It seems to me, that having a blog is taken as an allowance to talk utter rubbish, which seems to be brilliantly funny (or smart, insightful, etc.) at first. However, if you'll just look at it a little harder, and think a little harder, you'll see it for the stupid thing it really is. Now, as you know from here, these thoughts that I have, critical of what other people seem to do, in general either begin with myself, or end with moi (pronounced mwaah by the way, it's French for 'me').
So to get on with the so called rubbish that I've (just) spoken about, let (me read a letter I recently received... It says... (If you haven't played Half-Life 2, don't even bother with this)) me quote myself, which I believe, GB Shaw thought was a pretty cool thing to do (not quote me dopehead, quote himself).
From 'Language'
"Language is a gift. A gift that has led mankind to where we are now. We must not, must not, let this gift go in vain by terribly mutilating it.
< /Rant >
*Sigh*. Like that will make any difference."
If you read that post, you'll see me waxing eloquent about how wonderful English is, how nasty we are being by decimating it etc. And I ended it with that nugget of irony right there. I've used an HTML close tag to signify an end to my ranting.
And isn't the use of HTML in English to express thoughts a corruption of the language too?
Credits:
The aforementioned KhaGaM, for pointing this out to me.
Anu, from here, for inadvertently reminding me that I was supposed to blog about this.
Monday 28 April 2008
Monday 21 April 2008
Peer Back-Pressure
Peer Back-Pressure. Queer little term isn't it? I've been in a bit of a contemplative mood lately. And that's a term I've come up with. Yes, I will eventually (The author wishes to explain that 'eventually' happens to be a few lines down the post, but rather likes the indefineteness (is that a word?) of 'eventually) explain what that means, but for now, I'll lay a little bit of the foundation.
We all know what peer pressure is (And the author's unequivocal opinion is that you're a dolt if you don't). It's the implicit (or explicit) pressure exerted by a peer group on individuals, almost forcing them to change their views, likes, dislikes etc. to a stance in line with that of the peer group. Most of the time, the individual succumbs (knowingly or otherwise) to the pressure and changes. That's simple isn't it? Now, onward to the back-pressure bit.
Now, (Yes, the author understands that you're getting quite annoyed, but he's enjoying this. Be a little patient) back pressure is this term I came across while reading a bit of hydraulics. And being in the contemplative mood, it just sort of fit in. So yes, the point of this post. What I mean by back-pressure is the pressure the individual exerts upon himself to change, when his views on anything, agree with the views of an unpopular bunch of people. This sort of thing is what I've noticed around me recently. What I fail to understand is, why must the individual change if his views agree with those of an unpopular group? Surely, views and nature are not necessary or sufficient conditions for each other. Liking a particular band/book that is liked by the aforementioned groups does not make you a member of that group, and similarly, the other way around. In my opinion, the individual should stay as he/she is, and not be influenced by this peer back-pressure.
Whew! Did you get all of that? When I wrote this, it was with a few people I knew in mind. But all the thinking has led me to quite a conclusion! I've discovered, over the past day or so, that I've been as guilty of succumbing to peer back-pressure as the people I had in mind. Aren't we all?
We all know what peer pressure is (And the author's unequivocal opinion is that you're a dolt if you don't). It's the implicit (or explicit) pressure exerted by a peer group on individuals, almost forcing them to change their views, likes, dislikes etc. to a stance in line with that of the peer group. Most of the time, the individual succumbs (knowingly or otherwise) to the pressure and changes. That's simple isn't it? Now, onward to the back-pressure bit.
Now, (Yes, the author understands that you're getting quite annoyed, but he's enjoying this. Be a little patient) back pressure is this term I came across while reading a bit of hydraulics. And being in the contemplative mood, it just sort of fit in. So yes, the point of this post. What I mean by back-pressure is the pressure the individual exerts upon himself to change, when his views on anything, agree with the views of an unpopular bunch of people. This sort of thing is what I've noticed around me recently. What I fail to understand is, why must the individual change if his views agree with those of an unpopular group? Surely, views and nature are not necessary or sufficient conditions for each other. Liking a particular band/book that is liked by the aforementioned groups does not make you a member of that group, and similarly, the other way around. In my opinion, the individual should stay as he/she is, and not be influenced by this peer back-pressure.
