89
Rohit and RKS I request you to kindly ban Mr. Satyam for not respecting the integrity of the log in nicknames.
Even I can disclose this persons real name but yet again desist from it.
Tango
-
Gorilla - last time i heard KI was a good grosser at 45 cr ... so was DDD ... so ...
-Achilles -
:)
-manoj16_391 -
-Achilles -
'I am going to support it till the end of my energies!' LOL...manoj i am with you. I think movie will ...
-Gorilla -
-manoj16_391 -
-Achilles -
-manoj16_391 -
-Gorilla -
-manoj16_391 -
-manoj16_391 -
-manoj16_391 -
-manoj16_391 -
-Achilles -
-manoj16_391 -
-Achilles -
i'm sure! those annoying hummable song that you always want to get it out of your head with difficulties. tumhe pyaar ...
-MrCool -
-manoj16_391 -
-MrCool -
-manoj16_391 -
No yakuza.I can say surely that rnbdj was less than SIK.SIK is around 43.5-44 and rnbdj is around 42. Yashraj has ...
-housefullatbb -
-manoj16_391 -
housefullatbb, This is first week record (Not weekend), First week of Singh Is Kinng was 38,98,19,763, While RNBDJ was ahead ...
-Yakuza -
-housefullatbb -
-Raju Guide -
Doga, Yes it seems so at ths moment..
-RAJ
neelu 5 February 2009
09:27:03 am
Tango – such calls are useless, I say just reveal all names and be done with it!
Som 5 February 2009
09:33:36 am
That thread has been closed, wanted to ask something to Tango. Here it goes:
Tango:Since I can’t ask a BOI or Taran on how they arrive at the classification of movies, I would be glad if you just could come up with an explanation on how you gave Rab Ne an ATBB tag?What sort of criterion did you follow?And please don’t take this in a wrong way,I am sure your explanation would go a long way in clear many doubts.
satyam 5 February 2009
11:46:22 am
Tango: The difference is that you used that older name in the past. Many members here are called by their older names. Haven’t you heard the name ‘Rajen’ here even though he’s gone through a couple of IDs since? There are other such examples!
But what are you objecting to?! You yourself put up pieces with your other ID here. Everyone knows this. It’s really bizarre that you;re bringing this up. I suspect it’s because I’ve brought up the shahrukhkhan.org deal! This too you’ve accepted in the past! Hope you won’t make me search for the comments!
Now as for banning I support this motion myself. I am expending far too much time here. LOL! So Rohit and Rks have my fullest support for this. In fact I will make the effort to collect other ’signatures’ for this drive. Your raising this issue is greatly appreciated..
satyam 5 February 2009
11:56:11 am
And Tango, let me help you some more with this. If you do a search for comments here you will see about 78 pages turn up. Start from the end and you will see many many many comments with your older ID! It’s one thing when people use only one ID. But when you make the change everyone remembers the older reference. This is not rocket science! But again there are so many other comments there where people are referring to you by your older ID and you don’t have a problem! It’s really the shahrukhkhan.org deal and the questions I’ve asked about your box office ratings there that’s irked you. But don’t worry, so far I’ve just asked one question. I haven’t really put up the entire chart here! Because many more questions would then come up! For now, and while I still remain ‘unbanned’, could you tell me why KANK at 47 crores is a bigger hit than Don at 50 crores? (again going by your ratings there!).
jayshah 5 February 2009
01:31:45 pm
Veto Veto Veto!
neelu 5 February 2009
03:18:24 pm
I call on Tango to reveal all names, including those who hide under sock-puppet IDs on the Shout Box.
My name is Beld 5 February 2009
07:13:44 pm
i also veto this. satyam and ILG are the dark forces of NG. if you ban them – then NG will be all nice people and too goody goody. and of course tango – asking rks to moderate satyam/ILG is like asking Akshay Kumar to moderate the cheese in his movies
Mavani 5 February 2009
10:46:49 pm
Satyam deserves to be banned right now . I have seen that most ugly scenes at Naachgaana have been around him . He teases members or through his group but goes free as his group is strong here.
In 2007 Satyam and another member also contacted me through a common sindhi friend from USA to try and get Tango removed from Naachgaana and asked me join his group at . I ignored to disclose that but now the time is right to show his real face .
But I know he will not be removed from here .
neelu 5 February 2009
10:59:50 pm
If what Mavani says is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) then this is indeed despicable behavior and most unexpected for a forum supposedly populated by mature individuals. Shocking!
RAJ 5 February 2009
11:03:05 pm
Yes if indeed its true its really shocking….
