Wednesday, April 26, 2006
On celebrating heroes
What is it with the incessant raving over ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
themadman and kalyan? Two more turned up this week (on Madhu, Kalyan). See, they’ve both done cool things and got their 15 minutes of fame. Enough already! Quit with the drooling. Let them do something far more remarkable before we turn them the spotlight again.
If you must celebrate, can’t you at least stick your neck out and pick someone* no one is raving about yet? What do you get out of beating the drum for someone already well acknowledged for their achievements?
* I was pleasantly surprised to see Tara highlightingkaustubhhere and say_yes04, for example.
themadman and kalyan? Two more turned up this week (on Madhu, Kalyan). See, they’ve both done cool things and got their 15 minutes of fame. Enough already! Quit with the drooling. Let them do something far more remarkable before we turn them the spotlight again.If you must celebrate, can’t you at least stick your neck out and pick someone* no one is raving about yet? What do you get out of beating the drum for someone already well acknowledged for their achievements?
* I was pleasantly surprised to see Tara highlighting
kaustubhhere and say_yes04, for example.
mat_attack — Apr 26, 2006 4:33:50 PM — # ↩
*Ducks and makes a run for cover.*
Seriously, those fifteen minutes are a myth. I think we all need our celebrities/heros, the few we can adore. I guess these guys got picked.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 26, 2006 5:09:29 PM — # ↩
It's not enough to have a hero. You need to be reminded of the hero every now and then, and that there is a role for someone to fill. And that means that role too has competition, and the competition will find a new hero to celebrate so as to stand out from all the fawning. It's about time we saw some action there.
Nobody likes a hero for who they are. They're admired for the qualities they represent. Qualities the admirer identifies with, for the admirer's own sake.
ga_woo — Apr 26, 2006 5:18:23 PM — # ↩
-Ambrose Bierce
I agree with this.
sidcarter — Apr 26, 2006 5:49:48 PM — # ↩
Can I please call this BS ? It is a folly to believe that we resemble anyone else in any manner. If there was such a resemblance, the world would be a boring place.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 26, 2006 7:35:31 PM — # ↩
ravi — Apr 26, 2006 8:32:02 PM — # ↩
ga_woo — Apr 26, 2006 10:54:34 PM — # ↩
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:06:51 AM — # ↩
These can be the same thing.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 9:08:28 AM — # ↩
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:24:02 AM — # ↩
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:08:11 AM — # ↩
Disagree. They are qualities that the admirer desires and values. Irrespective of whether the admirer identifies with them or not.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 9:09:54 AM — # ↩
themadman — Apr 26, 2006 6:01:16 PM — # ↩
Do you have to put someone down to show someone else up?
madhav — Apr 26, 2006 6:54:08 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 26, 2006 7:31:27 PM — # ↩
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:20:30 AM — # ↩
enigmaticash — Apr 26, 2006 9:48:09 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 26, 2006 9:52:07 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:05:13 AM — # ↩
What I'm curious about is, for someone clearly not a fan, yet with a tone that suggests they're introducing someone interesting to an audience presumably not familiar with said person, why is there no visible effort to identify someone new instead of propping up a person already recognised by a large section of the audience?
Which leads up to the more interesting bit: how does this whole mechanism of publicity work? (Rhetorical, don't answer.)
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:19:36 AM — # ↩
I've been reading you for a while and have come to understand you as a mature human being. So a petty interpretation of your post would have been inappropriate. However, my correct interpretation of your post has everything to do with your previous communications and nothing to do with your current style of communication.
In other words, the choice of words and the terseness of the post cannot help but miscommunicate its message.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 9:38:11 AM — # ↩
I'm enjoying the current lead-in followed by conversational build-up method, though the lead-in can unintentionally sound hostile, such as with this post. Should be more careful.
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:42:08 AM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 9:52:45 AM — # ↩
kalyan — Apr 27, 2006 1:47:32 AM — # ↩
But Yes, the comments and posts get too monotonous and I dont even bother with half the comments coz they just say "Great shot" or "Lovely". (That is one of the reason why I do not have comments on my photography section).
