<< Newer
Older >>

Right Said Fred!

Tuesday, August 11, 2009
"With great power comes great responsibility."
- Uncle Ben

"But the converse is not true"
- Stupidosaur

"Unless you are Mr. Frodo"
-Sam Gamgee

"I am Frodo!"

"Yeah right!"
-Stupid Alter Ego

"And you neither have nor take great responsibility!"
-Frustrated Dad

"You'll see!"

P.S. I love bore you (as usual)...
..explaining the cause of the label 'Nothing really related to the post title':

"Right said!" is applicable to each of the characters above, but none of them is Fred. FRustrated dAD could be made into FRAD but not Fred. And we do have a mention of Frodo, but he doesn't say anything. Even if he did, he's Frodo not Fred.

Anyways, in case you didn't know, and whether you wanted to know or not,

Right Said Fred is a pop band.

This is my favourite amongst their songs:

Its going to play for me! You'll see!
<< Newer
Older >>


Ayushi said...

I just dont like listening to anything at all , i hate sound itself these days :-/
I even keep turning off the AC and keep sweating simply because i hate any and every sound around me. It simply makes me irritable.

I'll listen to these songs some day.

Only Vimal said...

Good post again.

Great responsibilities come with great power. But its just a dialogue. Ask our politicians.

But I loved Frustrated Dad's scream that you neither have nor (Never) take great responsibility. :)

Ketan said...

Did this conversation take place at the same place where the song was playing, viz., inside your mind?

So, indeed you do have many persons inside you!

And going by the above conversation, your meeting didn't go well, looks like. ;)


ABHISHEK SiM said...

hahaha.. loved the alter ego-wala statement.

p.s.: my maths blog is public now.

Srishti said...


I like this one a lot. Of course, with great responsibilty, great power rarely comes.
Say if you're the class monitor (sorry for the, rather this, analogy), you have great responsibilty, but not great power because barely anyone listens to you.
Anyway, why I am defending your claim when no one's even attacking it?

Nice post, was what I wanted to say :)

Stupidosaur said...


You are absolutely excused!
The song was in P.S.
Countdown Sequence:
10..Write post.
9...Write the related unrelated title.
8...Put the label that title is unrelated.
7...Explain the unrelatedness of the title.
6...Explain where the title originally came from (the band)
5...Suddenly remember my favorite song by this band, which playing on MTV/Channel V during my Engineering years actually brought this band to my notice.
4...Search song on Youtube and embed it.
3...Realize that the theme of the song kinda brought my post full circle and happily write the end line.
2...Visit 2-3 blogs.
1...Shut down.
Blast off! (to eternity and beyond!)(which basically means...to sleep:P)

Stupidosaur said...


//Great responsibilities come with great power. But its just a dialogue. Ask our politicians.

Nope. If I ask politicians, they'll disagree. For them its a monologue, not dialogue. Even if the speaker keeps shouting this, they'll never participate back.

But then again it would be unfair on our part to say that they entirely neglect it. They dutifully fulfill the great responsibilities of filling their coffers, propagating nepotism, appeasing partisan votebanks, entertaining public through scams, etc!

Without them who would do such great deeds of high responsibility!

Stupidosaur said...


//Did this conversation take place at the same place where the song was playing, viz., inside your mind?

What conversation? These are famous quotes! ;)

Besides it all started with Stupidosaur wondering idly about converse of uncle ben's statement while bathng. Sam Gamgee and Dad who are guests at Stupid's house these days chipped in their two penny. And of course Stupid's gotta have the last word :P

//So, indeed you do have many persons inside you!

What? You don't? How boring.

And btw, going by the conversation, I think it was a swell meeting!

Stupidosaur said...


Uski to mein...!

(abt alter ego, ek toh sala kuchh bhi ulta bolte rehta hai upar se blog readers ka favourite bhi bab jata hai!)


And sure, will visit!

Stupidosaur said...


*takes a bow*
Thank you Monitor m'am!

