Hi there!!!
I’m nervous. No!! I’m not the nervous, OMG kind, but still this is how I’m feeling right now. Because, this is one of the first times when I’m sharing my thoughts with one and all. You can put up the question, that what’s the need??? Keep it to yourself, anyway lots of people bore and preach with their thoughts and columns, etc, etc. That’s true, I completely agree on that point. But even then I somehow feel that there is so much to talk and discuss about, so many relevant and topical subjects, that in the melee of write ups and age of self importance; thoughts, discussion and conversations have taken a backseat.
And every sensible person on this planet will unanimously agree with me that an engrossing, intelligent and interesting conversation is something we all love.
AND THE TOPIC OF THIS WRITE UP IS CONVERSATIONS.
I know the next question coming in your mind is “C’mon, we all talk. How relevant or important is to talk about conversations?”
The truth is that yes, we do talk. But how personal or substantial is that? Does that even qualify to be called Conversations?
Conversations are not just about talking. They mean communication, they give you an insight into the minds and lives of the people you are talking to; they can be delightfully humorous, simply honest or even give way to life’s confessions.
The saddest part is that in this so-called 21st century age of modernization, growth and development, we have forgotten what a simple & jovial talk or an engrossing, intelligent conversation can do to us? We have no recollection of the delights such communication provides us with. And that is the reason why our communication and understanding levels are at all time low.
At work places, gossiping and backbiting have taken over. Idiot boxes have become so important in homes, that entertainment has replaced bonding. Workaholics anyway consider anything besides work as unimportant. Couples prefer to do “more interesting things” a relationship has to offer, rather than talk and know each other. Even friends are all into fake and pretentious flamboyance.
Yes, perhaps I’m generalizing a lot and being too subjective, but this is what I see around. We don’t want to talk, we just don’t. May be it has got to do with the fact that the moment we let out and share our inner-most feeling and thoughts, we are scrutinized, analyzed and judged. Many a times, people do talk, but don’t listen, whereas conversations are all about give and take. They are about accepting the person you are talking to, as he/she is. Moreover, generation gaps and space issues in relationships, also make people withdraw.
But even then, even if you are the biggest anti-social, loner or an extremely popular person, it’s always a pleasure to talk to someone, for whom your boring, placid day is extremely interesting or whose non-stop chatter transforms you from an usually impatient person to a perfect listener.
No, I’m not here to preach or give tips to “How to Converse?” Hey!! I’m no expert and nor are you. But don’t all of us keep on learning. So, why don’t you talk today? Just let all that out to someone you like talking to and I’m sure there is someone you likes to listen to you too. No, I’m not even going to suggest whom you should/can talk to; it’s entirely your prerogative. Just Talk.
P.S.: Okay, so you think that this was all so boring and what not?? So, tonight when you go to sleep and are just about to crash, give a call to someone you like talking to. I’m sure he/she will ask why you called up. Just say, you wanted to talk and ask how was his or her day….the five minutes will transform into the most amazing moments of the entire day. Trust me, it will be fantastic.
P.B.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Stereotypes suck!!
Can I ask you something?
What comes to your mind, when you see a really pretty young woman, dressed snazzily in a short dress and looking her glamorous best, ready to party at midnight at the best discotheque of the city? Or a salwar kameez clad demure woman, with long pleated hair, returning from the local temple? Or how would you categorise, a young guy and girl, having a happy, good time together, but who aren’t dating each other and aren’t even remotely interested to do that?
I know the answers. The first lady is anyway, not a good girl. The length of her dress has determined the character sketch of hers and her disc roaming habits have proved that she’s not the disciplined, homely woman, which she ought to be. The second lady is an exemplary example for all womanhood to follow. She is the cultured, God-fearing, traditional woman; parents’ pride, neighbor’s envy. And please don’t you dare say that the guy and girl aren’t into each other. Obviously, sooner or later, “something” will inevitably happen. How stereotypical??
Exactly.
Stereotypes. If I follow the dictionary, then it is just about “standardising a type of person and thing.”
But stereotyping or stereotypes have gone beyond person and thing. Our reactions, beliefs and behavioural patterns have stereotyped. The example I gave right in the beginning was an attempt to reflect on our stereotypical behaviour. The moment we see, listen or observe anything, we categorise and standardize it. “Film actresses…..hmmm, oh! They have no morals.” ”Gays…..giggles, followed by blushes and embarrassment.”
