Commented on buddingwriter's review
Jul 23, 2005 04:48 PM
The original management classic written by the legendary Dale Carnegie, and a nice review on it by you indeed. And let me tell you one thing, all of today's so called management gurus follow the basic four principles described in this book by DC.
Well, I found your comment on one of my reviews ab...out hacking, so thought of looking at your profile. You write real good, I must say. What stream you are in, btw?
-Kunal
[www.kunalism.com]Read More
Commented on shobita's review
Nov 28, 2004 03:23 PM
I really wanted to see this movie when I heard that it's nominated for the Oscars, but as it is in Marathi, I couldn't see it.
But, as you gave a lovely introductory on the movie, I guess I won't face any language barrier while wathching the movie now.
Very good review again Shobita, but perha...ps if you could undo that bold string of characters you've just placed in there, it would look even more impressive.
And, by the way, it's after a long time you wrote your previous review.
Keep writing.
-KunalRead More
Commented on prassad_rs's review
Nov 05, 2004 12:18 PM
Another good one, Prasad. I wonder about the sequence of your reviews coming up one by one!
This was a handy one with some insights about his career and early breakthrough.
Keep it up.
-Kunal
Commented on prassad_rs's review
Oct 19, 2004 03:28 PM
Lovely review Prasad. You got some nice facts to talk about which makes the review more informative.
Keep it up.
-Kunal
Commented on own review
Oct 19, 2004 03:15 PM
You've written 'I do not believe' quite a lot time in your previous comment, I can see that. I dont mind if you dont wanna believe, but its my job to defend what's the fact. Think over it my way and you will realise that you also lack the funda of marketism, forget Diana.
And, well, here we'are j...ust driving the whole topic to completely useless way. I'm not interested in Diana's personal life and what she was, ok? We have the facts, the naked truth, and I just saw it the different way.
You continue defending the late lady Diana, be just with yourself and your so called 'facts'. And, this review was not for the people who do not wanna go in public, let me make it clear. I guess you're one of them. Such people are afraid of the crowd. If so, get your boundaries wider, do not enbound yourself within certain limits, go public, open up!!! People who do not want publicity, I guess they are no better than the DEAD! Because even people who reside in the local mental hospitals sick publicity, have you ever noticed?Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 19, 2004 03:04 PM
You just seem to be stuck with your belief and its like...well, you dont wanna believe in what others say or lets say, what the fact is! People know this.
You're just satisfied with your point of view and don't care whether others agree with it or not, then I guess there's no point for me to deba...te more over the topic. But, then again, for people, if not for you, I'll continue.
You're talking about your broadband in between, did I read that? Your new keyboard!!! Tell me, I don't know your name, you don't wanna reveal your name and you talk about your personal hobbies! Tell me, why should we be interested in your personal interests if you're not so keen about declaring yourself, your name to us! Take me positive, but its the fact!
You yourself lack the capabilities of marketing yourself, how can you defy lady diana then?
Anywayz, first of all, Diana didn't sell out her naked photos, ok? Media captured her in the bedroom. She was a princess, mind you, not an actress that she would give away her naked snaps like that to the magazines for publicity! And, she knew this. She knew that a little bit of nakedness will do the trick.
Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 18, 2004 03:15 PM
'Hum ye soche the ki waqt kahan hai,
Sabhi to aa gaye lekin aap kahan hai!
Aap aa gaye phir kuchh is tarah,
Hila ke rakh diye us tufaan ki tarah!'
Aadab arz hai...!
lol....
Good to see your comment. I didn't know that this kind of subject really interests you 'coz I found most of your re...views on cosmetics and gazals and you know.
Thanks for those lovely words. I'm really flying now....can you see?Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 17, 2004 08:51 PM
And, to talk about her gender plantation or modulation. If Diana would have been a male, as you just wrote, things would have been completely different. Let's think on what it was rather than some imaginary scenario. You're trying to say, perhaps, that people are only interested in female rather tha...n male, aren't you? Then what would you say about Brad Pitt, David B'ham and SRK? 'People' include female, too. And, about having affairs, I didn't say that it was bad. It's good, you have affairs, enjoy your life, nothing's bad in that as long as people and media don't notice it. If they get to know about it, you're gone then. And, this is what happened with Diana! Her naked photos with that Arab prince were also published in all the newspapers! You're causing damage to your own personality - I want to talk about this now. I'm not interested in her affairs, I'm not interested in lady Diana, no. I'm interested in brand 'Diana' and how it went wrong and what I learnt from it.
Ethics apart, we both are applying the theories of marketism right here, aren't we? You're claiming that Diana was a pure woman and I'm claiming that no I'm right, it was a marketing stuff to sell her news. Now, see, people are confused! But, they know what they have to gain at the end of the day. So, I thank god for it!