RAJ 5 February 2009
11:04:11 pm
And yes i have seen these guys go scot free more often than not….
The more recent been the way Ideanique was abused and forced to leave the place…
julie 5 February 2009
11:49:11 pm
“And Tango, let me help you some more with this. If you do a search for comments here you will see about 78 pages turn up. Start from the end and you will see many many many comments with your older ID! ”
This does not imply that one has to take the onus of referring to a member’s older ID name when the screen name has formally changed. I am with Tango on members confining themselves to using the present screen name especially if it gives rise to sensitive issues.
I do agree that there should be more strict moderation to this effect.
Mavani – if what you say is correct (no reason to doubt your words)it is a truly despicable act to say the least.
neelu 5 February 2009
11:53:15 pm
Someone on SB provided me with a link to an old thread from when I was unaware of the existence of NG. Quite illuminating!
http://www.naachgaana.com/2007.....ers-at-ng/
sandy 6 February 2009
12:11:54 am
Rohit: I don’t agree at all that NG will be ‘nicer’ if Satyam goes. Personally, I enjoy reading his writings a lot and probably wouldn;t even visit if it weren’t for Satyam, Q and Jay.
rks 6 February 2009
01:02:06 am
?
I wish members show better judgment.
jayshah 6 February 2009
01:37:15 am
Well its clear there is a split here, predictable one too. So once Rohit gets the two site thing going we can all split! There have been far worse things done and said then “referring to an older ID” and people haven’t been kicked off for that. And on the SB, well there is probably a record of IP addresses and can easily be deduced who is “faking” out there and am sure the results will surprise many members. But me thinks that can of worms should not be opened just to save some face for some “trusted” members and what they have been saying under the different IDs.
Som 6 February 2009
01:44:58 am
Well.. you are right about SB,Jay. Members will be surprised if they come to know I make 2-3 duplicate IDs every day.
sandy 6 February 2009
01:47:11 am
Absolutely, as i keep saying all the time people who point fingers at Satyam are the ones who have all his weaknesses (including all the bad faith and meanness)but with not an iota of his strengths (his writing skills, knowledge and humour).
My name is Beld 6 February 2009
03:10:12 am
>>Absolutely, as i keep saying all the time people who point fingers at Satyam are the ones who have all his weaknesses (including all the bad faith and meanness)but with not an iota of his strengths (his writing skills, knowledge and humour)
look at whos talking. at best – a practitioner of third rate journalism – this snooty female thinks she owns this site. i dont think we need to ban anyone – but ya we can ban the snootiness
My name is Beld 6 February 2009
03:11:10 am
>>I wish members show better judgment.
I wud include the moderator in the list of members — no?
My name is Beld 6 February 2009
03:20:50 am
Rohit – I do think you need to expand the moderator pool. I believe that is the core issue here. I do believe we need to have a group of moderators – and we have good folks like Q, Aar, rks, Julie, Som. It could be a revolving group within this elite group. I doubt any of the characters here will disagree with anyone i have mentioned in the list.
). But please do form a group of moderators. The current system is not working imo (i know lot of folks disagree because of not wanting to make rks feel bad) – but imo rks is too nice to be a moderator and doesnt take the hard decisions that sometimes need to be
And ya there seems to some resentment with the old members – read satyam, ILG, Sandy – who are not exactly paragons of virtue – that i wasnt banned for editing satyam’s comments. While personally – people may prefer one over the other – you got to at least show some hard-ass mentality here to take control. So do ban me (hopefully for a short while
satyam 6 February 2009
03:48:10 am
“In 2007 Satyam and another member also contacted me through a common sindhi friend from USA to try and get Tango removed from Naachgaana and asked me join his group at . I ignored to disclose that but now the time is right to show his real face ”
Not sure what your motivations here are Mavani but there is as much truth to this claim as there is to the idea that Bachchan is a short guy!
You are a liar!
Because of your lie here I actually have doubts of even that older claim you made about 15 members trying to contact you. LOL!
satyam 6 February 2009
03:50:25 am
Julie: I think you’ve not been reading all of my comments!
satyam 6 February 2009
03:52:23 am
Sandy: Thanks much.. even if I’m devastated that you consider me mean!
My name is Beld 6 February 2009
03:54:52 am
>>You are a liar!
I hope you were looking at mirror while saying that dude. Because everyone knows that if anyone personifies lies on NG – its you….by far
satyam 6 February 2009
03:55:00 am
There is no need for a group of moderators. Rks is the perfect moderator. He’s about the most non-controversial member here.
