<< Newer
Older >>

Double whammy

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The guy got a squint.
The guy didn't get a girl.
Single girls he saw as double.

P.S.: In comment section of the post How To Get Fired For Dummies, one commenter wanted more such Boss jokes.

About a year ago, I used to make many. Here are some more:

<< Newer
Older >>


  1. He didn't believe in 'ek se bhale do'?

  2. This (click) is in response to your gravely humiliating open speculation of my being boring on account of my possessing an inherently singular personal identity in the comments' section of your post--'Right said Fred'.

    Hope to see you find me more interesting!


  3. Dear Stupid,

    your species of prehistoric reptiles refuse to go extinct.

    And I like it.

    Clap clap.:)

    Scribblers Inc.

  4. Award-shaward! You have recieved a G-Rammy award, do check out my new post :-)
    LOL @ comment 'Ek se chale do!"



    I understood!!!!!!!!

  6. hahaha
    Double trouble as they say, especially when a woman's concerned.
    And woman drivers with a squint?

  7. @stupiiiii :P

    no threes?


    your second comment.
    the second para.

    @stupii again
    ahem ahem.

  8. funny..as usual :D
    me... laughing....as usual :)


  9. @deluded: Have you gone through this (click) post of mine? Of course, I'm going to edit it when I find time! :P

    I'd have found you even more interesting had you commented on my 'pink chaddis'-post, your exophthalmos notwithstanding! You didn't have to read other comments :)


  10. Looks like Srishti has turned very egoist (click before taking offence!) and developed diplopia (click), and is seeing supernumerary i's everywhere!

  11. @Ketan

    There are taxes, and there is interest.

    You are interesting as well as taxing.

    I do visit your blog. Many times.
    At least 'many times' considering how 'much' I am online these days, and how disinterested I am in anything even when I am.

    Believe me I don't think a bit in writing the 'witty comments' you may have seen at few blogs I visit. Its all in a flash

    Only, I am not able to get myself to comment trivially on your blogs

    1) Some posts are sooo long, I do not even finish them (reached only till SCHIZOID PERSONALITY DISORDER in the link you gave in first comment above.
    2) When I do finish some such posts, I know there were lots of things I felt like saying at lots of places. But by end of the post so many are found disappeared into my bheja gap. I then feel so bored to go over the post all over again.
    3) Some of the post I feel like verbally shredding to pieces
    4) One such was 'Pink Chaddi' post. Yeah Deluded. I have continued your joke: "I felt such a strong urge to shred Ketan's 'Pink Chaddi' to pieces"
    5) In fact, one night I sat from 12:47 to 1:54 am writing a long reply, point by point to that post explaining why I totally disagreed (Making you happy, as per your comment form message). At 1:54 I accidentally clicked that window closed when trying to do something else. I was so 'traumatized' and 'scarred' by this, I never attempted again.
    6) Some posts are too 'forced logical' (just my opinion), I feel you need to loosen up
    7) Some posts include lots of thoughts which I thought few years back, some with the same angle, some different. I don't think such stuff these days, because some of it seems too worthless or too profound to think and I am no longer a student with all the time and regularly well exercised mind to be able to do that.
    8) The comment which I started regarding free will on your post, I'll continue or incorporate in some of my future posts.

  12. @Ketan: NAHI!! Stupii stands for Smart Talented Unique Person In India. I have a perfectly normal eyesight, as I just got myself tested at Dayal Opticals :D

    Write I instead of D, and get a hundred accusations hurled at your self. Uff.

  13. Stupidosaur,

    I'm writing a relatively long comment, which would be broken in multiple parts, and will post them at regular intervals. Though I know this is not your 'regular time' to reply, please don't respond to it, till I post the comment in its entirety. TC.

