and then being burned to death. The death toll during the actual act of the demolition of the Mosque was zero. The Srikrishna Commission found that Thackeray was personally responsible, not only for inciting the mobs through his incendiary speeches, but also directly coordinating the movement of the rioters[citation needed]. At the time, Thackeray made allegations that the Commission was “biased” and “anti-Hindu”. His views were not supported outside of the Shiv Sena party[16].
In a deposition before the Srikrishna Commission a witness alleged Thackeray coordinated much of the January 1993 Mumbai carnage. Yuvraj Mohite claimed, “Balasaheb was sitting and he was getting calls from various places. He would ask what was happening at that particular place (from where he got the call) and then he would say, ‘Kill them. Send them to Allah’”. Mohite, additionally told the commission, that, “Thackeray ordered:
* That not one Muslim be left alive to stand in the witness box.
* Asked his men to send the additional police commissioner, A A Khan, to his Allah.
* Ordered his men to retaliate to the Hindu killings in Jogeshwari.”
Later, in February 1993 Thackeray said, “I am proud of what my boys have done. We had to retaliate and we did. If it was not for us, no one would have controlled the Muslims.” [17]
However, in an interview in 1998, he claims to have tempered his stance on many issues that the Shiv Sena had with Muslims, particularly regarding the Babri Mosque or Ram Janmabhoomi issue [18], saying:
“We must look after the Muslims and treat them as part of us.”[18]
He has since made more inflammatory statements regarding Muslims, and reiterated his desire for Hindus to unite across linguistic barriers and to see “a Hindustan for Hindus” and to “bring Islam to this country down to its knees”.”
“Admiration of Hitler
Thackeray has attracted controversy for his praise of Adolf Hitler.
He was quoted by Asiaweek as saying:
I am a great admirer of Hitler, and I am not ashamed to say so! I do not say that I agree with all the methods he employed, but he was a wonderful organizer and orator, and I feel that he and I have several things in common…What India really needs is a dictator who will rule benevolently, but with an iron hand.” [2]
In an interview with the Indian Express that was printed on January 29, 2007, Thackeray remarked,
Hitler did very cruel and ugly things. But he was an artist, I love him (for that). He had the power to carry the whole nation, the mob with him. You have to think what magic he had. He was a miracle…The killing of Jews was wrong. But the good part about Hitler was that he was an artist. He was a daredevil. He had good qualities and bad. I may also have good qualities and bad ones. [3]
His opponents have used these remarks against him and accused him of a fascist ideology. Thackeray’s supporters, such as right-wing columnist Varsha Bhosle, have defended Thackeray’s position as necessary in what they claim is an atmosphere of religious extremism against Hindus. In defense of a statement by Thackeray that “If the Muslims of India behave as the Jews in Germany did, they will deserve the same treatment,” Bhosle writes:
Germany’s Jews…? What ELSE is required for Hindus to shake off the stupor and consider protecting our civilisation and culture? If telling it like it is makes one a Nazi, I say: Fine, better that than the spineless, deaf, dumb, numb and blind state exalted as Nehruvian Secularism. I wouldn’t even spit on it.[12]
In an article appearing in Newindpress.com on August 20, 2007, Thackeray is quoted as wanting to be a dictator and the Hitler of whole India:
He is on record as having told the Navakal: ‘‘Yes, I am a dictator. It is a Hitler that is needed in India today.’’ He was once asked in a television programme whether he wanted to be Hitler of Bombay? ‘‘Do not underestimate me,’’ he is reported to have retorted. ‘‘I am (the Hitler) of the whole of Maharashtra and want to be of whole of India.’’ The Hitler question was put to him twelve years ago in September 1996 by the Outlook magazine as well during an interview. ‘‘Once you’d expressed admiration for certain facets of Hitler.’’ ‘Comparison was inevitable,’ the interviewer prompted. Thackaray said: ‘‘I have not sent anybody to the gas chamber. If I’d been like that, you wouldn’t have dared to come and interview me.’’”
“Thackeray is very vocal in his opposition to people who migrate to Mumbai, to non-Hindus (especially Muslims), and to Pakistanis. In the late 1970s, as part of his “Maharashtra is for Maharashtrians” campaign, Thackeray threatened migrants from South India with harm unless they left Mumbai.