There is nothing wrong with the current system. I’ve seen the worst of NG and this is not even close to it! In fact things have been going pretty smoothly for a while.
sandy 6 February 2009
03:58:21 am
C’mon Satyam, you can live with the ‘mean’ remark! On the rest, be rest assured you have more admirers than haters.
sandy 6 February 2009
03:58:58 am
C’mon Satyam, you can live with the ‘mean’ remark LOL.
My name is Beld 6 February 2009
04:00:57 am
>>C’mon Satyam, you can live with the ‘mean’ remark! On the rest, be rest assured you have more admirers than haters.
>>>>You are a liar!
Enough said
satyam 6 February 2009
04:03:29 am
Sandy: I can because I know you don’t mean it!
satyam 6 February 2009
04:16:07 am
Beld: I am an indecent fellow from a decent family. Hope it’s the same with you.
I normally ignore your comments but you’ve directly addressed me so I had to respond!
Mavani is a liar though it is not surprising to see folks here who have other issues with me choosing to ‘believe’. LOL!
Rohit will assuredly find the idea of my trying to get anyone banned quite a joke since I once worked with him to unban someone! LOL! Even when I faced the worst abuse over here I never asked for anyone to be banned. Even in a very recent incident where I felt a privilege had been abused I urged strong action but then relented and suggested no ban be done.
So again Mavani is a liar.
My name is Beld 6 February 2009
04:22:24 am
>>Beld: I am an indecent fellow from a decent family. Hope it’s the same with you.
tune mere dil ko choo liya
dude we may hate each others guts (and some other parts) – but i dont know you or anyone else to make value judgements. But ya – i will engage in aggressive banter as we have always…
The only person whom i have asked to be banned is me, myself and Irene
satyam 6 February 2009
04:23:41 am
Aggressive banter is one thing Beld. Plain nastiness another.
My name is Beld 6 February 2009
04:24:52 am
thats ur view satyam – not mine. Tough luck if u see it that way.
Kanwal 6 February 2009
05:22:29 am
If mavani cant support his/her claim and is lying he/she should be banned the very next moment.
We dont need people like this trying to make baseless claims.
Rest can be solved as has been solved here for a long time.
sandy 6 February 2009
05:29:55 am
Exactly, mavani – you’re the one making accusations. Please prove it first and show us those emails (15 as you claim).
If you’ve deleted them, too bad. There’s no proof against Satyam in that case.
Ravi 6 February 2009
05:30:48 am
The ban talk is stupid folks. What everyone does here is equally good or bad but one thing on Satyam not too many people can write like him or take abuse like him without loosing control, whether he deserves the abuse or not depends on the individual.
NG won’t be the same without Satyam and hopefully people are not colluding to put stuff against Satyam ,like maybe someone studying at the same college where someone else is teaching or something of the sort.
sandy 6 February 2009
05:33:24 am
Ravi: Satyam ko sirf ek aadmi NG se bahar nikaal sakta hai, aur woh khud Satyam hai!
Ravi 6 February 2009
05:47:55 am
Rightly said Sandhya.
jayshah 6 February 2009
05:48:29 am
Satyam has my full support. I say this because his contribution here is more than just his comments on SRK (X,Y,Z dislike him because of this) or Hrithik (X,Y,Z dislike him because of this) or Abhishek (X,Y,Z dislike him because of this). There is plenty of contributions beyond his opinions on these 3 stars. Be it politics, sport, world cinema, languages – actually practically any subject, the guy has an opinion. And he has vast knowledge whether one disagrees or agrees.
He is being targeted on the basis of comments relating to SRK, Hrithik and Abhishek. Nothing else in the end. And targeted by in large by strong fans of these stars. The correlation is simply very clear.
But it might be best we have the split on the two NG sites. The anti-Satyam establishment can have their own room. Enough of the games and the abuse. They can abuse in their little room, have a Satyam bashing corner.
Ravi 6 February 2009
05:56:22 am
Very nicely said Jay, though I disagree about the the two NG site thing.
Though sometimes the bashings and name callings go overboard, it is fun to watch the arguements take place, though would prefer if personal insults were not part of it.
julie 6 February 2009
06:19:55 am
People here are having trouble in reading English. Can anyone tell who amongst the staunch Hrithik and SRK fans is asking for a ban of anybody? Quite a bit of presumption there.
It is as good as saying that those backing satyam are staunch Abhishek and Aamir fans and boy how they collude. Now isn’t that a correlation too.