  14. Stupidosaur: thanks for so many clarifications! If you don't think much before posting your witty comments, my admiration for how fast your mind actually works has further increased. Sic. :)

    1. Yes, I realized after going through your blog that some of my posts are too long. Especially when compared to yours! I'm not obsessed with comparing lengths, though. ;)

    2. I've a suggestion, you could open another window of 'notepad' or 'word' (assuming you use Windows), and type down whatever crosses your mind in 'real-time'. But yes, I'm not conceited enough to believe, your life should revolve cant replying to my (or anyone else's) posts!

    3 and 4. Responding to these points here would be irrelevant, but since eventually, your comment had not reached my post, communicating with you through email may not be entirely reliable, and since you've till now not objected to my discussing things unrelated to your posts, I take the liberty to respond here. I also respond because of a small concern of mine, which you shall discover in this comment itself.

    I'm not sure if deluded's above comment was in reference to my 'chaddis-post', but even if it was, I hope, he finds an answer to it this response.

    I believe, your disagreements with me on that post could be on two major grounds:

    a. The chain of 'reasoning' I employed to reach this conclusion that she'd deliberately chosen that dress to attract attention of random strangers/people who don't matter to her.

    b. The basic premise on which the entire post is based that 'It is contemptible to make 'choices' where the aim is to attract attention of those who don't matter to me/are significantly less competent than me in chosen area of 'act' in question/those who I don't value, and then using the amount of attention I gather as an index to my worthiness as a human being'

    Though, you're one of the very few bloggers, who come up with ideas/thoughts that would've evaded my own chain of thoughts, I'm assuming, I might be somewhat able to predict your thoughts/arguments. Though, I actually wish I were wrong 'cuz in that post with so many ideas, there are very few that had totally never come to my mind. So, here's a bit of elaboration on both possible lines of attack:

    a. I've not presented 'evidence' to prove her intentionality. Evidence is not possible here. I myself concede, the grounds on which I drew those conclusion were very flimsy....

  15. ...Yes, there indeed are other possibilities as to why she'd have chosen that particular dress. But, in my day-to-day life, I don't suspend the process of judgement only because of clutter of statistical possibilities flooding my mind. I feel, the conclusion, in light of so many other cues like her body-language (when having worn that dress, and later at the time of eating), etc., further made me draw that conclusion. If you tell me, my judgement could be wrong, I agree! But, at the end of an 'episode' of thinking, how many times do we conclude that "there's nothing to conclude" v/s "this seems to be the most likely case"? Do you have a more likely likely explanation for the way she acted in the light of very same 'data' that was available to me? I'm not challenging you, am curious. If you decide to go through the comments some time, issues raised by Rakesh and Srishti, and my responses to them deal with this aspect of 'other' possibilities. I've never proclaimed that my chain of reasoning could be admissible in a court of law, but I don't think, I'd like to apply those standards to my thinking before drawing conclusions about events/people. There was a time in the past, when I used to apply much stringent standards while considering my 'intuitive' conclusions, and end up not taking them seriously, but each time they ended up to be right.

    But the most important reason I was alright with 'jumping' to such conclusions was because I'd nothing really to do with her!

    It wouldn't matter (just in case) if my conclusion were to be wrong! Believe me, I'd be definitely alright with revising my conclusions on receiving new 'data'.

    b. Okay, the premise (about not deliberately trying to draw attention) I stated above is a 'moral axiom', which is not sourced in any other moral principle. I won't be able to tell you why it is better to follow it as opposed to a 'democratic' way of living, i.e., extreme populism--trying to count how many admirers/approvers have I collected, rather than who they are, and what they are like. I'd be definitely bothered by what following category of people have to say about me/my work:

    I. People I'm accountable to, like my parents, friends.

    II. People I've come to admire because of certain skills/intelligence they possess....

  16. wow.

    what the heck is going on here?

    yes. my comment was directed to the 2nd para of that comment and only that.

    but yes. my short comments on your posts ARE due to the fact that I get jaded by the time I get to posting a comment.

    on that note, the notepad waala funda seems good. might try it next time you post :)


    are there girl dinosaurs as well?

    just wondering.....