I agree with you on the fact that.. its about time people showcase unknown/hidden talents out there instead of going over the same people over and over again. I, for one, never liked the fact that people were going gaga over bloggers like kiruba etc where I saw no special content in their blog. Atleast my site has some pretty pictures.
Coming to your point, I think thats how people work. From an outside point of view, me and madhu live people's ideal lives. We've quit cubicals, went after our dream etc.. Ofcourse what many people do not see is the fact that I'm struggling to make a living and I spend most of my time in the city now and madhu has his own issues to deal with running the restaurant.
Its like these ads or posters that you see, where Ad agency folks always show a guy on a bike or someone on a mountain doing something.. its a well known marketing trick. Show people what that want or what they want to do or what they want to be and build your ad campain around it. People somehow think that .. by using that product, they get all that with it. Take the tata safari ad or some tea ad or even the axe ads.
In this case, me and madhu have become those things in real life and it gets people excited. And everyday 40% of my visitors are new users and they would have landed from someones blog etc and then he or she decides to blog about it.. coz its again a cool thing to talk about someone who is doing cool stuff.. like how people talk about steve jobs or paul graham etc.
Infact now people start to expect certain things from you. I know you will remember how LJ was many years ago.. when we could just post what we wanted.. and didnt worry about typos or hurting people or sounding right/wrong. I lost that freedom in my blog now, coz 95% of the people just want to read about my next jungle trip and my next set of pics.
But you know what the most satisfying thing about this whole fame thing is ? Each time I go to BR hills.. atleast 2 -3 people walk up to me and say " You are kalyan from LJ right ?". I almost feel like brat pitt or something ;) and in the coming months, I'm planning to get mysql involved in few conservation projects... who knows.. all these people just might help me there.
So anyway, I don't know if I answered your question, but this is my take on the whole thing.
- Kalyan
P.S - I'm neither hurt or have felt bad reading your post :)
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:10:46 AM — # ↩
Acutally, I think I may have asked, "You are Kalyan from Yahoo! right ?"
amoghavarsha — Apr 27, 2006 11:08:38 AM — # ↩
Its like the stars in mumbai say that they miss their *freedom* juhu beach stroll, but then again they can roam in maldives/mauritius. You lose some, you gain lots I guess. Wow! Now that you've lost freedom in something you really are a celebrity. ;)
say_yes04 — Apr 27, 2006 12:42:22 PM — # ↩
I almost feel like brat pitt or something ;)
woah, you are going to be qouted on this one for eternity.
/[g,d&r]
kalyan — Apr 27, 2006 12:57:07 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:59:49 PM — # ↩
say_yes04 — Apr 27, 2006 1:48:15 PM — # ↩
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 1:26:27 PM — # ↩
Whether you want it to or not ...
dhempe — Apr 28, 2006 12:20:21 PM — # ↩
oops I just posted "Awesome Pic" on your PhotoJournal right now ! ;)
point well put across.
thaths — Apr 27, 2006 4:38:12 AM — # ↩
This explains why acres of rainforests are destroyed on our buddy, Ethical Hacker Fadia.
This is not meant as an insult to
Also, you should consider what motivates geeks. I believe that geeks most desire praise from their peers. Gushing copy from tabloids would not add to a geek's self esteem.
As an aside, you know our mutual friend at The Hindu as well as I do. Why don't you write a piece about one of the neglected geeks for the paper? I would certainly be interested in reading your piece.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 9:07:26 AM — # ↩
However: writing a piece on a neglected geek may raise his profile, but the media scene doesn't seem capable of giving said geek due recognition and moving on. Perhaps the more interesting question is, what's up with the media scene?
To make a star requires more than just a candidate for a star: it requires a promoter. And promoters have their own biases, whether it's a lazy journalist trying to get done with a profile so the boss will quit haggling, or a record label promoting a pop artist because there's money to be made on sales.
When there's competition between promoters, we get more stars, each of them less significant than before, and paradoxically, the stars themselves having to work much harder (and by extension being much better at their trade) to remain prominent. Contrast with the lone superstar who's risen not so much for his own abilities but for his promoters being non-competitive.