That aside, what anyone brings or doesn’t bring to the forum hardly makes a case for banning or not banning of a member. The point was that one is referring to the emails sent specifically by a member. But yes if Mavani cannot back his /her statements by any written proof, the matter becomes merely a fictitious and moot point. end of the topic.
satyam 6 February 2009
06:30:09 am
Thanks extremely Ravi, Sandy, Jay…
You guys give me too much credit (I mean this quite sincerely) and it’s certainly much appreciated if a little embarrassing (one knows one does not deserve such).. but you reveal yourselves as some of the ‘true’ membership of this forum..
Jay, I fervently support the Satyam bashing corner!
Ravi 6 February 2009
06:31:25 am
My bad, I thought I was reading some other language. Did not realise that was English.
julie 6 February 2009
06:34:30 am
Ravi – perhaps you are mistakenly reading French. Stop giving fuel to fire. No one is asking for anyone’s ban except the one who has started the thread.
Ravi 6 February 2009
06:36:55 am
And I thought I responded to that and nothing else.
jayshah 6 February 2009
06:37:22 am
End of topic? So lets throw allegations around…have number of members say it is despicable (if true) without any verification, then if no proof is provided we close a lid on the issue? At the same time, we run Satyam’s name threw the gutter and “create” this presumptious bubble around him. Hardly seems fair to me. I don’t call for action, but would call for such claims to be sorted out offline one way or another rather than hanging out all the dirty linen to dry.
“It is as good as saying that those backing satyam are staunch Abhishek and Aamir fans and boy how they collude. Now isn’t that a correlation too.”
hardly the same. The political angst against Satyam is fuelled by staunch fans. His “supporters” support that he is “well within his rights” to have an opinion. And it does not need to stoop to a personal war.
Ravi 6 February 2009
06:40:54 am
Anyhow Julie, I repsonded because I did not like the tone of your reply and was being saracastic.
What to do, since my childhood never liked being lectured to.
satyam 6 February 2009
06:54:01 am
“But yes if Mavani cannot back his /her statements by any written proof, the matter becomes merely a fictitious and moot point. end of the topic.”
Yes but shouldn’t there be some ‘evidence’ before a claim is made? I don’t know Mavani from Adam except for the few times he’s showed up over here. I don’t have a ‘Sindhi’ friend in the US. I don’t know how he dreamed up such nonsense.
Speaking for myself I have never emailed members asking to take them one position or another against anyone else. Even when I’ve received the worst kind of abuse. Secondly I have never even asked Rohit or Rks to ban anyone even if I’ve sometimes been frustrated by the lack of total action on what I considered questionable ‘tolerance’.
Finally (and everyone here knows this) I am just too combative in many ways, far too frank (for my own good!) to get into these behind the scenes conspiracies and what not. I’m the guy who’s had open fights with Rohit in the past. And I’m engaging in this kind of cheap politics behind the scenes? Please!
I will also add a related point. There are folks here, principally the one who started this thread, who engage in constant conspiracy talk. Whether it’s out of a sense of genuine paranoia or politics (I suspect it’s both) it genuinely poisons the atmosphere. Because things are constantly insinuated without taking names even though it’s fairly obvious who the allusion refers to. Rks has been good as a moderator and discouraged this kind of stuff on the forum so the same folks have now taken this to the SB. No one has any control over the SB, this is not what I’m after, but this conspiracy talk has the unfortunate consequence of convincing other members. And when there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence.
We can have disagreements with people, be blunt at times, perhaps even too blunt. We can have fights. But let’s do it in the open so there’s clarity. Constantly asserting conspiracies about everyone just muddies everything and again no evidence is ever needed!
ILG 6 February 2009
07:01:12 am
What a despicable group. A *** makes an unfounded accusation and the i***** try to run with it. I am ashamed these people are NG members.
satyam 6 February 2009
07:02:35 am
And it’s not just ‘conspiracy’. In the same quarters I have also noticed a tendency to plainly ‘lie’ about things. And it’s done for a reason. When a person cannot be deconstructed by way of argument you start attacking ‘character’. It’s the oldest trick in the world. So for example Satyam ‘is’ theskeptic, Satyam uses IDs, Satyam emails people, Satyam has invested money in IBOS (is one of three owners there), Satyam was kicked off from PB, I don’t even remember the long list here. Each one of these is basically a ‘lie’. In not one of these cases was proof ever produced of anything.
What’s really struck a raw nerve now? That I was able to get the box office ratings from shahrukkhan.org?
The author of this post dares to suggest that my real name could also be revealed. Why not also reveal the entire history behind this name? That I was considered ‘communal’ for liking Abhishek and not SRK (Aamir never counted!)? And how was this cleared up?! Unlike others here I have retained that bit of evidence! And could forward this to Rohit or Rks if they so wished!