Stereotypes have crammed our lives. Anything that is unconventional; anybody who is off the road and challenges the established thoughts is written off. In spite of the fact that through time and again, stereotypes have been questioned and defeated, we keep and want everyone in queue. Right from Gandhi to Bose to Tagore to Einstein, every great on this earth has been a non-conformist. But, we have remained incorrigible.
Educational choices are stereotyped, Science is preferred over commerce and humanities. Why? Because of the eventual monetary benefits and apparent success in life. Ironically, engg+MBA is the most potent combination to give that push to the career. So if commerce is not such an exciting career path, why does the qualification matter?
The insanity over rat race has intensified so much, that excellence is at the back seat and stereotypes are at the steering. Interest, honesty and brilliance don’t matter, because even the definition of success and happiness has been severely stereotyped.
Moreover, education is stereotyped on the basis of gender. If you’re a guy then anything (engg/medicine) works. But if you’re a girl, then what career choice will be convenient for your future spouse and in-laws is major consideration, not what you’re good at. And yes, teaching is the best option available for you. Not because you’re keenly interested to teach and mould young minds, but because you will have ample time to devote at home.
In India, regionalism is so dominating that every citizen of this country is majorly stereotyped. Sardars are dumb, north easteners are low on anything related to morality and character, Bengalis are high on intellect and honesty, etc, etc,.
Completely ignoring the fact, that the Prime Minister and deputy Commissioner of this country happen to be Sardars, north eastern Indians have impeccable work ethics and dedication of people like M.J. Lyngdoh(ex EC of India and one of the first people to publicily criticise Narendra Modi’s role in 2002 Gujarat riots), Soumitra Sen, a Bengali and a judge on way to be impeached, a rarity in Indian Judiciary. There are innumerable examples and yes, I know you’ll say these are exceptions and I’ll counter talk and reason, that not every Sardar is dumb and every Gujju, a miser. It all varies from person to person.
And then there are gays. Homosexuals are the biggest victims of stereotyping. They are imitated, misunderstood, mimicked and so scandalously stereotyped, that it has become painful. Every possible sick joke is cracked at them. Why sexual orientations are are laughed at? Are heterosexuals typified? No, they aren’t. Then why LGBT? Does society and people in general, have any idea that how much they struggle and fight of prejudices and sarcasm to establish and maintain their individualities?
Take hindi films for that matter. Abhay Deol is wrong when he says that it’s not difficult to be different in the Hindi Film Industry. The characters in hindi films are so particularly stereotyped that the moment a film is devoid of glamour or is sans any pan-caked face, it’s termed “different”. There are no lip-synced songs in the film; film is “out of the box”. For long, we’ve had “hero”, “heroine”, “villain”, “ma”, blah, blah. Far removed from the reality of life, a parallel universe of whites, blacks and happy endings were created. So in the era of multiplex cinema, when we have foul mouthed leading characters and rural India as the backdrop, instead of snow covered Alps; we gleefully term it non-stereotype. Whereas, as an art form, that is what films are supposed to do- be the mirror image of society.
I can write off a dozen more stereotyped victims, but that is not the point. The point actually is how parochial our minds have become, how predictable our outlook is, as if there is no unpredictability left in life, no more surprises (even they have become cliché) and no exceptions. I completely understand that they are after all a consequence of experiences and practicalities involved in life. They are derived from our accumulated knowledge. A typical experience repeated over a period of time, has made us stereotype it. But at the same time, how can the essence and colour of life be typified and categorized? Why have we stopped accepting things like they are and give them the benefit of doubt? Why can’t we accept people around us for what they are and believe that each one is different and it varies from person to person? Instead of that we end up with the cliché line” All men are the same”, “all women are the same”, “all sardars are braindead” and all.
Rancho in 3 Idiots was a non-conformist. We loved him. Rizwan Khan in My Name Is Khan was anti-stereotype- we joined in his struggles and cheered him on. Howard Roark, probably one of the most iconic characters, was against everything that was cliché and stereotype. They aren’t just creations of brilliant minds, they are all at the end of the day inspired by many who are different and believe in being a one.
There must someone around you too, a rebel, a non-conformist; do you know him/her?
What comes to your mind, when you see a really pretty young woman, dressed snazzily in a short dress and looking her glamorous best, ready to party at midnight at the best discotheque of the city? Or a salwar kameez clad demure woman, with long pleated hair, returning from the local temple? Or how would you categorise, a young guy and girl, having a happy, good time together, but who aren’t dating each other and aren’t even remotely interested to do that?