Why compete for being a promoter? The obvious explanation is that it helps make money, but neither site I linked to is doing that, not even by way of advertising, so something else is up. And I think it's this: they're competing to be voices of authority.
Sure, they could be just fans expressing idolisation, but not in these two cases. The very decoration on the pages makes it clear this is meant to be a prominent voice, not friends and family banter.
Unfortunately for them, or perhaps fortunately, they're doing it by picking up subjects who are already recognised. Could Kamla Bhatt afford to spend her resources on Madhu if a Shilpa Kamat Show and a Karan Jonna Show also had the same things to say? This is not to demean Madhu in any way. All this exposure is good for his business, so it's obviously in his interest to get more of it. It's the promoters I'm picking at.
There's at least one thing pretty clear to me: the fact that our media—whether conventional or blogs—is not in the business of making new stars is indicative of how uncompetitive the scene is. There's an opportunity to drive a truck through if anyone wants to go for it.
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:16:32 AM — # ↩
> moving on
What is the time frame for moving on ? Your time frame is clearly quicker than the media's, or other people's.
You've known about Kalyan's photos for ages. Thus it seems slow to you. BUt those who have discovered yesterday are still oohing and aahing. And the discovery process is a slow domino chain reaction. From the time you discovered Kalyan to the time Joe Rangaswamy does from the Deccan Herald is a substantial period of time. In the meantime he's grown old to you, but is still fresh and green for aforementioned Joe Rangaswamy.
So those 15 mins of fame are not an absolute 15 mins, ocurring at the same time for all. Those 15 mins ebb and flow in our new information world - a world where some are info. privileged and know things far in advance of others who get it from slower, print media. If you measure the 15 mins from the time the first newspaper published Kalyan, perhaps you'd see a shorter time frame rather than your measurement from either your awareness or his blog explosion.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 9:26:19 AM — # ↩
Now to throw a spanner in the works, isn't the Web a place where time is a very strange entity? The Web is relatively ageless and search engines make it even more so. When you chance on a page, there's nothing about it that indicates it is old and obsolete. There may be a date and the page's design may be out of fashion, but these are not strong indicators.
Fame in print is ephemeral, on television and radio even more so. Fame online, however, is persistent, stamped out only by a rush of new stars and promoters. The mechanics of how it works online is very, very curious.
I think I should stop cluttering my LJ with these speculative ideas and take them to a new research blog.
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 9:40:21 AM — # ↩
The pleasure is all mine.
> Fame in print is ephemeral, on television
Actually, it depends. Articles and shows are often recycled. Just as urban legends are. They make their proverbial "rounds" and come back, whether over email on the web, or through lazy network programming.
You may remember this post of mine. Turned out that the show was first aired some 5 years prior to my having seen it. In finding out more about the lady, I realized that she must have had her initial wave of fame, and then as more people became aware, slowly as information passed from person to person, organically, her fame sustained itself. Diminished from the first onslaught no doubt, but nevertheless, the ripples will keep coming in.
I think the time frame for fame has more to do with the achievements for which the fame is garnered and then the organic flow of information between people regarding that achievement. As technology and the context changes, the achievements themselves will seem less noteworthy and the fame will ebb its final ebb only to be revived by some obscure memory or history celebration many time periods after.
Fame, after all, is not an absolute but a concept that is sustained by people. Thus it is as organic as the people who create fame.
Yes, there are the promoters, but they cannot promote very successfully if the receivers are not receptive. The achievements must seem amazing time and time again, and the promoters do nothing but cash in on that awe.
Now a question to ask may be what Kalyan has already answered. What captures people's awe ? And what determines how long they can be awed by the same concept ? If Kalyan's time frame of fame is a commentary on the state of our society, then you are to understand that the major concern of our society is getting stuck in the same old rut of a known job, or perhaps more subtly, the jump shift to a creative endeavor is a difficult and envied one.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:35:05 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:45:48 PM — # ↩
1. Media reach, Broadcast to One-on-One. Thanks to blogging, this is now a smooth progression.
2. Stars. From a few and important stars to many and insignificant outside their categories.
3. Competition. Mediocre to Intense. There are two variants, competition between media outlets for audience reach and competition between stars for fame.