ILG 6 February 2009
07:04:01 am
Re:the matter becomes merely a fictitious and moot point. end of the topic.
So, someone can make a totally fictitious claim and have others join in the tasteless chorus and if he is proven wrong, topic should be closed ? Not before those idiots own up and apologise for their seriously flawed judgement.
satyam 6 February 2009
07:06:26 am
Forget having intense arguments with Rohit, despite all my regard for Bachchan I’ve had some pretty strong things to say on his blog about his own opinions. Members here have noticed it and commented on it. Does it look like I’m out to create these conspiratorial webs?
I must say though that from certain folks I wouldn’t have been surprised with such accusations. I am quite puzzled that it’s come from Mavani. Don’t know the guy at all! Did he show Rohit the evidence when he claims the problem occurred? I can only assume that some of my statements on stars have irked him enough to do this.
ILG 6 February 2009
07:08:48 am
Re:with the old members – read satyam, ILG, Sandy – who are not exactly paragons of virtue – that i wasnt banned for editing satyam’s comments
Wrong again.I actually made the case for the opposite. However despicalbe that act was, was not favoring banning tho your continued inability to the see the right from wrong and unwillingness to offer even a token apology did wear me down.
ILG 6 February 2009
07:13:09 am
People who dont kno the full story behing Idea’s leaving should keep quiet.
ILG 6 February 2009
07:14:50 am
Suffice to say Sandy and RKS kno why he left as he emailed them too explaining why he was leaving. I do not want to reveal anything that Idea didnt intend revealing on forum.
satyam 6 February 2009
07:16:51 am
Not only did ILG do what he’s claiming here he also told me privately to not ask for this sort of thing. I don’t believe Sandy said any such thing either, at least I’m not aware of it. I will not speak on what I said or did in this matter beyond what I’ve already alluded to.
I’ve always found it rather sadly ironic that the people who get maligned for these reasons are precisely the ones who’ve tried hardest to stop people from leaving the forum, or certainly not trying to get them barred in any way.
Again Beld simply doesn’t know how much his really poor behavior on occasions in some of these matters has been ‘rewarded’ with good faith from the other side. No one’s ‘running’ the forum but Rohit. Let’s be clear about this. But to the extent that anyone has an opinion and makes recommendations there have never been anything but positive ones from ILG (and some other folks I am friendly with) even in the face of the worst conduct.
Ravi 6 February 2009
07:20:40 am
By the way RKS, like I always say, great job doing what you are doing.
It is tough and whatever you do, you piss of one or the other.
Qalandar 6 February 2009
07:24:54 am
How would anyone “prove” anything here anyway? I said this on the shoutbox last night, but if I tomorrow create a new email address satyam123@yahoo.com, pretend to be satyam, and email mavani, how could anyone prove anything one way or another? Thus it is quite possible that mavani is mistaken, even if he sincerely believes what he is saying.
Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever that satyam has not emailed mavani — this is based on the fact that it manifestly is not his style to do so. Since he is a rather combative chap on NG, it doesn’t stand to reason that he would do something like this.
Tango: I have one complaint against you, and pardon my speaking frankly: you have been insinuating for a long long time that certain NGites use fake/multiple IDs to make posts on the shoutbox or even on NG. You should either be plain who you are referring to, present evidence, or your reasons for thinking so; otherwise, it is not correct to just perpetuate a general climate of innuendo and suspicion.
My own complaint with multiple IDs had been a different one: once upon a time, there was no restriction in the shoutbox, and anyone could take up any ID; thus, we saw many fake “qalandars” and other NGites who would show up and say anything. For this reason I used to stay away from the SB. Rohit and RKS fixed that problem, and hence I have no further complaints. If someone wants to take up a new ID and say whatever, not sure why that is especially problematic.
Qalandar 6 February 2009
07:28:55 am
Re: “Wrong again.I actually made the case for the opposite.”
This is correct. I can back up what ILG is saying. Beld, you have no reason to know this, so perhaps you can’t be blamed for thinking otherwise, but I can assure you it is true.
I also don’t think there is any call for the comments made about sandy — “snooty” is an odd charge against her (fairer against satyam, me, some others), I just don’t see it at all.
Qalandar 6 February 2009
07:33:13 am
ILG: on ideaunique’s leaving, let’s look at it a different way. Recognizing that you don’t want to reveal anything personal etc. on the forum (and personally no clue why he left beyond what we saw on the forum), let’s assume for the sake of discussion that ideaunique left precisely because of that Bachchan discussion thread, and for no other reason. Are folks serious?! should we be incentivizing such thin-skinnedness?! If that thread counts as hounding sufficient to drive people away from the forum, I wouldn’t have survived the Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna boxoffice wars; Rocky/I wouldn’t have survived any of the political discussions, satyam and tango would have been hounded from the world by now, etc. We should strive for a respectful and civil forum IMO, but that is NOT the same as walking on eggshells and pandering. I wish ideaunique had not left, as his/her enthusiasm for aamir khan was charming and infectious.
