IBNLIVE: IPL maybe a hit but SRK is Paanchvi… fail

May 7th, 2008Related|Filed Under

Link 

Mumbai: Shah Rukh Khan’s magic would have worked for his Indian Premier League (IPL) team but it is clearly not reaping the same results for the much hyped Star Plus quiz show Kya Aap Paanchvi Paas Se Tez Hain?

With opening ratings hovering around at three and four, media planners say it’s 40 per cent less than what was expected from the show.

Compare this to the bumper opening of the IPL at eight for the opening match and a consistent all-India ratings of four-five.

While some media planners say the IPL effect is the major reason for the show’s initial failure, others blame its below average content.

“It is a little disappointing but if you look at whom the show is competing against which is IPL then it’s not a bad start. We are hoping that it will pickup over a period of time,” CEO of Madison Group Punitha Arumugam said.

With over Rs 150 crore of advertising money riding on this show, Star is under pressure to deliver ratings. And which is why it has tweaked the telecast timings of the show.

We learn that Star Plus has decided to run a repeat telecast of the show during weekdays and again on Sunday to avoid a clash with Sony’s IPL hoping that this would help the channel get more viewership.

There Are 51 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Yes I put up ratings on this earlier..

    http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/05/04/srks-paanchvi-paas-ratings-so-far/

    http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/05/06/indian-film-stars-comparative-tv-ratings-draws-statistics/

    The links also reveal once again that Don (the real one not the fake!) ko pakadna mushkil hi nahin namumkin hai!

  2. Comment by Myna on 7 May 2008:

    “Yes I put up ratings on this earlier..
    http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/05/04/srks-paanchvi-paas-ratings-so-far/
    http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/05/06/indian-film-stars-comparative-tv-ratings-draws-statistics/”

    Lol…didnt know that ppl still believe in stuff that communal sites like ibos put up.

  3. Comment by ILG on 7 May 2008:

    What is there not to believe ? These are cold hard facts. But, agree IPL might have diluted things. But also SRK is over exposing himself. I thing the format and premise of Paanchvi Paas are somewhat weak.Are you smarter than… is a weak success at best and is not durable. Wouldnt blame SRK for the non performance of Paanchvi Paas.

  4. Comment by Myna on 7 May 2008:

    Irrespective of whether they are facts or not, coming from ibos whose communal agenda is very well known, I do not feel their write ups are worth the discussion or worth being given any importance to.

    (Anyway I do not understand why would someone want to give any importance to such communal sites and thus indirectly support them!!)

  5. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    I believe the actual piece posted here is a CNN-IBN one which simply confirms the IBOS info.

    In any case I am unsure why being ‘communal’ is the same as ‘lying’. The folks who earlier called IBOS ‘liars’ now suggest they ‘lie’ because they’re ‘communal’! The point is they must be called ‘liars’ one way or the other! I am a great critic of the right but I would never call them ‘liars’ as a knee jerk reaction. I am not missing the opportunism of those who simply want to dismiss everything IBOS says on one ground or the other. But I am always careful to lay out the larger set of attitudes. ‘Denunciations’ have their own logic.

    In any case I have a better chance of converting a plank of wood with ‘logic’ than some folks here!

  6. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    And forget ’supporting’ them, I even write for them! LOL!

    Here’s my most recent communal writeup:

    http://www.ibosnetwork.com/newsmanager/templates/template1.aspx?articleid=21318&zoneid=1

  7. Comment by ILG on 7 May 2008:

    Satyam,
    The actual logic goes like this - They are communal because they dont favor SRK. They are liars because they are communal. They are communal because they are liars. They are liars becuase they dont hail King Khan. You cant believe them because they are liars and communal. SRK actually becomes a bigger star when the communal and liars like IBOS denounce him. If you quote them, you are a liar and a communal. And cant be believed.

    If it doesnt make sense, dont blame yourself. Such is the foggy state of Paanchvi Paas SRK fans’ minds.

  8. Comment by Myna on 7 May 2008:

    “The folks who earlier called IBOS ‘liars’ now suggest they ‘lie’ because they’re ‘communal’!”

    Ofcourse, bcoz they (ibos) are communal, they lied. I do not understand how the ‘folks’ are wrong here.

    “In any case I am unsure why being ‘communal’ is the same as ‘lying’.”

    No, its not the same. Being communal is a way bigger offense than lying.

    ILG:”They are communal because they dont favor SRK. They are liars because they are communal. They are communal because they are liars.”