I know the answers. The first lady is anyway, not a good girl. The length of her dress has determined the character sketch of hers and her disc roaming habits have proved that she’s not the disciplined, homely woman, which she ought to be. The second lady is an exemplary example for all womanhood to follow. She is the cultured, God-fearing, traditional woman; parents’ pride, neighbor’s envy. And please don’t you dare say that the guy and girl aren’t into each other. Obviously, sooner or later, “something” will inevitably happen. How stereotypical??
Exactly.
Stereotypes. If I follow the dictionary, then it is just about “standardising a type of person and thing.”
But stereotyping or stereotypes have gone beyond person and thing. Our reactions, beliefs and behavioural patterns have stereotyped. The example I gave right in the beginning was an attempt to reflect on our stereotypical behaviour. The moment we see, listen or observe anything, we categorise and standardize it. “Film actresses…..hmmm, oh! They have no morals.” ”Gays…..giggles, followed by blushes and embarrassment.”
Stereotypes have crammed our lives. Anything that is unconventional; anybody who is off the road and challenges the established thoughts is written off. In spite of the fact that through time and again, stereotypes have been questioned and defeated, we keep and want everyone in queue. Right from Gandhi to Bose to Tagore to Einstein, every great on this earth has been a non-conformist. But, we have remained incorrigible.
Educational choices are stereotyped, Science is preferred over commerce and humanities. Why? Because of the eventual monetary benefits and apparent success in life. Ironically, engg+MBA is the most potent combination to give that push to the career. So if commerce is not such an exciting career path, why does the qualification matter?
The insanity over rat race has intensified so much, that excellence is at the back seat and stereotypes are at the steering. Interest, honesty and brilliance don’t matter, because even the definition of success and happiness has been severely stereotyped.
Moreover, education is stereotyped on the basis of gender. If you’re a guy then anything (engg/medicine) works. But if you’re a girl, then what career choice will be convenient for your future spouse and in-laws is major consideration, not what you’re good at. And yes, teaching is the best option available for you. Not because you’re keenly interested to teach and mould young minds, but because you will have ample time to devote at home.
In India, regionalism is so dominating that every citizen of this country is majorly stereotyped. Sardars are dumb, north easteners are low on anything related to morality and character, Bengalis are high on intellect and honesty, etc, etc,.
Completely ignoring the fact, that the Prime Minister and deputy Commissioner of this country happen to be Sardars, north eastern Indians have impeccable work ethics and dedication of people like M.J. Lyngdoh(ex EC of India and one of the first people to publicily criticise Narendra Modi’s role in 2002 Gujarat riots), Soumitra Sen, a Bengali and a judge on way to be impeached, a rarity in Indian Judiciary. There are innumerable examples and yes, I know you’ll say these are exceptions and I’ll counter talk and reason, that not every Sardar is dumb and every Gujju, a miser. It all varies from person to person.
And then there are gays. Homosexuals are the biggest victims of stereotyping. They are imitated, misunderstood, mimicked and so scandalously stereotyped, that it has become painful. Every possible sick joke is cracked at them. Why sexual orientations are are laughed at? Are heterosexuals typified? No, they aren’t. Then why LGBT? Does society and people in general, have any idea that how much they struggle and fight of prejudices and sarcasm to establish and maintain their individualities?
Take hindi films for that matter. Abhay Deol is wrong when he says that it’s not difficult to be different in the Hindi Film Industry. The characters in hindi films are so particularly stereotyped that the moment a film is devoid of glamour or is sans any pan-caked face, it’s termed “different”. There are no lip-synced songs in the film; film is “out of the box”. For long, we’ve had “hero”, “heroine”, “villain”, “ma”, blah, blah. Far removed from the reality of life, a parallel universe of whites, blacks and happy endings were created. So in the era of multiplex cinema, when we have foul mouthed leading characters and rural India as the backdrop, instead of snow covered Alps; we gleefully term it non-stereotype. Whereas, as an art form, that is what films are supposed to do- be the mirror image of society.
I can write off a dozen more stereotyped victims, but that is not the point. The point actually is how parochial our minds have become, how predictable our outlook is, as if there is no unpredictability left in life, no more surprises (even they have become cliché) and no exceptions. I completely understand that they are after all a consequence of experiences and practicalities involved in life. They are derived from our accumulated knowledge. A typical experience repeated over a period of time, has made us stereotype it. But at the same time, how can the essence and colour of life be typified and categorized? Why have we stopped accepting things like they are and give them the benefit of doubt? Why can’t we accept people around us for what they are and believe that each one is different and it varies from person to person? Instead of that we end up with the cliché line” All men are the same”, “all women are the same”, “all sardars are braindead” and all.