In 2002, Thackeray issued a call to form Hindu suicide squads to counter alleged Muslim violence:
If such suicide squads are formed only then can we take on perpetrators of mindless violence.[8]
In reaction to Thackeray’s call to form Hindu suicide squads against Muslims, Maharashtra government registered a case against him for inciting enmity between different groups. [9]
Asia Times further reported on Thackeray’s rhetoric:
Thackeray called on Hindus to form suicide squads “to take the Muslims head on”. “Trouble-making Muslims should be wiped out from the country … kick out the four crore [40 million] Bangladeshi Muslims and then the country will be secure,” the Shiv Sena leader said. Urging Hindus to start calling India “Hindu rashtra” (Hindu nation), he maintained that only “our religion [Hinduism] is to be honored here” and then “we will look after other religions”.[10]
At least two organizations founded and managed by the retired Indian Army officers namely Lt Col (retired) Jayant Rao Chitale and Lt Ge. P.N. Hoon (former commander-in-chief of the Western Command), answered Bal Thackeray’s call to set up the Suicide Squads in India. Lt Gen. Hoon claimed, Thackeray instructed him to set up the training camps.[11]
Thackeray continues to publish inflammatory editorials in his party’s newsletter, Samna (Confrontation).”
Comment by sandy on 28 February 2008:
Satyam: There is credence to the argument that one’s ideologies may not necessarily be a motive to influence boxoffice figures - but that hasn’t been the case with IBOS at all.
Every site, trade guide,as I mentioned above, allow bias to colour their judgement but calling OSO an ‘earner’, saying JA is a ‘flop in Rajasthan’ when it never released there and putting Partner over Guru for the longest possible time –and these are just the few examples that occur to me–all this suggest to me that the site owners are daily competing with themselves to look more and more ridiculous! BOI and other have their faults but surely nothing to match the vagaries of IBOS.
Comment by satyam on 28 February 2008:
Sandy: I don’t disagree with much of what you say but I am arguing something very specific here. A lot of what you’ve said might indicate questionable IBOS ethics but hardly communal ones. My point is simple: the site is wearing its communalism on its sleeve but fudging the numbers based on this is another matter.
Now they have PArtner at the same total as Guru and in fact evry slightly behind. One might argue with but what’s the ‘communal’ issue here when TZP has 57 crores and also ahead of guru in the adjusted total and so is CDI?!
It’s important not to confuse the issues here. As for BOI being better that’s not a statement I can accept and I provided at least a dozen examples in the first 6-7 months of 2007. later on I got tired of doing so. But there are some clear patterns that emerge on that site as well. So I categorically disagree that BOI are better. For example many of their own initials on significant films in the first half of ‘07 make their own Guru number ridiculous. We’ve gone back and forth on all this stuff on NG.
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
oh well.. It’s easy to get away with personal attacks on Street. .. and here’s no difference. First make something out my comments when they certainly didn’t say that. Then attack me for saying something like that…a nd calling me uncivilized and what not. And now saying ..”well maybe you didn’t mean that.. but it’s ok to call you uncivilized and what not. you are sreet we can get away with a lot when it comes to you.. you , however, need to be carefull or else we’ll get you banned”
And Jay… I am not lying. Didn’t you use a two-week Kriish total to derive a OSO’s first week? Have you ever done that before? For any other movie? And haven’t you yourself made comments here on NG a number of times for finding Kriish’s two week total low in the first place on BOI? If this is not fudging nubers then what is it? Modifying the usual method and choosing that certain number (low Kriish total) to get the desired OSO total (lower than all others). And as for Chak De.. glad you mentioned it yourself. You chopped off 2-3cr from the first week alone. Something that you hadn’t done to any movie before that.. specially with Guru, even though a number of members here (including Texas-Swat) suggested it.
As for your “My TZP total is less than some sources for the first week ” I really wanna know what those sources are. I’m pretty sure your TZP totals are higher than BOI, Joginder and Tango.