  17. ...III. People I've come to love because of their being 'good humans'--an umbrella term we all have instinctive idea for, but I won't elaborate upon here.

    I've no real way to explain why people should be not like that (populist). I can give some sociopsychologic reasons like, "but it would lead to lot of discontent and craving for attention, there'd be total loss of truth and sincerity, people would start doing 'immoral' things simply to draw attention, etc." But hey no, that's not the reason I follow the principle I do! If I let my acts be determined by others' wishes alone, (extreme conformity as well as extreme defiance--such that the 'conforming' and 'defying' become the only factors governing my acts), I'd be actually resigning my freedom to act in the way I want! I'd be leading the life of a second-hander (terminology I've drawn from Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead', though the emotion is originally mine, too). I'd develop contempt for myself. If you get tempted to point out that there'd be many instances in life, where we're indeed required to act according to others (and quite opposite to our own) wishes, I'd only say that there'd at least be a compulsion and/or incentive in doing that. But in case, of indiscriminate (as defined above) popularity as the sole end of our acts, there is no such compulsion. If I do that I'd be voluntarily giving away my freedom to choose to those who don't matter!

    Does this make anyone who follows extreme populism 'bad'? Not in an absolute sense, but yes, in my frame of reference. I'd not like to have any kind of interaction with 'such' people, because, all the time, I won't get to know/see what really exists in their mind, but only a culmination of what they think 'others' want to see. When I 'share' myself with others, I want to do it with those who share their 'true' 'selves' and not an 'image' they're trying to build on the basis of what they think 'others' will like. Yes, so in my frame of reference, what the girl did (assuming my 'conclusion' from the chain of reasoning to be 'correct'), was contemptible.

    Partly, the reason I'm responding here is I've sensed you develop a mistrust for me ('lotalicking' on Dr. S' blog, and some possibly sarcastic remarks like 'Making you happy as per your comment form message'). There'd be nothing wrong if this mistrust is default outlook you have for strangers...

  18. ...But the reason it concerns me, as our interactions have increased, the mistrust seems to have only deepened, which I cannot take lightly because of things I've anyway said in this comment. Also, I could sense disgust/hatred in your choice of words like 'shredding to pieces of pink chaddis'. If it is because of your disagreement with my ideas, I can understand, but if it's because it's entirely for me as a person, I'd be indeed somewhat affected (again, the same reasons). Of course, I understand, you can't develop disgust for my ideas, and yet not for me, 'cuz as far as you're concerned my ideas as I communicate them through my blog and comments are equivalent to 'Ketan' for you.

    Do correct me, if my above two concerns are totally unfounded, and works of my overworked imagination, and also if they're not totally baseless (if you don't clarify at this point, obviously, the latter would persist as my impression of your ideas about me).

    5. I totally understand what it feels like. I just hope, that's not partly the reason, you might find me 'taxing'! Our mind does attach 'unpleasant' experiences with feelings that'd tend to distance us from exposure to the same painful stimulus! Like, you starting to dislike my blog!

    6. This is something I couldn't understand. Are you trying to say, some of my posts are too verbose? Yes, it's possible. I do have problems with maintaining succinctness. I used to contribute on Wikipedia, and realized, there people could convey the same idea without any loss of meaning in fewer words.

    But if you mean, I discuss too many ideas, in too much details, that's because I'd like to avoid having to clarify things individually while commenting. Despite my writing long (in my attempt, unambiguous) posts, there've been occasions when intelligent readers have entirely missed the point! Or if you mean, many of my posts lack an element of emotion, yes, you're right. They do lack that. And of course, everything I think and conclude can't be disconnected from my emotions. But maybe, my step-by-step approach, and the fact that I don't include my emotional responses in my post could leave that impression.