Thanks for your interesting comment which helped me to come up with this reply. Keep up the good work.
And, may I know your good name please, otherwise I'll keep calling you Pre Review?Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 17, 2004 08:49 PM
Yes, Mukund, you're right. I've made changes accordingly in my previous comment in reply to yours.
Thanks for it.
Commented on own review
Oct 17, 2004 08:47 PM
Well, I guess that you are one of those strong supporters of lady Diana. I guess I've taken up with the wrong guy, haven't I? he he ;-) just kidding.
But, I really don't agree with your point. Think about it this way. I ask you again, WHAT WAS PRINCESS DIANA IF SHE WASN'T THE PRINCESS AT ALL?
...
And why shouldn't we rake up her private life? She was famous and that was the reason why she was focused the most by the media. Blame on media, not us!
And, if her death is still a mystery, how do you know that her car was crashed because she wasn't in great mood and because she was rushing off from the media crowd! Her driver was driving the car, not her!!!
And, forget bollywood stars, I never mentioned them. I'm talking about lady Diana and not of Aishwarya or Shushmita.
And, by the way, there's nothing so much wrong if she was interested in her publicity. Who is not, tell me? I'm interested in my publicity, you're interested, everybody is! The thing is that we are not aware of it, we want publicity but we don't know how to do it. This review was to wake up your unconscious mind, your sleeping soul.
contd.Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 17, 2004 08:15 PM
I agree with your thoughts. But, then again, Gita is a management masterpiece by Lord Krishna to convince Arjuna that what he's telling is correct and forget everything else.
But, people who are unconsciously forced to think another way, the stereo-type way will possibly argue about my point. Bel...ieve it or not, its the fact. You call it the 'leela' of gods, we call it management tactics. The name has changed, everything else remains the same! What do you say?Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 17, 2004 08:02 PM
You're right and thanks for the nice comment.
Ravan took Sita just to become famous, if you think from my point of view. Because he didn't do anything with her, she was kept under powerful security and given regular services like food etc.
So, what was the purpose of stealing her? I guess, to be...come well-known, the desire to become famous but he ended up becoming infamous....well that leads to another think-process.Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 16, 2004 05:30 PM
Hey, glad to know that you awaited my review. But, you seem to be writing quite a lot these days. I'll have to go through your latest reviews.
Thanks for passing by, it really enlightens the whole review.
Commented on own review
Oct 16, 2004 05:27 PM
Did I really? It's good to know that people agree with my point of view. And, to tell you the fact, this is how it happens....whether we accept it or not.
I'm glad that the M2M worked.
Thanks for the nice comment.
Commented on own review
Oct 16, 2004 05:21 PM
Hey, hold on man....so much of praise can make me go nuts, do you know that Kiran?
You got a beautiful gift of praising people from the heart. I really appreciate what you just wrote. Not everybody can do this, keep up the good work.
Thanks for the wonderful comment.
Commented on own review
Oct 16, 2004 12:11 PM
Swathi, if I’ve not forgotten, I wrote a note at the beginning of this review regarding its category. I couldn’t find any better category where I should put it. Now, you blame it on me of on MS, it’s up to you… ;-)
And, you’re absolutely right about the marketing gim...mick. It will continue this way only or may be even more aggressively. The only thing we can do is to learn it and fight the fire with fire itself!
Thanks for the nice comment.Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 16, 2004 12:05 PM
I hope you know what the main reason behind the war of Kurukshetra was! 'Panchali” (wife of 5 Pandavas) Draupadi insulted Duryodhan which lead him into the battle against the Pandavas. The rest is history. I'm not telling that Duryodhan was completely a good guy, no. But, the way he has been d...escribed in the whole script (katha) is something controversial as per my thinking. Pandavas didn't accept their own big brother Karan but Duryodhan did, for whom Karan was a cousin. It might be because Pandavas didn't know that Karan was their brother, but their mother Kunti knew this. And, all of us know that how Kunti, who's the mother of Pandavas, gave birth to Karan. She knew that the society wouldn't accept his son and hence she kept him at the Ganges river residing upon his own destiny. It's another story, anyway.
The only stuff to tell is that Pandavas has been smartly picturised as religious and 'good' men, but after looking at the whole story, it wasn't the fact! You tell all good about the person who is cherished by some of the master minds, this happened with the Pandavas, too.
Duryodhan wanted revenge. When Drauapadi told him once, 'That blind son of the blind mother, huh!” nobody could have swallowed these bitter words just like that. And, hence he didn't return back their territory/country.
Anywayz, I appreciate your point of view, but then you see, its all about the game of marketism at the end of the day.
Thanks for your interesting comment.Read More
Commented on own review
Oct 16, 2004 11:52 AM
Of course I'll try to regularly pen down new reviews.
I thank you for adding your nice comment.