As for the Satyam’s stance in choosing yours vs BOI and IBOS. AGain tehre was no lie on my part. Maybe you do end up being between the two on most cases.. and as texas pointed out, that has been used many times to hold you as being as unbiased since I guess you are supposedly betrween the two extremes (onnly a grand a$$ fool would accuse BOI of teh kind of biases that IBOS shows off) .. but my point there was that satyam will take your number first and then IBOS, even though your numbers are actuallyc loser to that of BOI’s than it is of IBOS, something you have yourself claimed a number of times here. So let’s say it’s not 4,5 an 6… it’s more like BOI 30, you 31 and IBOS 36.. satyam takes the latter two.. even though your 31 is a lot more closer to the 30 cr BOI figure. Anyways.. I find that obvious hypocrisy.. n satyam’s part.. But again. satyam still claims that IBOS guy Vishal Ganesh Gautam Nath doesn’t allow his biases to affect his numbers.
Comment by jayshah on 28 February 2008:
Strike 1
http://www.naachgaana.com/2007/11/17/jayshah%e2%80%99s-saturday-box-office-column-%e2%80%93-oso-hammers-saawariya-and-in-process-takes-opening-week-record%e2%80%a6/
Read for yourself. Yes Krrish was the first example. But the NORMAL method was there for D2 too. Either way I found both to give similar results.
Strike 2
‘I really wanna know what those sources are. I’m pretty sure your TZP totals are higher than BOI, Joginder and Tango.’
Read Tango’s first week box office column. He gave 17CR. I gave 16-16.5Cr. He also gave 17CR with the lowest Mumbai number out there, about 1-2Cr’s less than BOI, Joginder, IndiaFM! LOL!
Strike 3
The last paragraph - you have a poor memory or just lies.
In any case…you can read every column of mine at leisure. At then Satyam’s. If you still feel the same show the work. Then maybe you have a case. Don’t go on hearsay !
Comment by jayshah on 28 February 2008:
‘The film collected 2.81 crores from Bombay, 60 lakhs from Ahmedabad, 4.25 lakhs from Baroda, 2.20 lakhs from Valsad, 5.60 lakhs from Rajkot, 2.70 lakhs (gross) from Bhavnagar, 8.80 lakhs from Nasik, 2.50 crores from Delhi city, 27 lakhs from Noida, 38 lakhs from Ghaziabad, 18.70 lakhs from Lucknow, 3.10 lakhs from Agra, 4.10 lakhs from Dehradun, 6.15 lakhs from Meerut, 2 lakhs from Moradabad, 1.80 lakhs from Bareilly, 4.40 lakhs from Aligarh, 37.40 lakhs from Gurgaon, 6.20 lakhs from Faridabad, 1.90 lakhs from Panipat, 16.75 lakhs from Nagpur, 1.35 lakhs from Jabalpur, 1.50 lakhs from Amravati, 1 lakh each from Chandrapur and from Akola, 1.60 from Raipur, 22 lakhs from Indore, 1.25 lakhs from Sehore, 25.20 lakhs from Jaipiur, 4.50 lakhs (gross) from Ajmer, 75 lakhs from Calcutta, 3.20 lakhs from Guwahati, 3 lakhs from Aurangabad, 6.40 lakhs (gross) from Vijaywada and 48 lakhs from Hyderabad. In its opening week, Aamir Khan’s directorial debut venture has netted around 17 crores from India.’
Tango’s report.
Mumbai = 2.81Cr.
TZP according to IndiaFm, BOI, Joginder recorded 4Cr+. Still a total of 17Cr the highest one out there was given. Explain THAT ONE !
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
Texas answers it all in this little comment of his..
” 1. I know you have tried to prove many times that Krishh total at BOI is lesser than actual. If you think that it is actually lower (and I agree with you on this), how could you use that total to estimate or to discuss OSO… unless you were interested in “estimating” a lower total for OSO ?
2. What was the purpose of the Krissh comparison ? was it to estimate the week 1 total of OSO ? or to prove that BOI is inconsistent ? My guess is the latter. If the purpose was the former, you could have as well done it with Partner, D2, KANK etc. there was no need for Krish when you very well knew that the numbers are on lower side.
The problem here is that you are using that one film to prove the whole equation inconsistent… rather than saying that Krissh is an exception (wrong at BOI) and hence should not be used for comparison or to check the consistensy of other numbers.