    Or maybe, you might mean, there are a few issues that are (ought to be) beyond penetration of intellect, then of course, I disagree, and hence, that kind of posts. :)

    7. I understand. Actually, it's very wrong of me to be devoting so much time to blogging (actually, commenting, which is much more time-consuming)...

  19. ...Many of the links I leave on your blog are not even of my posts. Some are not even of my blog. I leave them only so that if you feel curious to read something that you might not know, you'll have to just click on the link rather than searching for it. It doesn't mean I expect you to read that. I'd love to have your comments on my posts, but as I've said in the past, only if they 'incite' a comment in you, and not as some kind of favor returned to me for my devoting time, thoughts, and emotions (to some extent) on your blog. I don't mean to hurt any respondent by individually pointing out to them that there comment was lacking in depth/was insincere, but that doesn't mean, I value them.

    8. Free will: I'm sorry, I've yet not responded to your comment there as whatever you said was anyway said by me in my response to Mgeek through my example of balance of neurotransmitters. But yes, you did come up with a point that had had me floored--that 'each time we respond to a stimulus, we're actually not 'deciding' that a response (as in a reaction) from us is required, but we just do it.' I'm not quoting you verbatim here, but that was the basic idea I'd missed in my analysis. Sorry, I didn't convey my appreciation for your point then and there (my laziness).

    I think my comment is over. You're free to respond, if and when you feel like. :)


    PS: I too had lost my drafted comments twice before, that too typing on the cell phone. Telling you not because my perseverance in getting my point through to you is worthy of emulation, rather, I envy the detachment you've been able to achieve from the blogosphere in general, and also (possibly) lost the desire to be heard by specific people. In that sense, you're truly liberated! :)

  20. @deluded: I also didn't think your comment was in reference to my 'pink chaddis' post. I said even if it indeed were, you might find the answer to the doubts/concerns you might share with Stupidosaur. Actually, I too don't know of his concerns. :P I've just speculated, and hoping they turn out to be adequately relevant. TC.

  21. @stupii (thank you so much srishti for that lovely nick)

    ok. you guys' fight notwithstanding(I have yet to understand what this big word means), I went read the stupidosaur jokes.

    do you work in a newspaper?

  22. thanx for dropping by my blog and leaving your comments
    keep visiting

  23. @Scribbler

    I am in the prehistory of the future present. And like you know, existinct. Its a mathematical impossiblity to go from existinct to extinct. As impossible as this comment making any sense.


    Award-Shaward? First it sounded like you are giving Ashirwad. Well, it is. Sort of. Lets hope I bother to decorate my blog one day.




    @ Srishti

    Wow! But how? I never sing in high frequency in a high decibel level! The only thing I sing in, is bathroom. Well not really.


    The double trouble with your comment is that nobody mentioned has a car, and the squint guy isn't two women.


    Wonder what the full form of what I wrote above is?


    //no threes?

    //your second comment.
    the second para.


    //ahem ahem.


    Too bad P is far from A in QWERTY. Else you could have made a typo and commented


    That would have added to our fun.


    Am sometimes replying to comments. As usual. With nothing meaningful said in reply. As usual.

    @ Shrishti again (I know thats not your surname ;). I have not begun it with capital A :P)

    Whatever Stupii stands for, can he sit now?

    Also, maybe Dayal opticians certified you free of hyperopia, myopia, presbyopia (for which you anyways aren't old enough). And of course you don't have diplopia like Ketan idicated. If you had, just typing 1 'i' after Stup would make you see 'ii' and stop and happily wonder how smart the keyboards these days are. Just one stroke and they know how many repeats of it the typer wants!

    But you do have a rare medical condition in which the subject sees a hundred accusations where there are hardly two.

    Besides, are you sure you went to Dayal? Maybe you have a rare kind of astigmatism, in which straight lines below every capital P you focus on become blurred so that you see only a D? Maybe it was Payal optician?


    @Anju G (see thats respectful addressing, taking care of your surname too!)