    Irrespective of whether they favor Srk or not, they are communal. One doesnt need to have a great sense and great logic to accept this fact. Just common sense is enough.

    And yes, I dont believe someone who has communal agenda written all over them. Fortunately my mind is not in such a foggy state.

  9. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    ILG: Ha!

    Myna: again they might be communal, being communal might be a bigger offense than ‘lying’ (let’s accept this for the time being) but to question the numbers you have to prove the latter not the former. One might be a mass murderer but one might not be fudging numbers!

    Note, if you want to questions the numbers there are other ways of doing it. But political ideology doesn’t prove anything. Otherwise we’d have to say that every BJP politician, being minimally susceptible to the communal charge, is a crook whereas every Congress politician is ‘honest’! This would leave us with a rather absurd conclusion!

    This is why by the way I am always irritated with the bourgeois obsession with corruption and so on. Because in India it’s often the reverse. People like Thackeray or Modi are not considered particularly corrupt or anything. But they are certainly the greatest communalists around. In India people think this is ‘good’. One can be a mass murderer as long as one is honest! Which is honest ‘Modi’ is preferred to ‘corrupt’ Laloo! The rest is merely politics! All of this is really the reverse of the twinning that is done with IBOS here, ironically because there is enough of a ‘liberal’ membership on this forum to be totally turned off by the ‘communal’ stuff.

    So one can question IBOS without resorting to this tactic. On the other hand even if one is able to deconstruct IBOS one has hardly made a case for BOI or anyone else. If Laloo is ‘corrupt’ that hardly proves Mulayalam isn’t!

    Of course with at least one member here I am rather amused after all the ‘feigned’ outrage over IBOS ‘communalism’, that he nevertheless finds it in his heart to be able to support Bal Thackeray in the strongest terms! Evidently the bar that IBOS meet in this sense is not met by a Thackeray who’s called himself an admirer of Hitler and thinks of ‘Muslims’ much as Hitler thought of ‘Jews’. But no matter, he’s only a ‘nationalist’! After all he’s praised Salman Khan!

    Even when Amitabh Bachchan was ambiguous on Thackeray (and he has far more reason to be so as a public figure who probably interacts with many many figures who are equally bankrupt and so on; there are also pragmatic considerations) I wrote a couple of relatively ‘chiding’ responses on his blog. Because it’s not just members here I criticize when it comes to Thackeray, I would criticize Bachchan as well if he offered that kind of support.

    Why do I get into all of this? Because one must maintain a certain ethics!

    Your entire support for BOI for example is only premised on their being the most positive on JA! That’s all there is to it. Why the IBOS pretense?!

  10. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    matrix: ILG, please don’t pretend to be so naïve. Your point that IBOS is considered communal because they don’t support Srk is something I fundamentally disagree with (to put it in Cheney’s language ). It being considered communal has nothing to do with Srk and everything to do with the many commentaries that are found in that site (Satyam of course being the exception). Do I think IBOS “lies”? I don’t know and I frankly don’t care, especially after the sort of vile behavior they indulged during Jodha Akbar’s release. I’m no fan of BOI either as it seems to have certain agendas and fudges the numbers accordingly. Having said that, I detest IBOS more because of the sort of politics it practices than BOI (Maybe this has to do with the fact that I’m not much interested in numbers and BOI accused of being practicing this number fudging doesn’t figure that highly on my “detestation” list).

  11. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Matrix: You’ve countered your own objection in some ways. You state that you don’t really trust BOI more than IBOS and vice versa (you are more or less saying this). But that you detest IBOS for the politics. This is a perfectly reasonable position. But you’ve not morphed ‘communal’ politics with ‘lying’ which is all I am arguing for. Your position is actually that IBOS shouldn’t be supported even if they’re telling the truth because of the politics is a perfectly acceptable one.

    As for ILG, I think the sharp edge of his humor is often missed. But the larger point here is that the SRK fans (it is only with JA that some ‘new’ Hrithik fans have joined the brigade) for the longest time has run this hysterical campaign against IBOS. Calling the numbers ‘forged’, calling IBOS pro-Bachchan and pro-Hrithik and pro-Devgan (clearly establishing a ‘Hindu’ link), so on and so forth. When the example of Aami was pointed out as being one of the ‘Muslim’ stars who gets one of the best shakes of any star on IBOS this was ignored. Next Hrithik (following some of the NG politics) was decoupled from the bachchans. At some point it became only about the Bachchans. But now the propaganda is really at its most nefarious. That this is a pro-Bachchan site (nevermind if they’ve said some of the harshest things about Abhishek in matters of appearance and so on) and a communal one! The really insidious bit of this is therefore coupling the Bacchchans with the ‘communal’.