Rancho in 3 Idiots was a non-conformist. We loved him. Rizwan Khan in My Name Is Khan was anti-stereotype- we joined in his struggles and cheered him on. Howard Roark, probably one of the most iconic characters, was against everything that was cliché and stereotype. They aren’t just creations of brilliant minds, they are all at the end of the day inspired by many who are different and believe in being a one.
There must someone around you too, a rebel, a non-conformist; do you know him/her?
And the award goes to……………….
This is the awards time of the year. This is the time when achievers of the last year will be awarded, appreciated and applauded for their good work. In fact last evening itself I watched the CJ awards held by CNN-IBN news channel and both, the nominees and winners all had an incredible story and achievement to their credit. But right now I’m going to talk about film awards.
Filmfare awards are the oldest film awards in the country. National awards, given out by the Government of India are also extremely prestigious and unlike Filmfare cater to the regional language films as well, in addition to hindi and English made Indian films. Along with these two, a few have mushroomed in the last decade. They all are Channel awards (some hindi entertainment channel is the brain behind each award). But it’s good news for the nominees. Each one of them gets to win somewhere or the other!!
And this is what actually bothers me. There is no benchmark or standard as far as Indian film awards are concerned. People actually watch it for performances and the general entertainment they provide, but there is no belief that the winners actually deserve it. It’s all a good, glamorous time pass.
Okay, look at Filmfare awards. Till the end of 80s, they still had some ethical value. In the year 1984, the top five films in the Best Film category were: Ardh Satya, Arth, Avtar, Betaab and Masoom, and the winner was not the superhit Betaab, but the critically acclaimed Ardh Satya. Or the year 1978 had the evergreen blockbuster Amar Akbar Anthony as one of the nominees in the Best Film category, but the winner was Bhumika, one of the finest films by Shyam Benegal and definitely not as equivalent money grosser as Manmohan Desai’s AAA. Compare it to, 1990. The winner was Maine Pyar Kiya, inspite of the fact that Mira Nair’s Oscar nominated Salaam Bombay was also in contention. Or in 1997, when Raja Hindustani, (a remake of 1965 Shashi Kapoor starrer Jab Jab Phool Khile) won ahead of Bandit Queen and Khamoshi- A Musical. Ironically, the original wasn’t even nominated in its own year.
There are actors who have won because of all the reasons under the sun, but for acting. They are star kids, related to people in the industry, have good relations with people who matter, etc., etc. Every bit matters, but if you’re a good actor, that may not help. I can right now cite a dozen or more examples. Anurag Kashyap directed Black Friday won the Grand Jury award at the Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles and was a nominee for the Best Film (Golden Leopard) award at the Locarno International Film Festival, but wasn’t worth a nomination at the Indian Oscars. Shahrukh Khan’s performance in Chak De!India was widely recognized, but Aditya Srivastava’s work as Badshah Khan in Black Friday wasn’t even considered. Why should I only pinpoint Filmfare? All these channel awards, which claim to be different and ethical, are a step ahead. They create new categories, like consistent performer, fresh face along with Best Debut, and many more, so that everybody wins. Wow!! Such strong faith in equality and equal rights of all. Amazing!!
And then the national awards have also gone down as far as standard is concerned, sadly. Recently the 56th National Film awards were announced. Priyanka Chopra won for the film Fashion. The same award was given to Umashree for Gulabi Talkies, last year, Sarika for Parzania in 2006, Seema Biswas for Bandit Queen in 1996, etc., etc. Is it really believable that Priyanka Chopra’s performance in the film was really of that standard as these earlier winners? Shreya Ghoshal has won for the fourth time. It’s great because she is really melodious, but twice she has won for duet songs, where the male singer (Sonu Nigam for Dheere Jalna and Babul Supriyo for Pherari Mon) hasn’t won. The point is these were duet songs, where both the singers complimented each other and both are the reasons, along with the music director and lyricist for the success of the song. How come it’s concluded that one of them has sung better than the other? In fact in every category, every year there is some discrepancy or the other. And it’s really annoying to see absolutely unworthy people winning over commendable performers. Why take the pains of constituting a jury, when at the end of the day having one’s mother as the Censor Board’s chief or the presence of a relative or friend amongst the panel, can ensure awards? Place an auction, where clout, power or money can get one anything and everything. At least that won’t demean the real, worthy winners. We would know for sure, why somebody won. Some really strong words from my side, no?? Can’t help it, my anger is coming out in words.