    That last comment of your was a bit disappointing.

    I commented because I felt like doing so. There is nothing to thank me about in that. You cant go thanking about everyone who comments on your blog. It would be exhausting for you. And looks a little pathetic too.

    Maybe now I'll feel like visiting and commenting a little less often :P ;)

    Besides it also makes me think, you probably didn't even read this post (or any of the links provided) and commented ONLY because I came and commented on your blog. That too, to ensure that if this first time I visited by fluke and am going to forget your blog, I wouldn't :P

    And its true too. Isn't it ? :P

    (Yeah well I am a jerk!)

    Of course, if you are one of those very propah and polite people who genuinely love to use the magic words and feel the feel behind it when doing so, let me say one magic word too


    (for what all I just said)

  24. Ketan & Deluded

    More to come.
    Or Later.

  25. @Ketan

    @Comment 1

    Well he did droolingly propose to 'both' once. But as he was trying to avoid the punch from the girl on the right, he got one straight on the nose from the girl on the left. Since then he is looking for only 'single' girls, so that he would know whose fist/footwear to duck. But as I said, he can't find any.

    Comment 2:
    I never meant it to be insulting. I am a natural jerk. Anyways, you went on posting a couple of comments on a couple of comments that I could have taken as insult or humour. So if you found that speculation insulting, I will consider it as an unintended sweet revenge. We are even now. ;)

  26. @Ketan
    ah mistake! The second 'couple of comments' above is actually supposed to be 'couple of posts'

    @Comment 3

    Does deluded have exopthalmos or are you talking about bulging reptilian eyes that I may have?

    @Comment 4

    To prove: Srishti can't be having diplopia.

    We prove it by reductio ad absurdum.

    Assumption: Srishti has diplopia.


    If Srishti had diplopia, she would see 2 'i's by typing 1 i. So if she intended to end it with one i, she would try to delete the second i and thus delete the first i too. The she would type an i once again, and repeat the whole process again. But then the comment would never have got successfully published because of the process going into an infinite loop.

    But comment did get published.
    So our assupyion is wrong.
    Which means Srishti doesn't have diplopia.

    (Yeah yeah, I know there are lots of logical loopholes in the above apparently tight proof :P Its just a spoof on maths and logic ;))

  27. @Ketan comment 5
    I don't have a 'regular time' as such. And even if it was my regular time, these days, chance of me quickly replying away to comments has somehow become very low. And probability of the event would become even lower if I had to reply to a long comment ;)

    But this comment of mine shows that events with very low but non zero probabilities can actually occur!

  28. @Ketan

    ok.final batch of reply to your long comments.

    1) I used to write long posts when new to blogging, when I got carried away, and when I was not opposed to giving long hours to blogging. Some of them you can read by clicking the label 'Unnecessarily Looooong Post' on the sidebars. However in these very initial blogging days that I mentioned above, I hadn't become obsessed with labeling comments (Contrast: These days I also have a label 'Yay so many labels' :P) So many long posts went without such label too!

  29. 2 I had got that idea too. But I am super talented. I can even manage to lose typed things in word/notepad. Even if these word editors prompt for saving before closing. How? Started typing on laptop at night. Dozed off. Woke up in the morning to a battery discharged, auto shutdown laptop :P

  30. 3) and 4) theories, debates and discussions will happen at their right place - your blog, those posts. Some day.

  31. @Stupidosaur's reduction to the absurd:

    Oh, thanks, Stupidosaur! I mean it! For pointing out my fatal error in trying to get through a smart comment beyond your watchful eyes. Which only tells me to be more careful the next time around I comment anywhere close to where you're likely to comment back! Especially, anything that has remotely got anything to do with logic/humor/(the English) language/general knowledge!

    I realized my folly the moment I read your first sentence, and could see you'd left loopholes (deliberate?) in your logic.