    But leaving this aside there have been many charged leveled at all points and within such an environment the ‘communal’ stuff was the latest. This isn’t to deny that there wasn’t something ‘communal’ about the JA coverage. But there are SRK sites like Filmikhabar that have been communal to a much greater degree but no one has ever mentioned those. Forget all of this. the member here who’s led the anti-IBOS charge is the one who actually started out by calling me ‘communal’! But forget even this. The same tactics were then used to really peddle all sorts of lies about my degree of involvement with IBOS. So when such folks launch the anti-IBOS campaign I think ILG’s response (and it’s humorous) is entirely in order.

    But your own position, as you’ve formulated it, is perfectly honorable. That’s now however, what these other guys are saying.

  12. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    And I’ve said this before (not because he’s a friend because I have other friends here and I don’t say the same about them!) but ILG’s humor is one of a kind here. Edgy and caustic and biting.. all in the best sense.. there’s nothing worse than bland humor! I’ve always felt (and I’ve said this before) that ILG has a gift for this kind of humor.

  13. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    matrix: Satyam, somewhat related to my previous comment, my perception of you from your writings is that you are someone who loathes the sort of politics IBOS indulges in as I mentioned before (in US parlance I would call you a liberal, or in the words of “Falufa O’riely” loony left . First Cheney reference and now this, damn the side effects of occasionally watching fox new, imagine what’ll happen if you watch it regularly: my guess is two term Bush presidency ). So, it is puzzling to me to see you not only defend it vehemently but also you writing articles for that site (Btw you are an excellent writer, whether one agrees with you or not. Your writings are generally engaging and more often than not are provocative without being incendiary and nasty. Thus I believe you won’t be short of any writing platforms if you wish to, hence even more puzzlement. My only suggestion to you: don’t let Srk bother you so much just kidding). Why is that so?

    matrix: contd……Is it only because it seemingly supports the Bachchans? And is being a fan of a particular star so important that you can overlook the fundamental principles you believe in? I myself being an Amitabh fan think he hardly need a site like IBOS for any reason whatsoever. He’s too big a star and an actor to need any sort of propaganda.

  14. Comment by ILG on 7 May 2008:

    Matrix,
    Agree with some of what you said and do not deny IBOS owner apparently has communal agenda. But the main reason people get labelled here and in SB as communal is because they dont
    happen to be SRK fans. I have been labelled as such on many occasions for the same reason. As far as Sataym’s connection with IBOS goes he has not written for them after their blatantly communal commentaries. But I will let him speak for himself.

  15. Comment by Myna on 7 May 2008:

    “The same tactics were then used to really peddle all sorts of lies about my degree of involvement with IBOS. So when such folks launch the anti-IBOS campaign I think ILG’s response (and it’s humorous) is entirely in order.”

    I am the only one who commented on this thread against ibos. When did I use the tactics, launch the campaign and all? So if I (or anyone) feel ibos is communal and lie, I am an srk fan with a foggy state of mind??? and the comment is entirely in order!!!!
    And I am sure that there are other Bachchan fans here who feel the same - that ibos is communal and shouldnt be given much importance. But its just that they wont comment on that.

  16. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Matrix: I would hesitate to define myself as a ‘liberal’ for all sorts of reasons but to keep things simple let’s say that I would be on the left more often than not in any given political discourse.

    IBOS does not speak for Bachchan. Whether he needs them or not he’s certainly not authorized them. He now has his blog precisely because he wants to disseminate his views, unadulterated.

    But getting to the question of the politics. I actually have many friends who are on the ‘right’, including on this forum. I don’t hold anyone’s ideology against them unless it rises to a level where I consider it truly ‘dangerous’. Or unacceptable from my perspective. I don’t put Vajpayee and Modi in the same bracket even if both share the same principles in many ways. Similarly I am not for the left if the ‘left’ in question is Messrs Stalin and Mao. From my perspective the IBOS commentary on JA is regrettable for a variety of reasons, I often found it offensive too, but isn’t it better as a pragmatic point to really stay at the ‘heart’ of such an enterprise and deconstruct it from the inside? In other words ‘lefties’ go to left sites and ‘right wingers’ go to right oriented ones. Often there is no engagement across the lines. But here on IBOS if there has been communal stuff as it has been termed there have also been I would think some very liberal pieces from myself (admittedly the latter far less but that’s because of my own stamina issues and not anything else; I could put up a piece every day there if I wished! In fact doesn’t this very fact argue for the essential ‘fairness’ there? All views can be represented). So you get a greater range of the discussion.