If you want everyone to listen to you, be the chatterbox, the mischiefmaker, instead of Monitor ;)

Ghazala Khan said...

Interview Request

Hello Dear and Respected,
I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Internet surfers. I am Ghazala Khan from The Pakistani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan in the world. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the webosphere. Our aim is to foster peace, progress and harmony with passion.

We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable passionate bloggers, writers, and webmasters. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you don't mind. Please send us your approval for your interview at email address "ghazala.khi at gmail dot com", so that I could send you the Interview questions. We would be extremely grateful.


Ghazala Khan
The Pakistani Spectator
pakspectator dot com

Srishti said...

@Stupidosaur: Your name(?) is soooooo long to type. Can I just call you Stupid? But you can take it in that sense which we used to when we were chote bachhe- Smart Talented Unique Person In Delhi.

I'm not the monitor! I AM the chatterbox. I was just giving an example.

@Ketan: Buddhu, haven't you seen Spiderman? Doesn't Uncle Ben Say that?

Ayushi said...

Well I had nothing much to say to the main part.

Haha yeah...only one answer can be right.

I only wish for power over myself, I do not wish to control others, nor be controlled. Converse not true.
However, if our power is being used upon non-human things to mutual benefit, then indeed the converse will be true.

Hence the Converses thing is just a generalization.

I haven't seen Spiderman though. I don't like seeing most films anyway.

HP said...

waah, kya conversation banaya hai!

labels mast hai.

Stupidosaur said...


Oh sure Stupid is fine. Many have called me that. Especially girl bloggers have called me that in a cute way :)
But most of those are gone from blog world now :(
Even for a saur, I seem to have become ancient!

//Smart Talented Unique Person In Delhi

Delhi ?


I didn't undesrtand these points:

//Haha yeah...only one answer can be right.

What 'answer'?

//I only wish for power over myself

I think making yourself powerful would be better than 'overpowering' yourself. Getting my sense? Why the heck do 'you' need be had power over? It kind of gives a sense of 'subduing yourself'. Rather, unleash yourself!

That done, would also make the other two (not controlling/getting controlled) very easy and almost a direct consequence of the former

//Converse not true.

How did this fit in with the just preceding sentences? I am stumped!

//However, if our power is being used upon non-human things to mutual benefit, then indeed the converse will be true.

If we have power over non-human things, it becomes our responsibility to use it wisely.

So thats still what uncle Ben said not converse. Or you mean wise responsible use of the power makes us more powerful? Ii guess thats just 'Money begets money, power begets power scenario!'

Converse would mean like this:
Just because we are faced with responsibility of curing global warming, AIDS, poverty, hunger, illiteracy, warring nations, etc, just by virtue of the converse being true, we would automatically get power to fulfill these responsibiities. But that doesn't happen. Converse is not true.

I have watched 2 parts on cable, star movies, friend's place etc, but never by going to a theatre. So that way I am also un-enthu person ;)

But when watching it, I throughly enjoy.

Besides, uncle Ben first said it in comic book and then in newspaper comic strips. Movies came last. Wait, not last. By now he must have also said it in interactive games!

Ayushi said...

Kya re Stupido x-(

Ok, So lets embark upon the difficult journey of making you see things my way.
1) I do not interpret how you wrote the post, I merely give it 'my angle' which might have nothing to do with yours :P

2) You say "Right Said Fred" and then you say that affirmation can be applied upon all the sentences, but the positive affirmation remains with "Fred".
Taking "Fred" to be only one person, and the talks of all the ppl in the convo to be different, only 1 comment can be right(denoted my right said fred), exactly like only one path is the correct path(best path, reminding me of the quote "Opportunity cost is the foregone gain from the best alternative")