4. Battleground, from the local to the global. This is interesting because of the various barriers to being truly global. Access barriers are dropping, cultural barriers are dropping, either because we get accustomed to an alien culture, or because of homogenisation. Language barriers remain, but machine translation holds promise of scaling it.
5. Media reach. From the mass and rural to the niche and urban. There is a natural affinity between niche reach and intense competition.
I haven't figured out how to connect these scales yet.
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 1:07:17 PM — # ↩
Where is your thesis / model going Do you have a hopothesis that you are trying to prove, or are you yet finding your hypothesis ?
Have you already studied group dynamics and the dynamics of information transfer / information scaling in groups via various media ?
I understand but am not entirely buying your theory on promoter competition or even hero competition. I think there's room for plenty of heros, but perhaps only a few in any given category / achievement.
There are those heros who are famous for their specific achievement, but begin to attain a special stardom as a result of their stellar performances in OTHER aspects of their lives in conjunction with their primary achievement. Rajkumar is an example.
My fil was here last week to attend a journalism seminar - the group is trying to redefine journalism in the internet age. Where journalism used to be many to one communcation, it is now many to one, many to many and in the case of media that allows feedback one to many. New models of public and mass communication.
This new media model can help or hinder the growth of a hero. The promoters don't have the sole proprietership on creating a star these days. No, rather than accessing the audience, it is about communicating to the audience. I am not yet buying your idea that it is competition for the audience.
More later.
thaths — Apr 27, 2006 9:32:00 AM — # ↩
I agree with
There's at least one thing pretty clear to me: the fact that our media—whether conventional or blogs—is not in the business of making new stars is indicative of how uncompetitive the scene is.
I look at it more as the Indian middle class mentality of not taking risks and going with the flow. India is a very competitive country. Starting with our educational system, we are trained to compete. However, when the stakes are high and life itself precarious, one tends to follow the well trodden path.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 9:46:57 AM — # ↩
Thaths, I must beg to differ here. We're nowhere as competitive as we'd like to imagine. Having actually worked in Indian media and seen our publication glide its way to the top of what was considered a crowded sector, in less than six months of launch, something totally unprecedented in the history of Indian media, I think I can claim to be speaking from first hand experience. When two years later we did a review, we were aghast at how crappy we used to be -- and yet we had glided up on that same crappiness.
When the FDI doors open up, then we'll see some competitiveness in this country. Blogs, the bordering-on-mass-media types anyway, will continue to remain uncompetitive for some time to come because there are so few people online. The serious contenders aren't here yet.
thaths — Apr 27, 2006 10:07:17 AM — # ↩
About domestic versus international media, what do you think of how domestic TV channels have performed against the foreign ones?
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 10:44:11 AM — # ↩
TV is fairly competitive, but not quite there. We have generic news and entertainment. Where are the specialised channels, the local equivalents of such players as NGC, Discovery or God TV? Same with print, except with newsprint, which is a bunch of lazy baboons more interested in keeping out FDI than getting fit. Only the ToI is competitive, and they're turning into trash because there's no one to keep them on their feet (at least, here in Bangalore. I hear HT and Mid Day are slugging it out elsewhere). Radio is even worse off.
kingsly — Apr 27, 2006 11:29:27 AM — # ↩
There are enough of them already.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 11:59:02 AM — # ↩
God TV may be lousy, but it does appear to be a hit with a certain class of viewers, and its Christian Theology focus is indicative of how other new channels will have to focus to be relevant today.
kingsly — Apr 27, 2006 7:42:53 PM — # ↩
Do we really need more "Put your hands against the TV screen! And phone in your credit card number" type god men influcencing society ?
You'll be amazed at the number of such jokers that manage to get airtime on the various Tamil TV channels. I assume it'll be an equal proportion in the other languages too.