ILG 6 February 2009
07:33:45 am
Yup, Bel. Unfortunate comment about Sandy.Opinionated, feisty, yes. But neither a third rate journalist nor snooty.
I think she is extremely well behaved and inspite of her likes/dislikes, fair and a tremendous contributor.
And yes, I favor her kind of journalism almost to the exclusion of everything else out there.
ILG 6 February 2009
07:40:07 am
About the ‘proble’ that led to this thread, am sure a polite request would have sufficed. I understand privacy/anonimity issues on a public blog ( tho was stupid enough to use my real name and use my pic as avatar as have nothing to hide but was being misused).
satyam 6 February 2009
07:48:10 am
Qalandar: if someone else wrote to Mavani using a fake email address with my name again he should have saved it and I could have confirmed right away whether the address belonged to me or not.
jayshah 6 February 2009
07:53:09 am
Well Tango himself said to Abzee that someone had logged into his Rediff account and may have sent Abzee emails for 6months! So go figure!
satyam 6 February 2009
07:58:24 am
Well at one point my NG login password was compromised.. I then changed it.. of course that was much more recent than the 2007 Mavani claims in his response.
satyam 6 February 2009
08:04:55 am
qalandar: But in addition it is also often suggestion or insinuated that there is a group here (just one!) and that the moment one of its members is questioned the others jump in and take things over. There is even the idea that the others come in because the one ‘in trouble’ quickly calls his gang over. Of course I do appreciate the old masala metaphor here. The basti gangs with and so on!
rockstar 6 February 2009
08:26:23 am
I”If that thread counts as hounding sufficient to drive people away from the forum, I wouldn’t have survived the Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna boxoffice wars; Rocky/I wouldn’t have survived any of the political discussions, ”
q:lol correct i guess ur profession demands that
will add even i (not rocky) targetted u there but its on topic nothing personal
surely you are one of the most coolest people around
everyone has different perception on things but nothing personal against u q
Qalandar 6 February 2009
08:34:40 am
bro, you don’t need to say that, I know it’s nothing personal. It would be a shame indeed if political disagreements came in the way of mutual respect and friendship…
PS– you yourself I remember have been at the receiving end of some fairly vicious attacks on many threads. On the internet one has to keep a thick skin, warna ye zaalim samaaj jeene nahin deta
neelu 6 February 2009
09:23:41 am
On multiple IDs in SB – Som jokingly mentioned that he creates 3 IDs a day and some others do too. BUT these people DO NOT BAIT or ABUSE under the cover of those multiple IDs. There are NG members who come under multiple IDs to SB and use that identity to bait and abuse. RKS is well aware of this and even said yesterday that if he sees that go on for long he sends an e-mail to the member.
Tango is well aware of these multiple IDs – I was in SB when one such member called him a FREAK and more! I have mentioned to Rohit that NG members should be on an honor system and not use multiple IDs – but he has ignored my please. In fact while all this was going on last night one ID came and tried to convince me that Mavani was a liar – I asked him for his NG ID, he refused to divulge it and left. Why would anyone who claims another member is a liar, hide his ID unless his assertion was in bad faith and he did not want to be identified?
I know that Rohit is chums with many of the older members, but when people talk of having private e-mail conversations with him and then using that to justify their stand, then clarity and transparency is lost and the old vs. new members issue raises its head.
I know this will fall on deaf ears – but NG members SHOULD be honor bound to not fake IDs on SB.
Qalandar 6 February 2009
09:33:13 am
Re: “In fact while all this was going on last night one ID came and tried to convince me that Mavani was a liar – I asked him for his NG ID, he refused to divulge it and left. Why would anyone who claims another member is a liar, hide his ID unless his assertion was in bad faith and he did not want to be identified?”