3) A very interesting point you noted out Stupido, on Power upon oneself.
Yes, it implies a sense of taming myself to my own varying tastes. Because you see, my subconscious mind can register only what has been repeated by the conscious one(I'm not at all sure of this point, its just till so far tht i have reached) Most of our instincts are based upon experience, not out changing logic. Even my emotions are a part of it. My mind needs to be controlled all the time Stupido. I would not know what I'm doing and with what intention otherwise.
Its very difficult for me to just 'let go'
Yes, I agree with that too that in your case, the two would have been a direct consequence, hence any person could have influence upon you were he more assertive. This is something which I struggle against. You constantly advocate the use of the subconscious not realizing that it is meant to be just a reflection of your conscious thoughts, they both need to be the same(for my mind's peace atleast)
4) The part where the converse is challenged in *3* : Take the Case of raising children: more responsibility of parents should not lead to power over their individual thought, although it does assume power.
5)The non-human point is a converse...straight off....since in these things individual skill is required, and more responsibility means you have the power to use/misuse it, while the same cannot be applied for children.
6) "we would automatically get power to fulfill these responsibilities" of course yes! dont you see we always have power?
It happens...of course it happens! Isn't that all what democracy is about? We have as much responsibility as much power. The officer will be responsible for the policies, which are his power: your example falls under my non-human point (5).


Ohh theatres lol...i havent been to one since the past 10 years(if you discount the fact tht i went to one this May upon great insistence and tht too to watch Rab Ne.. which was about 4-5months old by then(?), was the last show of the hall :D ) But I enjoyed as hell, even in the dark, hot and empty place...SRK factor, plus the film had an excellent philosophy. I'm telling you, no actor could have played the part better than srk himself...oooh!

Srishti said...

Do you want your name to be Stupii?

Smart Talented Unique Person In India.

Because Stupii doesn't make much sense :\

Surya Kannan said...

All I love are the Quotes and Converse. The comment section is too serious with heated discussions.

Nice Blog :)

Ayushi said...

Heated Discussions?
Aww *hugs* Stupido :)

I think Surya's invisible pointer is at me? ;)
Just coz something is serious doesn't make it heated, why do people attach emotions to what I say? *frowns* I completely fail to analyse this...

deluded said...

lord of the springs?

Stupidosaur said...

Creative freedom is all yours, but the inspiration I believe was incorrect information provided by statcounter or other such tool you use to track visitors .

I use BSNL wireless internet. I don't know how its servers work. Somehow my visitor location shows Delhi even in my own statcounter. One day it even showed Ahmedabad. But rest assured its neither ;)

Haha! Long live BSNL.
"They don't know...where is he..."

Stupidosaur said...


ok, now let me make you see things my way. I am not even saying 'make you TRY to see things my way'. Its the advantage of this medium. If we were talking, you would first hear my perspective, and then may actually 'see' or 'not see'. But here you WILL have to SEE it first, then decide to see that way or not ;)

'Keeping up with the Joneses', (which I never felt any urge to do) does not literally involve the Joneses. Its a general notion. Similarly "Right said Fred!" is my newly invented general phrase. In the original band, it was for an actual Fred, here its general. So it does intend to apply to all in the post.

//...only 1 comment can be right(denoted my right said fred), exactly like only one path is the correct path...

A: Door is not open.
B: Door is not closed.

Very close mindedly logically thinking.

closed x open.

So if statement A is true, B is false and vice versa. But if we think 'intelligently' in human sense, open may mean fully open. So both A and B can be true if we consider the door partially ajar.

Of course a purist may argue that if the door is open even a crack it is open, and a burglar can get in. But then again if I try to throw a an inflated beach ball past it, it will not go. So its closed for my purpose.

In this example the contention is about definition, which again we may base on purpose of open/close.

There can be so many other kinds of examples, where 'different' statements may be simultaneously true.

"Whats your favourite colour?"
"My favourite coulour is ....."

This is very subjective, and all different answers may be true. In fact true answer from one person could become false answer when applied to another!

Again, lets ask a person "Is it night or day?" For a sane person, not held captive in a dark dungeon or bright prison, this question is definitely not subjective. Yet at one time, one answer will be true and around 12 hours later, another.