Only thing it proves is those guys make enough money to buy prime time spots than whatever soaps that would have otherwise filled those time slots.
And no amount of competition will get you "Fair And Balanced" coverage. One needs to be smart enough to draw their own conclusions.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 28, 2006 12:41:02 AM — # ↩
zeeshanmn — Apr 27, 2006 12:19:54 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:24:34 PM — # ↩
zeeshanmn — Apr 27, 2006 12:51:44 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:58:15 PM — # ↩
We're getting to the era of niche publications, if the web doesn't lure away advertisers first.
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 1:21:48 PM — # ↩
Instead, you are right, we are moving to a niche publishing model. I also believe that the world is moving to a model where the subscriber would soon have to pay directly and monetarily for a targetted service rather than indirectly through viewing advertising.
The "my yahoo" model will expand to take personal preferences & idiosyncracies into account and people will soon have to CHOOSE whether or not they want to participate in their public space through media. Things like "Most viewed hero" or "Most inspiring story" will cause the fame factor , but overall fame will diminish because people will not "hear" or "see" the same things anymore.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 1:25:25 PM — # ↩
Technically, being charged for an SMS is a form of micropayment, so maybe it'll work one day.
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 1:41:34 PM — # ↩
The default model will get crappier and crappier and the revenue from the focused content will get bigger. Greater focus, more payment. Limited options available for free...
I predict that soon the "default" options will not be adequate for most people and a big market for micropayments beyond paypal will begin. Internet "banking" will begin as an industry - those who pay for provider time can bank their minutes of use perhaps and those who use services will bank their usage of content.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 11:13:32 AM — # ↩
latelyontime — Apr 27, 2006 12:08:25 PM — # ↩
chirag — Apr 27, 2006 12:14:44 PM — # ↩
Wrt Cricket: X player wins you 1 ODI, he is in the team for rest of the year irrespective of his performance.
Wrt Job: Get a company award for one year, get a license to be mediocre for next 2 years.
Wrt Politics: Become an MP once, get pension for rest of your life.
Indian mindset does not require one to keep proving one-self again and again -- just once is enough!
deponti — Apr 27, 2006 12:16:54 PM — # ↩
I still don't know Madhu at all in person; I only read his LJ postings once in a while, and am visiting his website as I plan to go to Shiok today. I probably missed all the hoopla about Shiok in the media too as I lived in Chennai then..only recently, after starting to post on LJ Bangalore community, I realized what an unusual person he is.
The media is (are?) a very evanescent way-to-fame. If I was out of town during the time that the write ups appeared, I wouldn't know anything about the subject at all.
I met Kalyan as a "friend-of-Madhu-Kurup" at BR Hills. I didn't know much about him then, and certainly didn't know that he was a hero already (because of Yahoo? he was just starting on his wildlife journey.) I joined LJ soon thereafter, and communicated with him once in a while, and liked him very much, he was an-acquaintance-turning-into-a-friend. Then he called and told me about the ABN Amro award; I was really thrilled. I too did an article on him in the Deccan Herald,
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb42006/metrosat135436200623.asp
not because I wanted to add to his mystique,I didn't know that it existed...but because I did want more people to know about what he is doing. Actually...the process of interviewing somebody makes me know that person much better, I enjoy it even if my article may not get published anywhere. I was impressed, and even before I sent the article to the Deccan Herald, I posted about him on my LJ...
http://deponti.livejournal.com/25356.html
Kalyan has been most helpful to me, giving me info about various aspects that have helped me with my budding interest in wildlife. It was because of info from him that I went on the tiger census, and to the Naturalists' Training Course. I count him, not as a celebrity (he might be one for the next 14 minutes), but as a friend now. Kalyan's pictures are superb whether or not he won an award.
I think the same would probably be true of those who admire Madhu Menon too. We do tend to admire people who have the courage of their convictions...and also are excellent at what they choose to do. So perhaps, each "fan" is discovering the "star" for hes-self!
In the very nature of things, the really good "star"s don't tell you that they are celebrities...they let you discover that for yourself!