Did this person (“Chappan Tikli”) say he was a NG member? I don’t recall him doing so…
Qalandar 6 February 2009
09:40:40 am
Re: “I know that Rohit is chums with many of the older members, but when people talk of having private e-mail conversations with him and then using that to justify their stand, then clarity and transparency is lost…”
I see your point, but to add some context (I believe this was before you joined Neelu) I will add that, in all fairness to Rohit, concerned about the increasing number of “personal” posts or posts about NG-members (as opposed to about NG’s primary subject: films), Rohit instituted a policy whereby one was discouraged from making personal posts, or posts about particular NG-members’ and encouraged to take these sorts of discussions “offline” and on private email channels. Thus, for instance, I understood the policy to mean that if a Neelu had an issue with a Qalandar, she should either email Qalandar and the two could sort it out, OR, she could email Rohit (or RKS, after he became moderator) etc. etc. — rather than Qalandar or Neelu putting up a new post topic on NG attacking the other. Not a perfect solution, but well-intentioned [I believe Rohit had mentioned that he had been getting many complaining emails, not just from NG-members but from people who followed the site, irritated by the increasing number of such posts, and angry that NG was being used thus. Hence the new policy].
That’s my understanding of the backdrop here — obviously Rohit/RKS should correct me if they feel differently.
ILG 6 February 2009
09:42:39 am
I am with Neelu in that there is no need to change you NG ID if you decide to play in shit box, I mean shout box. I have no idea of politics of SB but agree at least be honest enough to use your NG ID. Unless of course you are interested in a game of tit for tat and just want to return some abuse. Even then, I think it is better to use the NG ID
Qalandar 6 February 2009
09:43:07 am
And thank you for the clarification about som, Neelu. I believe I had mentioned his creation of multiple IDs — that was of course because I thought it would serve as a “neutral” example, as I don’t think anyone could have any complaints about one of NG’s ideal members IMO. I certainly did not intend to suggest that Som was an example of a “problematic” multiple ID-user.
satyam 6 February 2009
09:45:31 am
Let’s also add those who took great offense when I conferred a title on them and then proceeded to use this very title as their SB IDs!
I’ve had many serious disagreements with Rohit over the years. I’ve had some ugly scenes with him as well. At the same time if he’s losing his integrity for old members I must have missed out on this! Rohit, if you’re reading this I’d like a piece of this ‘bailout’ you have for old members. All I get are the Rks warnings! And I thought I was one of the oldest members! LOL!
Let’s try and unravel some of the logic presented here though. We somehow ‘know’ that there are people using multiple IDs and we also suspect who they are (we even ‘know’ who they are) but then we don’t ‘know’ because people don’t reveal their actual identities! This is a bit like Rumsefeld’s ‘known unknowns’ category!
The SB cannot be ‘policed’ beyond a point. That’s just the nature of it. Are there people using different IDs to let’s say have some fun with others? Sure! Why is one so bothered? I see people abusing me all the time. I am never concerned about whether these are NG members or not. Because what doesn’t happen on the forum doesn’t really bother me. And pragmatically I cannot be concerned about such stuff. The reverse would be more troubling (and I have spoken about this). people who were sometimes let’s not my fans in the SB, got into NG and carried on the same way.
The question however becomes: why are some obsessed with such conspiratorial notions? So even if some people are doing this I fail to discern a grand strategy to bring down civilization as we know it (or have not known it!). Big deal! Could it be that the real target of such ‘conspiracy theory’ is a certain group of members here and not really the freedom that is available on SB as such? In other words I get the very distinct impression that people who engage in such ‘parlor games’ are usually pointing their finger at certain members. The ‘veil’ of allusion used is usually a rather transparent one!
What authorizes anyone to ‘ask’ for anyone’s real ID? irrespective of the mischief that person is trying to create? Why wouldn’t the same logic hold on NG itself? So everyone here should immediately tell us their real names and addresses so we can ‘decide’ certain things about them. If the idea is that the ID should be revealed on the SB to then figure out who the NG member is who’s causing the mischief well I think this too reaches a pragmatic dead end. Obviously people use different names so as not to be ’seen’!
What I did support and I’m glad Rks did this is that NG member IDs cannot be used on the SB and this is a good thing because this creates serious confusion.
But in general this whole complaint seems to be a game meant to ensnare people. Which is fine. Except one has the suspicion there are certain ‘fish’ one is looking for and no matter what one hooks out one is still looking for the same fish. A word of advice for these folks. With certain hooks you get salmon, not whales! And the latter are hardly trying to conceal themselves to begin with!
One notes the ’serendipity’ associated with the ‘Mavani is a liar’ line that very interestingly echoes my own thoughts here and yet I have said this under my very own name. LOL!
ILG 6 February 2009
09:48:04 am
Re:I know that Rohit is chums with many of the older members, but when people talk of having private e-mail conversations with him and then using that to justify their stand, then clarity and transparency is lost…
Neelu,
I can see where you are coming from. But believe me it is not like that. Rohit/RKS are easily accessible by email for all and there is no preferential treatment of ‘older’ members. I was a new member too once since I joined RELATIVELY late.