If you ask two people at diametrically opposite longitudes at the same time using any modern communication techniques, you will get two opposite true answers at the same time! If you were a weird alien who had no notion that Earth is round & sun shines on only one side at a time, and had made contact with two such humans from your strange planet/galaxy/universe, you might think Earthlings are a bunch of contradicting liars/idiots.

more later...
If I comment more now, I lose precious sleep time. Opportunity cost - an unacceptable opportunity cost you see ;)

Stupidosaur said...


Oh I totally missed you here. Both meanings apply!

//labels mast hai.

Oh Bal Label Le ;)!

(Thats just bhangra. I am not endorsing Rohit Bal or any other's clothes labels ;) )

Pree-yea.... said...

*stares blankly*
er.... What...?

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Spidey's uncle said this... heina?

Srishti said...

Nai re! I never said you lived in Delhi!
I wrote Smart Talented Unique Person In Delhi because its D for Delhi. You can choose Dehra Dun, Denmark or Delhi. I wrote Delhi because I live in Delhi.

And I dont track visitors AT ALL.
Uff. I'll just call you Stupii. Now dont tell me that you're not in India too.

Vinisha said...


Anybody home? :O

Ketan said...


Are you STUPIB? Smart, talented, unique personality in B*****?

Also, I too do have many personalities within me (click)

@Srishti: I hate my pathetic self! I've not watched Superman in any recent future or with any great interest to realize that Uncle Ben is a character from there! :( Also, literal English translation of 'buddhu' is 'stupid', which in itself is a great honor even if it's only the first of His name! Otherwise, I could've taken offence! ;)

TC, both of you.

Meher....all out to explore..!! said...

you've actually got a ncie blog in here..!!

Ayushi said...

Reptile heat tape - www.CaloriQue.com - Safe, even, constant heat for healthy animals :D This was the top ad which came when I was notified of this comment of yours.

I am reminded of coordinate geometry lectures now. :)
How many arbitrary constants does it take to fix a line? = 2
1)slope 2)intercept

This argument goes on the same lines:
You have given me a situation in which another undefined 'arbitrary constant' s needed to define the door's condition.
But the statements which you have actually used are not so. They are not dependant on any arbitrary constant to which we can give value. They have all been predefined by nature. In other words, its a universal statement. which cannot be questioned. Eg: Telling lies is wrong, it will remain wrong however much one argues it to have fetched greater or pious results.
Hence no two answers can be true.

I believe you have considered two concepts here:
1) Statements being simultaneously true without having their 'arbitrary constants' changed -- Not Possible
2)Statements being true by having these constants changed. -- Mostly variable

Stupidosaur said...


I'll start with the last thing- the conclusion you said, fisrt. That way maybe I can go to sleep without leaving the main point unaddressed in my likely incomplete comment (as usual :P)

//1) Statements being simultaneously true without having their 'arbitrary constants' changed -- Not Possible

Well well! I can take this sentence as a classic example to explain things!!!

Quoting again

A) Statements being simultaneously true without having their 'arbitrary constants' changed -- Not Possible

According to you this statement is True. So what could be its opposite (and hence false) statement

B) Statements being simultaneously true without having their 'arbitrary constants' changed -- Possible

So, statements A) & B) are mutually ->contradictory<-. Hence as you said, their simultaneously being true - Not Possible!

But then, therein lies a catch. Your statement A) does not include specifying ->contradictory<- word (or similar sense). However, you as a human, expected me, a human, to intelligently understand it that way.

But lets consider that I am a Perfect Logician or a Dumb Computer with language processing skills, asked to verify if that statement of yours is really true. I will then understand your statement quite literally.

"If statement X is true, statement Y can't be true."

I'll just scan a database of true statements loaded in my memory pick two of them as statements X & Y.

Say X is Sun is a star.
Say Y is Water is a molecule.

Since X is true, and Y is simultaneously true I, the Perfect Logician/Dumb Computer will declare your statement false!