I have once interviewed someone who does beautiful fibreglass sculptures...alas, the interview never made it into print.
I appreciate the fact that you are able to express your thoughts about this "star" status without worrying if it will upset your friends--that's freedom of speech; and I really enjoyed the exchange between you and
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:23:57 PM — # ↩
Deepa, thank you for your explanation. Guess we'll meet at Shiok this evening and maybe discuss this.
deponti — Apr 27, 2006 12:51:26 PM — # ↩
yes, I did wonder what had happened to you...but I had a great time getting to know
say_yes04 — Apr 27, 2006 12:38:04 PM — # ↩
Ofcourse kallu being so people savvy adds to all this. afaic, i am really happy that i got mentioned but really we all know that there is more to it all than just an odd mention.
As i saw somewhere its hardly the people who become famous, "its what they make others feel".
My two cents...
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:53:15 PM — # ↩
But, is there really such a shortage of people following their unusual dreams?
shortindiangirl — Apr 27, 2006 1:24:11 PM — # ↩
therein lies the rub.
say_yes04 — Apr 27, 2006 1:57:30 PM — # ↩
1) Are you a dream chaser
2) Are you people savvy enough to attract their attention to the cause you are pursuing.
3) Do others feel an emotional bond towards the cause.
As you can see, a lot of those factors depend on others. The person can be intrinsically famous for what others feel about him and not what he is himself.
I really dont know how many people give up everything to pursue their dreams but i do know all of them wont necessarily get their share of the limelight. Personally i think thats just fine. We dont need a lot of hero's in life and a great enduring charm of being a hero is that he does not age. Too many new hero's would just make people see that being a hero is just an other thing which reduces the romanticisim of it all.
Its not for me to judge whether the world without hero's would be a better place afterall, i really dont know. I like my hero's and if they were usurped every month, i would not like it.
deponti — Apr 27, 2006 12:47:49 PM — # ↩
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr132006/metrothurs1410182006412.asp
I attended a concert by him and loved the evening.
and when I see a play I like, I write about it too, even if I don't have enough info:
http://deponti.livejournal.com/49004.html
(I am STILL trying to contact the playwright, without success!)
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 12:54:15 PM — # ↩
pinak — Apr 27, 2006 1:15:15 PM — # ↩
Not that it matters.... after al it is just a rant! :)
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 5:01:56 PM — # ↩
pinak — Apr 27, 2006 9:06:01 PM — # ↩
Honestly, I wanna hear from you as to what exactly was bothering you (if there was anything bothering) or what wre you trying to tell thru this post.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 28, 2006 12:39:20 AM — # ↩
pinak — Apr 28, 2006 12:48:00 AM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 28, 2006 12:53:36 AM — # ↩
pinak — Apr 28, 2006 1:02:23 AM — # ↩
noelladsa — Apr 27, 2006 1:40:25 PM — # ↩
At some point the adulation gets too intrusive and eats into your personal space.
say_yes04 — Apr 27, 2006 1:47:23 PM — # ↩
noelladsa — Apr 27, 2006 1:55:21 PM — # ↩
say_yes04 — Apr 27, 2006 2:00:40 PM — # ↩
/[g.d&r] with his champagne :-)
noelladsa — Apr 27, 2006 2:05:07 PM — # ↩
manubhardwaj — Apr 27, 2006 2:41:38 PM — # ↩
noelladsa — Apr 27, 2006 3:05:49 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2006 5:01:23 PM — # ↩
kingsly — Apr 27, 2006 7:48:31 PM — # ↩
themadman — Apr 27, 2006 2:59:26 PM — # ↩
sriniram — Apr 27, 2006 5:50:03 PM — # ↩
themadman — Apr 27, 2006 5:54:17 PM — # ↩
sriniram — Apr 27, 2006 5:49:12 PM — # ↩
"All ye who seek heroes,
Seek no more, I am here to be your next hero. Right, so what are you waiting for, enough dawdling already, my feet are here to be worshipped..." :-)
azooey — Apr 28, 2006 8:33:45 AM — # ↩