Let us be clear: no body but Rohit/RKS control what happens on NG. Any well meaning suggestions or grievances get same treatment by Rohit/RKS whether from old/new members.
I dont get the second part of your argument about using private emails to justify the stand. Who is doing it and what transparency is getting lost?
satyam 6 February 2009
09:50:49 am
TheSkeptic: I don’t get this business about preventing members using different id’s in the SB. Purely technically, if non-members can keep changing their id’s in the SB, how can one prevent the members from doing so? I mean, just technically, it does not make sense.
TheSkeptic: Apart from technically, if non-members can abuse in the SB, members are going to do so as well.
TheSkeptic: Why can’t they use their own id’s? But why are non-members are allowed to change id’s every darned day? We spend most of our time here trying to figure out who is who, for heaven’s sake!
goodfella 6 February 2009
09:53:57 am
This kind of a preposterous thread is precisely what keeps me away from NG. RKS – I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you have a truly thankless task in this. Don’t know how you do it. Put it this way – if Satyam leaves NG, NG stops being NG.
satyam 6 February 2009
09:53:58 am
TheSkeptic: How on earth are we going to impose a honor system on strangers entering the SB every day?
TheSkeptic: Is something so fragile as honor is going to survive in the face of the viciousness of the battles here? Let’s not pretend, none of us are above being nasty.
Skeptic, but these protestations of honor come to us not in the codes of Othello but those of Iago!
ILG 6 February 2009
09:54:49 am
Re: We spend most of our time here trying to figure out who is who, for heaven’s sake! LOL.Skeptic, I understand your pain.
Everything in SB should be taken with a pinch of salt. I will never get it. Whats the point of SB. Most of the time people are talking to themselves or someone who they have no idea who is.
satyam 6 February 2009
09:56:17 am
“Put it this way – if Satyam leaves NG, NG stops being NG.”
Thanks Goodfella.. but perhaps the civilization to follow is what people are hoping for with my exit!
Qalandar 6 February 2009
09:57:30 am
Re: ‘Whats the point of SB. Most of the time people are talking to themselves or someone who they have no idea who is.’
Perhaps it is fitting, a la the “Muslim socials” of the ’50s and ’60s where one was never sure who the f*** one was in love with, let alone who the f*** one married! LOL!
satyam 6 February 2009
09:58:01 am
TheSkeptic: The SB tone is the SB tone. Your idea seems to be that as soon as you become a member you give up the rights to enter the SB and abuse anyone. But someone might be abusing you in the SB all day long. In that case who’d want to be members? What does being a member give you?
LOL, this is delicious!
rks 6 February 2009
09:59:13 am
Thank you Q. LOL
ps: After thread closure.
Neelu – This thread is a prime example that what happens when we put our grievances in open (basically showing WE are important than films). There is nothing to hide (Rohit or myself) when we want to resolve disagreements via mail. If it is done via mail only two persons are involved but if done openly “sab gile sikhwe nikaal lo”.
SB is a third party tool/pluin. It can be fully integerated with NG but then visitors won’t be able to comment. With the inbuild filtering most of the abuses have been reduced or desisted people.
satyam 6 February 2009
09:59:28 am
“Perhaps it is fitting, a la the “Muslim socials” of the ’50s and ’60s where one was never sure who the f*** one was in love with, let alone who the f*** one married! LOL!”
Yeah Chaudhvin Ka Chand! LOL!
Always wondered about how adultery was foreclosed in the world of that film!
ILG 6 February 2009
10:00:44 am
Re:What does being a member give you?
TS, you wont know that till you become a member. You dont know the perks of being a member. The private jets, holidays at the most exotic locations,jet setting life style etc,etc. But, you need to be a member for those. Preferably an older member!
Qalandar 6 February 2009
10:02:13 am
This is getting into Pessoa territory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Pessoa
rohitkarnbatra 6 February 2009
10:02:41 am
I am sorry – I should have closed this when I saw it for the first time.
I detest personal posts for this very reason.
satyam 6 February 2009
10:03:19 am
Which is one always prefers the Muslims of RGV’s gangster world. Sure they seem to represent certain cliches of the age at one level. On the other hand these bums anyday over those sick souls of the Muslim ’socials’. Always found that stuff terrifying!
Consider how the logic of the veil is extended to such a point in many of those films (Chaudvin ka chand being the classic example) that what seems like ridiculous fantasy in the world of Satyam Shivam Sundaram [a man knowing a woman in the Biblical sense without really knowing who she is!] is actually merely realistic in those socials [maybe this is the kind of fetishization Lacan would make good use of!].