Here I would like to ask you a question. Have you ever tried to prove any of IBOS’ totals inconsistent ? The numbers would look ridiculous and they would easily expose that site. But, I am not surprised that didnt. You have never compared IBOS’ totals for CDI, Guru, Partner or the other more funnier ones to check the consistency and integrity of those numbers. Try evaluating the total for a film based on IBOS numbers from Guru and CDI…. you will end up with some very ridiculous results.
3. You have taken the two films for comparison - Krishh and D2. For Krishh, you have the BOI total which is lesser than yours and for D2, you have taken your total which is lesser than BOIs 35cr. So you have selected different sources for two films and specifically that source which will result in a lower estimate for OSO. any reasons ?
4. Your totals have been lower for Partner and D2 also. so there is no reason why OSO had to match with BOI.”
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
“…Read for yourself. Yes Krrish was the first example. But the NORMAL method was there for D2 too. Either way I found both to give similar results. ”
lol.. the Normal method was used with a movie with only a fraction of common centres posted. and not to forget that your “low” first week total for D2. ..which was not only lower than BOI but substancially lower than IBOS as well. Isn’t your bias showing obvious here? You use to numbers to derive OSO total.. one that you have yourself claimed to be a low one from BOI and another that s lower than all other sources.
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
lol.. so for TZP first week you were actually .5 cr lower than Tango and Joginder.. but you sure made up for it in teh latter weeks. fukin ridiculous.
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
And for the stupid strike 3 of yours. ok.. just forget teh numbers for once.
- Haven’t you mentioned yourself here many a times that your numbers are closer to BOI’s than they are to IBOS? if yes.. perfec.. (if no.. then I admit I am wrong but I do specifically remember atleast a dozen instances)anyways.. let’s go on to second part of it..
- Doesn’t satyam take yours and IBOS numbers ahead of the rest (say BOI)? if yes.. again.. perfect.
- Now doesn’t show obvious hypocrisy by satyam? Two sources that post similar numbers more than often than not are supposedly not as reliable as a third source and one of them two. It obviously boils down to your favouritsm to certain stars..
Comment by ILG on 28 February 2008:
Street,
Why, oh why, so much venom?
Even when you have a point (and according to some of my esteemed friends its not infrequent) its lost in the midst of a tirade.
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
it’s freaking impossible to get this people to admit to their flaws. Fuk.. satyam still wants to debate IBOS’ biasis and fudging of numbers.
Reminds me of a scene in Bhansali’s HDDCS. when Ajay is telling Ash about what kinda tactics they play in the court. Once a prosecuter asks a defendant, that “yes.. this is you in the picture..I can clearly see that… but how can you prove that you were present there when this picture was being taken”.
But, anyways, it’s nice to see the total fall of IBOS..and so many more people the biases on jay’s part and questioning his numbers. For one, jay’s numbers for say films with a SrK or Salman, will not be just taken simply coz it happens to be between an IBOS total and a BOI one. Since IBOS totals are officially a joke now…unless you are a Satyam or a Qalandar.. lol even jay has deserted them. With satyam I can understand though, since he was an employee at IBOS.. but what about Q?
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
ILG.. be more specific.. I hate this labelling of a a comment or a number of them as being something without actually getting to the specifics of the comment that you happen to agree or disagree with. What fukin venom? Is it because I have questioned Jay’s numbers? or that I am calling him biased? Am I not allowed to do any of that?
Comment by ILG on 28 February 2008:
Re: since he was an employee at IBOS
You know thats not true even if he has written occasionally for them and Qalandar has never defended IBOS.
IBOS BO and political commentary are separate issues.
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
btw.. I wonder how many of ya’ll remember the IBOS guy ’s comments I found on another forum and I posted them here. Most o you guys didn’t beleive that it was him.. but I’d really like to know what our position is now? Aren’t the commentary on IBOS for past month or so.. almost identical to the ones I had mentioned about (and posted links for) a year ago. Doesn’t the IBOS guy sound very much like that Moviezone member I told you guys about last year. Is there still any doubt that that guy was Vishal Gautam Ganesh nath?
Why are NGers so slow? Don’t wanna be pompous.. but whatever street finds out today.. them other peopel at NG find about it a year later.
Comment by ILG on 28 February 2008:
Street,
Am not trying to be holier than thou but read your post and comments. It is self explanatory. Kooch nazaakat se bhi kabhi pesh aaya karo. Bias is a rather strong word and you have used much stronger words and expletives. Disagree all you want and argue all you want. But some of your commentary is OTT.