    In my view so far there hasn’t been much on the site where I would altogether reconsider my options (and I did at one point). On the JA stuff the larger point was missed in all of the hysteria here. It wasn’t the ‘Muslim’ that was being attacked as much as it was ’secularism’ and ‘liberalism’. For a certain right oriented view of the word the ‘Muslim’ is just a calling card in a larger liberal narrative that seeks to undermine a miliant Indian nationalism (as the right desires it) by then using another caling card called the ‘Hindu’. So the ‘Muslim’ is just the symptom of a larger malaise. However this isn’t the Hitler formulation where the minority becomes the very fount of the problem. And therefore eliminating the minority eliminates the problem. There are of course enough politicians who believe the latter as well in India. Thackeray himself oscillates between the two positions. But on IBOS I mostly saw the former with respect to JA, only sometimes the latter.

    Note how with this same right Aamir’s credentials are never in question. precisely because he’s always (and rather cleverly) also defined himself as a good nationalist without ever really accepting the discourse of the right. He’s made the marriage work in a rather interesting way by reclaiming a nationalism that has not been hijacked by the right. This is I think a very valuable move for comtemporary India. In any case no one really criticizes him. This is why even a Congress that is closer to SRK actually invited him for the Olympics ceremony. This is why you find IBOS going after a SRK but never an Aamir. So on and so forth.

    Finally I don’t really think that IBOS help the Bachchan cause very much when they also produce this kind of commentary at the same time. So I wouldn’t be there for this reason. Specially not when Bachchan now has his blog which I respond to regularly.

  17. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Myna: Yes true you didn’t say those things but I am always thinking of larger audiences in any detailed response!

  18. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Matrix: But also note that in about 8 months I’ve written 4 pieces or so for IBOS. Once every two months isn’t much! I have written volumes on NG in the meantimes. I have already written volumes on Bachchan’s blog. Now having said that I might do a bit more for IBOS in the near future for certain reasons but I’m hardly expending energy indiscriminately. All said and done my bar is just a bit higher for severing a connection in these matters and I guess (you might disagree with me) I’ve not defined it as such so far.

  19. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    matrix: Thanks Satyam and ILG for the clarification. I’m not fully versed with the history and politics of NG, so I addressed you guys. And I also believe that labeling someone as communal just based on his liking/disliking some particular actors is pathetic to say the least.

    Your ‘addresses’ are always welcome..

  20. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    One final point Matrix and I’m stressing this once more. My real argument here wasn’t about IBOS as such but a logic whereby ‘communalism’ is linked to ‘dishonesty’. I was resisting this more than anything else. But of course a lot of what is right wing discourse without necessarily being ‘communal’ in the true sense of that term would also be defined as such by a ‘liberal’ audience not eager to read the ‘right’ carefully.

  21. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    :razz:

    One of the two reasons highlighted gain as why IBOS is online (despite less than 5000 visistors /day).

  22. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Matrix: Check out this piece here which I wrote for IBOS (respondng to another one on the site) much before all the JA stuff appeared:

    http://www.naachgaana.com/2007/11/19/bewitched-by-the-communal-ibos/

    The one piece I have written since JA also celebrates a left/liberal/secular tradition and ties it with bachchan (this is the one I just referenced above).

  23. Comment by Qalandar on 7 May 2008:

    Myna: Satyam is referring to older discussions here, mostly before you even joined NG.

    IBOS is evidently run by someone who is rabidly communal, and that was the reason for its tirades against Jodha Akbar (tirades that I an others “deconstructed” at length on NG). But satyam is right that there was some bad faith operating here: initially, certain people wouldn’t wnat to just come out and say IBOS was communal, so they would say it’s “pro-abhishek, pro-Hritik” and anti-this or that star. Later on the pretense was that they would run down Hritik’s film Jodha Akbar because they were “pro-abhishek.” Actually both of these are simply untrue: it was the communal angle that made them run down Jodha-Akbar, and it has always been ideology that trumps other considerations on that site (they’ve had harsh words even for Abhishek and Amitabh because of the Samajwadi connection recently).