Did your statement have 'variables'? Not any that seem present in the statement itself. But the interpretation of the statement itself can be varied!! So So by -->varying<-- the interpretation of a sentence, or meaning associated with it, the same sentence may be true or false! So In a way I agree with your second 'conclusion'

//2)Statements being true by having these constants changed. -- Mostly variable

So what am I trying to say here?
1) Two statements CAN be simultaneously true if not contradictory. They can be totally unrelated, or one can be the corollary of the other too!
2) Humans use language a little differently from each other. So what the person was confident of having communicated, may mean quite different to another person. Even if the two use language similarly, further trouble is that humans are not Perfect Logicians or Dumb Computers. So they say out things ambiguously. As explained above, even Ayushi The Idealist could not avoid the ambiguous talk ;). Such things are said expecting the other person to understand it intelligently.
3) This brings us to the third part, which somewhat incorporates your theory of 'variables'. Given a ->human< ie. ->ambiguous statement<-, there can be ->various<- interpretaions (Like it or not, it happens. All our heads thinks differently at least somewhat!) So the 'variable' that makes a statement true of false is the person interpreting it, what he/she interprets it to mean.

In view of these 3, see if it seems ok to say "Right said!" to all the Freds in my post.

If not, I'll explain for each character's quote.

(Of course I will be feeling as silly as I was feeling when I explained this post to some (many) people:


Stupidosaur said...

Reading again I was in doubt if I was able to explain my intitial point clearly (Haha, talk of ambiguous human talk! ;) )

So just some clarifications:

When I said this statement did not have the word 'contradictory',

//Statements being simultaneously true without having their 'arbitrary constants' changed -- Not Possible

,I was thinking something like this:

"Mutually contradictory statements being simultaneously true without having their 'arbitrary constants' changed -- Not Possible"

Because if not mutually contradictory,
1) One statement can be a restatement of the other, or a corollary. In both cases statements will be simulatneously true.
2) The two statements are unrelated or 'related in subject' but not really talking about the same aspect of a particular phenomenon of a particular entity, then their truth values can have any damn combination :P

Most statements in the post are like case 2). Sometimes the subjects are unrelated, or sometimes they are talking of different aspects of apparently same subject. Again sometimes there is a hidden variable (like you said) or sometimes its a different interpretation due to varying person (like I extended your point)

Post Script said...

I stumbled in and bumped my head, if not for you then I'd be dead. Or something like it. Or so I'd like you to believe. My own little super-osaur.

Tahaha !!! Funny funny. Though I should mention I've never seen such long comments before.

I read. More.

Ayushi said...

No, the statements need not be contradictory. A line which has slope 1.50 cannot fit that one which has slope=1.45; they do not need to be at 90 deg to be not correct.
However, I have a habit of stating only universal facts. Hence, yeah, if you take the sentence itself as an argument, then U can say mutual contradiction is neessary.

And BTW, if there is no relation b/w ur points, why integrate them in a post at all :-/
and nnno---dont explain further at all--dont even dare to!

Stupidosaur said...

//No, the statements need not be contradictory. A line which has slope 1.50 cannot fit that one which has slope=1.45; they do not need to be at 90 deg to be not correct.

Well, Ayushi, I am not sure if I am clear with your analogy. Or if you yourself are, for that matter.

Lets try to understand step by step:

y= 1.5 x + A is line 1 (A is constant)

Lets say it is 'analogous to a statement 1', as you want it to be.

y = 1.45 x + B is line 2 (B is a constant)

Lets just say it is somehow 'analogous to a statement 2', as you want it to be.

Now, both lines do not coincide. So by analogy, statements 1 and 2 are distinct.

Since both lines exist happily in real X-Y plane, I find both of them to be simultaneously real and existing, and by analogy ---->their corresponding distinct statements 1 & 2 simultaneously true!!!<-----

In fact, the two lines intersect. Similarly in my post too, one statement does have a connecting link with the other!!!

//they do not need to be at 90 deg to be not correct.

err...what do you mean in the geometrically analogy, by a line 'not being correct'?