Anyways, enough sermonizing.
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
You know thats not true even if he has written occasionally for them - He did work for them. And I’m sure he got paid for those pieces he wrote. Though, however, I see him in an worse light if he actually provided his service for IBOS for free. that tells you a lot about the type of person satyan is. But unlike you guys, I’m not gonna get personal like that on him.
and Qalandar has never defended IBOS.
- That’s a lie.
IBOS BO and political commentary are separate issues.
- Maybe to you and to satyam. The rest of us see the obvious. Look no further.. read sandy’s (who doesn’t even give much of a shit about BO) comments on the thread alone.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 February 2008:
I think your comments on my position vis-a-vis IBOS are pretty unfair, especially given I’m the NGite who took the lead in attacking the site’s communal agenda on Jodha-Akbar (and in the process, disagreed with Tango’s repeated suggestions that the site was actually doing all this because it was anti-Hritik and pro-Abhishek; I think by now it is clear to everyone that was in no way the real issue with IBOS’ commentary on Jodha-Akbar).
On the numbers, here’s a comment I made just a day or two ago:
http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/02/26/ibos-ridiculous/#comment-107968
Comment by ILG on 28 February 2008:
Street,
Look, buddy. We have diametrically opposite views on a lot of issues including Jay and Satyam. And you would be right to take whatever I say with a pinch of salt. But if I may, I would suggest that you listen to what Tango has to say to you.
Anyways, lets get back to talking about films and such and leave our personal opinions aside.
Comment by ILG on 28 February 2008:
Qalandar,
Ap doodh ke dhule ho. You dont need to defend yourself.
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
Qalandar.. If I am not wrong you sided with Satyam (on a thread a few days ago) on teh notion that there was no evidence to show that this IBOS guy fudges his numbers according to his political agendas. I see that as a defence of IBOS.
Comment by ILG on 28 February 2008:
Street,
Here is Q’s comment.
Tell me if he is defending IBOS.
‘I was initially happy to see IBOS back in action, for the simple reason that however good a data-source (and I don’t even consider BOI good to begin with), I would always like to see a multiplicity of voices, and listen to more than just one. Unfortunately, the site has completely lost credibility with me. Perhaps satyam has a point when he says there’s no evidence IBOS is fudging figures, but when such an extreme bias is manifested, I can’t really take a default position that gives the benefit of the doubt to such figures. So we are back to only one source, with all of its attendant problems, biases, etc. I remain skeptical of it too, but don’t have anything to “set it off against.” And that’s the biggest reason I’d much rather rely on Jay Shah’s analysis than the others out there. I don’t see any evidence or indication of bad faith there.’
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
“Am not trying to be holier than thou but read your post and comments. It is self explanatory. Kooch nazaakat se bhi kabhi pesh aaya karo. Bias is a rather strong word and you have used much stronger words and expletives.”
once agian.. please point out teh specific words, phrases sentences in my commented that show that! And no.. on NG bias is not a strong word at all.. and I’d really wanna see the “expletives” you are accusing me of.
lol. bias is a strong word.. I remember the lieks of satyamd ajy going on rooftops accusing of BOI being biased against LRM.. coz they gave it a 69.9 cr total and not 70 cr.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 February 2008:
An excerpt from my comment to Texas_Swat is also relevant: “Texas Swat: You quoted half a sentence from my comment; I hope you read the other half of that sentence as well! As an aside, evidence of bias extraneous to the numbers suggests a possible motive for fudging numbers (i.e. it goes to the source’s credibility), but is not in itself evidence of fudged numbers. Maybe I’ve been a lawyer too long, but to assume that numbers are fudged would mean that I was confusing MOTIVE with EVIDENCE (”motive” of course can support an inference, hence I said IBOS’ credibility had gone down drastically). …”
Perhaps to many this might seem like a technicality, but I take it seriously.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 February 2008:
Thanks ILG, that was the one I’d linked to earlier…
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 28 February 2008:
And ILG.. while you are it trying to find the expletives from my side.. make sure you read the type of comments attacking me. Being called “unciilized” is certianly not something I can take lightly..
Anyways.. off for now.. fuk you guys later.