Whew! Did you get all of that? When I wrote this, it was with a few people I knew in mind. But all the thinking has led me to quite a conclusion! I've discovered, over the past day or so, that I've been as guilty of succumbing to peer back-pressure as the people I had in mind. Aren't we all?
Saturday 19 April 2008
The IPL...
I've not been blogging for a while now... You might have thought, 'Ha! this guy is out of ideas already!'. But I've just conned you! (Not really, I did run out of ideas, but that's just not for YOU to know).
So now that that's been settled, let me get (re) started with the blog. I saw the first IPL match yesterday. The Kolkata Knight Riders completely decimated the Bangalore Royal Challengers (who, I could not resist this, did not put up much of a challenge!). It was good entertainment, the crowds loved it and so did the commentators. I can't say I didn't enjoy it, but it worries me. This is far too short a version of the game to bring out it's glorious possibilities. It just got me thinking... No matter what the players out there do, there some events that will never happen in T20. In no particular order, here we go:
1. Sachin checks into heartbreak hotel.
What Indian fan can forget the heartbreak of losing to Pakistan in Chennai in 1998? Chasing 271 to win in the fourth innings of the first test, only two Indian batsmen got to double figures. One of them was Sachin Tendulkar. Battling severe back spasms, he almost led the inept Indian team to a what would have been a fabulous win. Too bad there was nobody else to score those remaining 13 runs.
2. Yuvraj and Kaif lead us home
Netwest series final, 2002. In a T20 game, after the start India had had, there wouldn't have been a chance in hell of winning. It takes a longer version to separate the men from the boys.
3. South Africa bt Australia by one wicket in 2006
It was what has been called one of the greatest games of all time. The sheer nerves required to chase that target... WOW! Nothing of this sort will ever occur in T20 for the simple reason that T20 is too short. It's possible to maintain that sort of momentum for twenty overs... but fifty? I'd have said not a chance, if I hadn't seen this innings that is.
There is of course a lot more you could add to this list. But then again, I can only talk of what I've seen. I'd be truly sorry if T20 kills tests or ODIs...
So now that that's been settled, let me get (re) started with the blog. I saw the first IPL match yesterday. The Kolkata Knight Riders completely decimated the Bangalore Royal Challengers (who, I could not resist this, did not put up much of a challenge!). It was good entertainment, the crowds loved it and so did the commentators. I can't say I didn't enjoy it, but it worries me. This is far too short a version of the game to bring out it's glorious possibilities. It just got me thinking... No matter what the players out there do, there some events that will never happen in T20. In no particular order, here we go:
1. Sachin checks into heartbreak hotel.
What Indian fan can forget the heartbreak of losing to Pakistan in Chennai in 1998? Chasing 271 to win in the fourth innings of the first test, only two Indian batsmen got to double figures. One of them was Sachin Tendulkar. Battling severe back spasms, he almost led the inept Indian team to a what would have been a fabulous win. Too bad there was nobody else to score those remaining 13 runs.
2. Yuvraj and Kaif lead us home
Netwest series final, 2002. In a T20 game, after the start India had had, there wouldn't have been a chance in hell of winning. It takes a longer version to separate the men from the boys.
3. South Africa bt Australia by one wicket in 2006
It was what has been called one of the greatest games of all time. The sheer nerves required to chase that target... WOW! Nothing of this sort will ever occur in T20 for the simple reason that T20 is too short. It's possible to maintain that sort of momentum for twenty overs... but fifty? I'd have said not a chance, if I hadn't seen this innings that is.
There is of course a lot more you could add to this list. But then again, I can only talk of what I've seen. I'd be truly sorry if T20 kills tests or ODIs...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)