Anyways, thats the first interpretation of your vague analogy, and it leads to my post being justified. Since you are being vague, I have few other 'definite' interpretations of it, all of which again justify my post.
I'll come back to them later, but just mentioning the 'descriptive names' of those approaches too...

1) Plane of Truth and imaginary planes for false statements(extension of what I described)
2) Line of Truth (another possible meaning of your analogy) and Shift of Reference (Analogy with 'different interpretations and perspectives by different people', which I described in my comment previous to your above one)
3) Line of Truth and its intersection with curves of higher degree equations.

I guess even the names will give you an idea what I am thinking here. So if you feel my currently described interpretation as well as the 'coming soon to the inbox near you!' ones are quite off the tangent to what you meant, you can explain before I get time to continue this comment (and after that too! :))
I have lot more to add here which includes
Err what is meant by 'a line being not correct?'

Anyways, let me not irritate you with technicalities. I have other ways ;)

Well, in a way, whatever you said about one line not fitting other's equation is very true. But its you who brought co-ordinate geometry analogy here in the first place.

So - bringing an analogy to disprove a point, and not really clearly establishing the analogy in the context, and then suddenly saying that the point which you want to disprove has been disproved because the analogy scenario(whose fittingness has not been established) itself cannot exist is somewhat meaningless eh?

And yet again if I act with human intelligence and not that of a Perfect Logician or Dumb Computer, I can make your analogy fit and still justify my post :) ...

I forgot what exactly it was called, but in class 11 or 12 Science, we were taught change of reference frame. The change could be
1) Shifting of origin
2) Changing angle of frame of the X-Y frame of reference
3) Both.

Stupidosaur said...

Oh shit! Ayushi pls ignore whatever I wrote after this smiley above-> :)

I mean ignore from

//I have lot more to add here which includes

It was a rough draft which I intended to scrap as I realised it was not proceeding crisply, and was missing points and sequence, and was never going to reach a proper logical closure (where some points clearly established and further direction clearly defined. I started again, but forgot to delete that one.

No point deleting the comment, cos it all went to your gmail anyways X-|

Ayushi said...


Corruption also exists on this Earth, does not mean its right, is it?

You or nature defines what is right: the line of truth, as you say.
No other Line can fit it except the line which has its arb.constants the same as required.

Take whatever you may for reference. hardly matters na.

In a family of Lines(say lines lying in the same plane): only one line will be true.

From a constellation of Points, only one point will be true.

Lets take another reference example:
I have draw a graph with some points and I wanna draw a best fit line(like a democratic opinion).

Ab tum family of planes lo ya group of points lo ya phir lines lo ya phir curves lo. Hardly matters to me.

Topic:"With great power comes great responsibility."
Type:Defined by nature(answer fixed for all situations). Answer is either true or false.
Many people put their line of thoughts forward. Yahan woh logic hai ki ek hi line real hogi. Baki sab imginary.Yeh kuch aisi family hai samjhe.

Topic:"the converse"
Type:Defined by nature, hence either true in all situations, or false in all situations.
Explanation:Same as above.

y= (M1)x + A
y = (M2) x + B
Arrey yaar A=B rakho na, two constants are even harder to explain.

Aur shift of reference kyun hoga?
Ohh...so the observer is standing at 0,2 instead of 0,0. Im not fine with it. Arrey tum farmer ki jagah khade ho, or you stand in place of a businessman, the truth should be one. WHY?

We're not discussing democracy, its about the truth mannn!

Its not about what is most beneficial to the 0,5 observer is line A; its about what is And all the observers have to stand at 0,0 for that and see whats beneficial to the human race taken as one(our realization of life).

If I go according to you, no one would wish for punishment in life.
Whereas, I think thts not right. Coz I do wish for punishment when I do wrong, and wrong is wrong. No one's perception can change it.

Ayushi said...

btw, what if a line intersects a curve?
How does it matter man?

Post a Comment

<< Newer
Older >>