Aamir Khan is regularly mocked and joked about for his absence from the popular awards and his presence in the international awards like Oscars, BAFTA, etc. Why would an actor of his caliber, who is regularly ignored at the awards care about the “unreal appreciation”? I’m not at all trying to convince that Oscars are better and side with them. There is a lot of politics, behind the scene work even there. But even then, the standard of the winners is something to look at. Meryl Streep is the most nominated actor in the history of the Academy Awards. This year she has been nominated for the record 16th time. Given the fact that she is considered as one of the finest actors of all time, she has won only twice. For the rest of the 13 times, she lost. May be not always to a worthy competitor, but most of the times, yes, the winning performances have been really worthy of the coveted award. When she transformed into the monstrous, perfectionist boss in Devil Wears Prada, we loved to hate her; but the eventual winner was Helen Mirren, who played Queen Elizabeth II to perfection in The Queen or Hillary Swank’s win for Boys Don’t Cry was far hugely applauded ahead of Streep’s performance in Music of the Heart.
The point is even if there might be some error here or there, at the end of that day cinema is a form of art. The business perspective or a film’s monetary gains cannot and should not decide about the artistic value or further appreciation of it. Just because a film has been a commercial success doesn’t mean that creatively or technically it’s a good film. Who can forget the fact that Raj Kapoor’s dream project Mera Naam Joker was a commercial disaster, so much so that RK Films were in great financial crisis? Today, the same movie is considered as one of the best ever made in the history of Indian cinema and a must watch for every film student.
In short, let this art form speak for itself. How can financial gains determine the winners? Award; appreciate those who truly deserve it, whose performances have moved all, people whose creative and technical contributions to the film has made it a complete venture. Let there be uniformity and real value to the awarding system and consequently, the awardees.
Filmfare awards are the oldest film awards in the country. National awards, given out by the Government of India are also extremely prestigious and unlike Filmfare cater to the regional language films as well, in addition to hindi and English made Indian films. Along with these two, a few have mushroomed in the last decade. They all are Channel awards (some hindi entertainment channel is the brain behind each award). But it’s good news for the nominees. Each one of them gets to win somewhere or the other!!
And this is what actually bothers me. There is no benchmark or standard as far as Indian film awards are concerned. People actually watch it for performances and the general entertainment they provide, but there is no belief that the winners actually deserve it. It’s all a good, glamorous time pass.
Okay, look at Filmfare awards. Till the end of 80s, they still had some ethical value. In the year 1984, the top five films in the Best Film category were: Ardh Satya, Arth, Avtar, Betaab and Masoom, and the winner was not the superhit Betaab, but the critically acclaimed Ardh Satya. Or the year 1978 had the evergreen blockbuster Amar Akbar Anthony as one of the nominees in the Best Film category, but the winner was Bhumika, one of the finest films by Shyam Benegal and definitely not as equivalent money grosser as Manmohan Desai’s AAA. Compare it to, 1990. The winner was Maine Pyar Kiya, inspite of the fact that Mira Nair’s Oscar nominated Salaam Bombay was also in contention. Or in 1997, when Raja Hindustani, (a remake of 1965 Shashi Kapoor starrer Jab Jab Phool Khile) won ahead of Bandit Queen and Khamoshi- A Musical. Ironically, the original wasn’t even nominated in its own year.
There are actors who have won because of all the reasons under the sun, but for acting. They are star kids, related to people in the industry, have good relations with people who matter, etc., etc. Every bit matters, but if you’re a good actor, that may not help. I can right now cite a dozen or more examples. Anurag Kashyap directed Black Friday won the Grand Jury award at the Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles and was a nominee for the Best Film (Golden Leopard) award at the Locarno International Film Festival, but wasn’t worth a nomination at the Indian Oscars. Shahrukh Khan’s performance in Chak De!India was widely recognized, but Aditya Srivastava’s work as Badshah Khan in Black Friday wasn’t even considered. Why should I only pinpoint Filmfare? All these channel awards, which claim to be different and ethical, are a step ahead. They create new categories, like consistent performer, fresh face along with Best Debut, and many more, so that everybody wins. Wow!! Such strong faith in equality and equal rights of all. Amazing!!