  24. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    “One of the two reasons highlighted gain as why IBOS is online (despite less than 5000 visistors /day”

    NG has done worse than this at many points! Of course assuming that number is true!

  25. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    The two reasons ( for those who came in late) as to why IBOS exists

    1) Abhishek Bachchan is the real threat to Shah Rukh Khan and Hrithik Roshan.

    2) All Shah Rukh Khan hits are media created rather than real. And all the makers who are really clamouring to sign him do not really exist.

  26. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Qalandar: I would even resist the ‘rabidly communal’ charge. I think this has sometimes seemed to be the case but not always. With JA things really went out of control, I concede this. But again (and as you well know) the history of Muslim rule in India is often a very emotive topic for the right (much less the idea of Hindu/Muslim ‘miscegenation’ as represented by Jodhaa-Akbar and all the attendant power equations).

    On this very forum both of us have defended Akbar against certain charges.

  27. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    NG I think has gone upto 9000 visitors/day, which IBOS has not. Despite all the beautiful recent write ups, before and after Jodha Akbar :-)

    Here is are the figures

    http://www.statbrain.com/www.ibosnetwork.com/

    http://www.statbrain.com/www.naachgaana.com/

    The attempt to question Rohit’s labour of love NG’s popularity is deploreable.

  28. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    “And all the makers who are really clamouring to sign him do not really exist”

    Like who? He has one Aditya Chopra film on hand that he’s co-producing! An odd claim to make at this point in time! Or at any point in the last few years!

  29. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Actually NG has been even around 4000 at times. I think Rks would be able to inform us in detailed fashion about the average trending month by month. For example some peaks were hit around the Abhi-Ash marriage last year. But numbers also went down later. So they don’t stay constant. But yes NG definitely gets a lot more hits than IBOS on average. There’s no question about it. I don’t think this was a mystery to anyone. Not sure what this proves though as many porn sites get a lot more hits than many news sites!

    As for questioning “Rohit’s labor of love” this kind of stuff is par for the course for you. Of course I have questioned Rohit himself on this very site (as NG members might remember) so questioning NG (which I also have for various ‘editorial’ decisions) is hardly something I’m afraid of!

    And this site is as much the ‘labor of love’ of those who’ve contributed in all sorts of ways here from day 1 as it is Rohit’s. Presumably the contents get the hits? I write vastly more here than on IBOS. there isn’t even a comparison. LOL!

  30. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    On SRK, I guess you might be counting his guest appearance of ‘extended special appearances’ — Bhootnath, Dostana, Billoo Barber, Krazzy 4, Dulha Mil Gaya. Yeah people are clamouring for those!

    Anyway this discussion is getting derailed again. The larger point here was about ‘communalism’ and ‘lying’! Of course your presence here is therefore serendipitous!

    In any case I could hardly have expected you on a Bachchan blog post!

  31. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    matrix: Satyam, I in no way meant to say that Amitabh has anything to do with IBOS. My point was it does him no good whatsoever. I also certainly didn’t mean to say that you should only befriend or engage with those who share your “ideologies”, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. Btw thanks again for answering me so patiently and eloquently.

    Anytime Matrix.. thanks for the remarks..

  32. Comment by Myna on 7 May 2008:

    “Why do I get into all of this? Because one must maintain a certain ethics!
    Your entire support for BOI for example is only premised on their being the most positive on JA! That’s all there is to it. Why the IBOS pretense?!”

    Yes, one must maintain certain ethics and I feel ibos doesnt have any ethics bcoz of their communal write ups and their reporting during JA.

    I am not pretending anything abt ibos - I genuinely feel they are outright communal. And I never said I support or rely on one particular site, I take majority opinion. And if some site or someone happens to be as communal as ibos, their opinion doesnt matter to me. But if u say that I supported BOI bcoz they were +ve on JA, can I say that you are defending/supporting communal ibos bcoz they are pro-bachchans?

  33. Comment by rks on 7 May 2008:

    Aap log kripya shanti banaaye rakhen..
    Shanti jaayegi to yeh dhaaga band ho jaayegaa!

    Different ‘information tracking ‘ Web sites have different reading for same site. The sitemeter which is at bottom of NG gives 3-4K hits daily and it goes up during release of a significant movie.

    Recently talked with Rohit and we have paucity of funds and apparently Rohit is digging deep into his pockets to pay for the difference after the contributions. All members can contribute, even if they are anywhere in World. Any amount of contibution (even the smallest) helps in maintaining and upgrading NG. Any conribution mails, please send it to me (Currently even I am not fully aware how it is done, but would forward it to Rohit once he is relatively idle).