    Actually, in my original comment had I not ended the sentence with 'everywhere', I still had some chance of defending my comment! Like, I could've said that since Srishti is egoist, she's developed a very balanced personality, and her eyes have a special predilection for anything symbolic of perfect balance in her surroundings. The antiparallel symmetry of 'p' and 'd' is just one such case--totally reminiscent of the complementarity of ying and yang. So, whenever she sees those letters in that sequence and 'i' between them, she thinks of 'balance', and thinks of herself, which in turn makes her think of 'i', and her inflated sense of ego would make her see two 'i's instead of one, and that's how she'd write/type her spellings. And whenever she'd type some word like 'stupid', her heightened sense of 'i' (diplopia for 'i' specifically flanked by 'p' and 'd') coupled with her thus wrongly memorized spelling, would make her write 'stupii' displacing the 'd' in the end.

    'cuz it would be actually a manifestation of 'loss of balance' dropping 'd' from the p-d coupling. (Don't think I wanted to show a distorted version of 69 by writing p-d; at least, I've put a hyphen between the two, and you can't tell who the 'hyphen' belongs to ;) )

    And since Srishti is very adept at typing, and doesn't require to look at the monitor while typing, the vicious cycle you've talked of won't occur! But no point crying over spilt comments! Afterall I did write 'everywhere' at the end of the comment, and my hypothesis would've been disproved the moment she'd have correctly spelled 'rapid', 'insipid' or 'lipid'! But more important, any such attempt on my part would be too lame.

    @sweet revenge: with regard to your and my attempts at humor (irrespective of how much mine would suck and yours won't!), and the probability of actually finding them insulting, I was even with you even before you posted that!...

  32. ...@The fate of the guy who did droolingly propose to 'both' once: LOL, and just wondering if 'stupii' kind of 'reduction to the absurd' could be applied here, like if his diplopia would be congenital, he'd anyway think every double person to be 'one', and if he'd have acquired it some time later, he'd know that what appears to be two would actually be... but then, this exercise isn't exactly worth it, and plus it'll take me some time to recover from the shock of punch/footwear of your logic, and develop enough courage to do a 'miyaan ki footwear; miyaan ka sar' on you!

    @query about deluded's eyes: I haven't seem them yet. But you definitely seem to be having reptilian simple eyes that can spot just so many things on at least the internet terrain!

    @nonzero probabilities: Though, you'd advised me to be patient, and not expect too much, I'm hoping against hope that a few (specifically, couple) of my wishes come true, which also just like the above comment of yours involve your volition!

    Thanks for taking time to comment (and this 'thanks' though not brimming with emotions, is not insincere)

    Take care.

    PS: Thanks for pointing out the 'very long post'-tag.

  33. @ketan & deluded on the 'pink chaddi' issue.

    Well yes deluded I know you were not referring to any post in any way, but only to this from Ketan

    //Hope to see you find me more interesting!

    I thought you were trying to jokingly give it a gay angle. I thought so because you often give a joking gay angle in many of your own posts.

    So I took it up from there. There can be nothing gayer than Ketan having a pink chaddi and me shredding it :P.

    It was also a kind of retort to a comment in which I presumed Ketan was trying to call me gay (in very camouflaged way of course, that most would not have noticed).

    So actually there was a lot of double talk going on

    //3) Some of the post I feel like verbally shredding to pieces
    4) One such was 'Pink Chaddi' post.

    3) was initially referring to how I strongly feel like refuting some of Ketan's posts and ideas (not all, many are quite well thought)
    In 4) I gave an example. But 3) and 4) taken till that point became sort of jocular 'shredding ketan's pink chaddi'. But I knew it would be a cryptic joke to get. So I explained in next 2 sentences. But I guess you both still found it too cryptic ! LOL!


    Yes there are girls of our kind. Our kind, btw is not dinosaurs. I know you have read and commented on this post. But read all its comments too. It will tell you about girl Stupidosaurs:

    An alternate ad for monsterjobs.com or something like it.