And then the national awards have also gone down as far as standard is concerned, sadly. Recently the 56th National Film awards were announced. Priyanka Chopra won for the film Fashion. The same award was given to Umashree for Gulabi Talkies, last year, Sarika for Parzania in 2006, Seema Biswas for Bandit Queen in 1996, etc., etc. Is it really believable that Priyanka Chopra’s performance in the film was really of that standard as these earlier winners? Shreya Ghoshal has won for the fourth time. It’s great because she is really melodious, but twice she has won for duet songs, where the male singer (Sonu Nigam for Dheere Jalna and Babul Supriyo for Pherari Mon) hasn’t won. The point is these were duet songs, where both the singers complimented each other and both are the reasons, along with the music director and lyricist for the success of the song. How come it’s concluded that one of them has sung better than the other? In fact in every category, every year there is some discrepancy or the other. And it’s really annoying to see absolutely unworthy people winning over commendable performers. Why take the pains of constituting a jury, when at the end of the day having one’s mother as the Censor Board’s chief or the presence of a relative or friend amongst the panel, can ensure awards? Place an auction, where clout, power or money can get one anything and everything. At least that won’t demean the real, worthy winners. We would know for sure, why somebody won. Some really strong words from my side, no?? Can’t help it, my anger is coming out in words.
Aamir Khan is regularly mocked and joked about for his absence from the popular awards and his presence in the international awards like Oscars, BAFTA, etc. Why would an actor of his caliber, who is regularly ignored at the awards care about the “unreal appreciation”? I’m not at all trying to convince that Oscars are better and side with them. There is a lot of politics, behind the scene work even there. But even then, the standard of the winners is something to look at. Meryl Streep is the most nominated actor in the history of the Academy Awards. This year she has been nominated for the record 16th time. Given the fact that she is considered as one of the finest actors of all time, she has won only twice. For the rest of the 13 times, she lost. May be not always to a worthy competitor, but most of the times, yes, the winning performances have been really worthy of the coveted award. When she transformed into the monstrous, perfectionist boss in Devil Wears Prada, we loved to hate her; but the eventual winner was Helen Mirren, who played Queen Elizabeth II to perfection in The Queen or Hillary Swank’s win for Boys Don’t Cry was far hugely applauded ahead of Streep’s performance in Music of the Heart.
The point is even if there might be some error here or there, at the end of that day cinema is a form of art. The business perspective or a film’s monetary gains cannot and should not decide about the artistic value or further appreciation of it. Just because a film has been a commercial success doesn’t mean that creatively or technically it’s a good film. Who can forget the fact that Raj Kapoor’s dream project Mera Naam Joker was a commercial disaster, so much so that RK Films were in great financial crisis? Today, the same movie is considered as one of the best ever made in the history of Indian cinema and a must watch for every film student.
In short, let this art form speak for itself. How can financial gains determine the winners? Award; appreciate those who truly deserve it, whose performances have moved all, people whose creative and technical contributions to the film has made it a complete venture. Let there be uniformity and real value to the awarding system and consequently, the awardees.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
I'm back.
It's been a really long time that I haven't posted anything on my blog. And that's terrible. Had some issues and problems. But now all tat is past and I'm back. And yes, now my blog writing is going to be regular. Hope to reach out to everyone. Ta ta and have a great day.
Friday, January 29, 2010
good morning world!!!
Good Morning!!!
I know there are only couple of hours left for the morning to get over, but still I want to wish the entire world on this auspicious day of my first post for my blog... All thanks to Rocker(be happy, I mentioned you in my first post itself).
So yes!!!now I've a place of my own to write, express, share and converse about anything and everything...But boy!! I had a terrible time to NAME MY BLOG. I mean, every possible name was unavailable.....Even nameless and what not???
But finally named it somehow.....Anyway the name is not important. What is, is that the conversations must begin....
And well the first one has already....So, Good Morning and have a fantastic day world.....
ta ta........
I know there are only couple of hours left for the morning to get over, but still I want to wish the entire world on this auspicious day of my first post for my blog... All thanks to Rocker(be happy, I mentioned you in my first post itself).
So yes!!!now I've a place of my own to write, express, share and converse about anything and everything...But boy!! I had a terrible time to NAME MY BLOG. I mean, every possible name was unavailable.....Even nameless and what not???
But finally named it somehow.....Anyway the name is not important. What is, is that the conversations must begin....
And well the first one has already....So, Good Morning and have a fantastic day world.....
ta ta........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)