  34. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    It is not only Jodha Akbar but on many other recent posts and commentary that IBOS has come under surveillance.

    What is pathetic is the effort to undermine NG just to highlight IBOS. I guess the financial stakes are the reasons.

  35. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    On BOI I guess it is now being quaoted by one and all, though one of the IBOS owner tried to say that it was so because of IBOS being off air (after Bluffmaster and a day before Guru released). And that once IBOS comes back it’ll be the site. Alas it has become a joke of a site…

  36. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    “I guess the financial stakes are the reasons.”

    I contribute 30%. The rest is put up by Bachchan himself. I wans’t able to do more as I’m also contributing 10% to Bachchan’s future website. I and Bachchan are partners in communalism.

  37. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    “Alas it has become a joke of a site…”

    Which is why you obsess over it so much?!

  38. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Rks: thanks, that’s what I thought..

  39. Comment by rockstar on 7 May 2008:

    who beleives ibos correct in a same way who beleives boi is it an oficial recognised source recognised by trade ( still remeber the dig by mr. taran adarsh there are many so called bo portals , which are r not transparent about ur number, ur source there will always be questionmark boi and ibos are just merly online portals not some god of indian boxoffice

  40. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    “Aap log kripya shanti banaaye rakhen..
    Shanti jaayegi to yeh dhaaga band ho jaayegaa!”

    Rks, I am stepping out anyway! Plus I don’t want to help further in the hijacking of this thread.

    I’ll get back to putting up Bachchan blogs (at least the same folks won’t follow me there!).

  41. Comment by rockstar on 7 May 2008:

    “On BOI I guess it is now being quaoted by one and all, though one of the IBOS owner tried to say that it was so because of IBOS being off air (after Bluffmaster and a day before Guru released). And that once IBOS comes back it’ll be the site. Alas it has become a joke of a site…”

    which are all every newspaper or channel most of them hires independent trade analyst i guess which is the trend now and i am not talking about itsy bitsy online portals

  42. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    Oh thanks to Complete Cinema guys, I know exactly who the partners are in IBOS. Remember? IBOS used to be quoted there :-)

    Ab main kya boloon kaun kaun 4 log hain. Maine bola hai na mujhe challange mat karna.

    Doobe ga tumhara paisa. Kuch nahi hona hai IBOS ka. Unless its a cool killer like you as the boss :wink:

  43. Comment by rockstar on 7 May 2008:

    “though one of the IBOS owner tried to say that it was so because of IBOS being off air ”

    what about owner of boi who is he i guess he is being referred as ashok bhai by most in the forum it seems some guys have real connection with him

  44. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    Rockstar I have deviated from BOI numbers and classifications whenever I disagree, but it is the quoted site in Bollywood.

  45. Comment by rockstar on 7 May 2008:

    “Oh thanks to Complete Cinema guys, I know exactly who the partners are in IBOS. Remember? IBOS used to be quoted there”

    correct but this forum also has some persons who openly administers a fan site of a certain star( shahrukhkhan.org) and talks about credibility

  46. Comment by rks on 7 May 2008:

    I think we have enough of charges for the day..we should go to different threads.

  47. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Tango, you keep inventing stuff all the time. These days it’s the idea that IBOS has ‘4′ owners! If you’re moderating http://www.shahrukhkhan.org this doesn’t mean that everyone else is in the same boat!

    But you’ve used these tactics before. Evey week a new ‘lie’ is invented, a new ‘conspiracy’ is suggested..

  48. Comment by satyam on 7 May 2008:

    Rks: I think you should actually close this thread. There was a proper discussion on ‘communalism’ and ‘lying’ here but now (yet again) it’s been hijacked with this garbage.

  49. Comment by ILG on 7 May 2008:

    Ahh, Innuendoes and insinuations, not supported by materials facts - anit-Machiavellism at its best.

  50. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    Rockstar “correct but this forum also has some persons who openly administers a fan site of a certain star( shahrukhkhan.org) and talks about credibility”

    You drunk or something? I am not even talking too you.

    There are FOUR people who run or are the partners at IBOS. I stand by that statement.

  51. Comment by Tango on 7 May 2008:

    RKS- please notice how the hero of today Rockstar is targetting me unfairly and unprovoked.

    I guess he deserves a warning from you as well as Rohit.