  34. @the gay angle: Somehow, deluded has never given me the gay angle either on my or his own blog! Maybe, that's why I could never see that! So, my post-esque comments above are totally much ado about nothing! TC.

  35. Arrey Ketan Sir! Ye aapne kya keh diya!!

    Ab deluded bura maan jayega!

    I think he mentions the topic in at least one third of the posts, if not all (just gut feel, no statistical analysis)! Now he will think you just don't read all his posts, or at least not carefully!

    Going in reverse chronological order:
    Latest post


    has the lines

    you could have made the t shirt pink, drawn flowers on it, written gay revolution on it, and it would still sell more that what they tried.


    when a rich uncle with a very avant garde dressing sense, offers you a lift in a car.

    be scared.
    very scared.

    I was on guard for the whole journey.

    but then.

    I admit gladly.
    I was wrong to.

    no uncle touching. no inappropriate jokes from any uncle that day.



    A. the bus trip to mangalore

    no male to male fondling. yay!

    attempt at coolness and ungayness fail.

    deluded: hit on by the wrong kind of people in the wrong kind of way.

    life: not going good ever since section 377 was taken out.

    Some 5 posts after this are gay-free zone and I haven't checked further down the line. But at least deluded keep bringing it for humour ever since the topic had become national new recently.

    I was not saying he calls anyone gay in particular at his or your or anybody's blog. Just said he brings that angle in some way to every topic!

  36. Sorry, I forgot to mention in my previous comment that deluded does not give that angle as far as commenting is concerned. But even otherwise, from his track record, he seems to homophobic, rather than wanting to attract the attention of a male (you can make me that much allowance! please, please, please!!)!

    But anyway, I 'made' you comment in vain! :P


  37. @Ketan

    Being vain, I comment not when 'made' to, but only when I want to, and in that vein, but never in vain.

    (Just playing with words. *Chuckle*)

    Hey deluded.
    Put an end to this man.
    What were you pointing out in Ketan's 2nd comment?

    We grant that
    1) You are homophobic.
    2) Ketan isn't gay.
    3) I am not gay or homophobic. (Except to the degree that a woman may be phobic of rapist. Not all gay and straight men are rapist)

    So feel absolutely free to answer, or not answer (like it matters! :P)

  38. @ stupii (im calling you that :P)

    Whats with ketan???
    i never did get it?
    But why does he always write such long comments about how you are and about you not commenting on him blog??

    Forgive the poor innocent girl and spare her of the ......... (you-know-who-ness)


  39. @Deluded: You think stupii is a lovely nic? Is that sarcasm?

    @Stupii and Ketan: I'm perfectly NORMAL and have no eye defects. Nor ANY ego problems. Nor any astigmati-whatever.

  40. @Harini:

    You really expected Stupidosaur to answer that?

    Let me attempt in brief here.

    Length of my comment = wonder quotient of Stupidosaur X Weirdness quotient of Ketan X (time I have in any day/10)

    As you could see from above equation, weirdness quotient of Ketan is a constant, wonder quotient of Stupidosaur is nearly a constant, but rises day-by-day, hence a generalized increase in length of my comments, and time availiable to me in a day is somewhat variable depending upon how much time I sleep and eat in any given day!

    I've just cited my reason for commenting here, though not complained that he doesn't comment on my blog!

    What have we done to Srishti? She's just being haunted by a chicken soul (click)! ;)


    I know you're perfectly normal. I was just playing deduction-induction, and Stupidosaur was playing induction-deduction. You were just our shuttle cock for a few days! Okay, you're female, and a juvenile, does that make you a shuttle chick? ;)

    BTW, astigmatism is also an eye disorder, when beyond a particular limit, and is present in everyone who has normal eyes!

    But yes, 'astigmati-whatever' seems to be a particularly prevalent disorder, particularly among females. It can't be dismissed so easily! ;)

    TC, both of you!


<< Newer
Older >>