Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    50d 12h 17m 35s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    I don't see why not. Hindus have also had genocidal maniacs amongst them- rarer, sure but they are there. Ofcourse, the king is not in their right mind to do it, but i see no reason to think why this didn't happen, yet the Tamils will continue to glorify these gory details in their Sangam literature for 1000+ years later...... Jagannath temple in Orissa for eg, was originally a Buddhist temple.
  2. Tennis :2017 season

    Federer has finally figured out Nadal. It has fundamentally changed Federer's game from his peak years (which i think is from 04-07) and though i think peak Federer is still the better Federer, THIS Federer, is a better Nadal killer. His movement has diminished noticeably from the past, but his unbelievable ability to take a ball anywhere on the court on the half-volley has covered the expected huge drop-off in tennis performance when a player's movement becomes slower. His first serve is more potent, as he can 'aim' more, due to the 'easier power' of the bigger racket. This has also completely changed his backhand, where he can now blow holes on the court, with regularity, with the backhand. The bigger racket has caused one noted drop in his game: his forehand is no longer the unbeatable weapon it was once before. His forehand is now significantly weaker but he still retains his amazing accuracy with it, so he can still paint lines with it. However, the new Federer is more vulnerable to someone who can play a consistent game and can dominate his forehand. Aka Del Potro. But it matters not, because there are no good players who have a truly great forehand currently-except the unluckiest tennis player who's ever lived, DelPo. Djokovic is a pusher, so is Murray and Nadal and Nadal's forehand is no longer the iron-precise and fails often. Rest who have good forehands (Raonic for e.g.) have other holes in their games that Federer pounces on and exposes them.
  3. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Indian kings, like European kings (towards Europeans) were civilized. They, as you say, conquered for power & money. Sometimes, for geo-strategy. Which is why you NEVER hear about how Ashoka demolished a city or Vikramaditya destroyed a city, etc. Same reason, why when you read about the 100 years war between England and France or Napoleon conquering almost all of Europe, there is nearly zero stories of demolishing a town or city. Because why the heck would you kill people & destroy their city, if the same people pay taxes and enrich you ? Only if you are a bigot, thats why. Sure, it did happen, every once in a while (The Rashtrakutas utterly destroyed Kannauj for e.g., Cholas utterly destroyed Dharanikota). And yes, Indian kings did sometimes fight for religion. We have poems in Tamil, celebrating the Pallava attacks on Dharanikota, forcing Buddhist monks to have sex with each other and replacing all Buddha statues with the Shivalinga. But these instances in Indian history for 2000 year period of pre-Islam, is comparable to 20 years of Islamic genocide & destruction.
  4. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    I will clarify what i mean, when in earlier posts, i called Rajputs to be brave and now i call them cowards. Rajputs were extremely brave and resolute people, militaristically. If we consider the Pratiharas as Rajputs, we can see, that from early on, the Pratiharas are quite organized on the battlefield, with excellent military discipline and were one of the very, very few medieval cultures, that knew the art of orderly retreats. Countless examples exist, from Rashtrakuta records for e.g., which show,that the Rajputs were known to not just tuck tail and run away, when the battle got hard. Most medeival armies suffered catastrophic losses, usually when the presiding king/general gets slain. To fight orderly battles, even if your supreme commander takes a stray arrow in the face and dies in front of you, is a trait we only see amongst the Romans of the ancient world, in a consistent basis. In medieval times, i can't be sure, but i rate the Rajput ability to fight the odds on the battlefield, as well as the propensity to withdraw in good order when all is lost, to be remarkable by world standards. Even our most hated oppressors have mentioned this. Babur for e.g., flat out dismisses the Rajput battle tactics, as out-dated and moronic, but was more impressed with the Rajput than his own troops, for discipline. Rajputs breaking and running away on the battlefield is one of the rarest occurrences. Yes, they did Fack-up orderly retreats, but orderly retreats when your commander is dead, is not a perfect science in the first place. No society over long period does it well and usually the 'remarkable slaughter' is after the army breaks, tries to run away and fails in the chaos. However, a society can be both cowardly in its ethos and brave at the same time - medeival Rajputs are a testament to this. On one hand, fighting them was like fighting the Honey Badger (for those who don't know this creature- look it up, even Lions know better than fight a honey badger usually). On the other, their practices like Jauhar are as abhorrable as Sati. People killing their own children so their way of thinking does not change. It is a heinous crime against humanity, against your own kin, to kill them- when they themselves pose no threat to other people individually and directly,because their thinking or status changed. They are gonna get raped, enslaved, fed 2 rotis a day and beaten ? well, thats horrible. Obviously no one should condone this and prepare to fight for this. But killing ones own child, one's own kin - i am sorry, but if there is any fundamental directive of species homo sapiens, its the fundamental objective of all noted species : to survive. To kill your child, is to fundamentally fail as a human being, as a parent, for a fate no-matter how bad, i would want people to survive it at the very least and live. If they wish to end their own lives to end the misery, that is completely their own right ( i support euthenesia) but they should make that right. You don't get to kill a child (unless a child has done something so horrible that the threat to society from said child is unjustified). That is the main objection i have to the Rajput culture : its a death cult, that fundamentally has failed to achieve its objectives historically and on top, glorifies killing babies and immolating the old and the sick, so they don't 'lose honour'. I will also point out, that Rajputs are not the big-daddies of 'honour based death-cult behaviour, for warrior or warrior caste' . They are a heavyweight in this whole 'honour' business,no doubt. But there is only one, ultimate, all-time champion on honour based culture, where every single concept of honour is held to very high standards of cultural requirement. That honour would go to pre 1945 Japan & Bushido culture. People killed themselves due to stupidly high 'honour infringement' - i killed your boss, aka you failed to protect your liege lord - too bad, you were taking a dump at that moment/busy fighting off 4 other guys trying to kill him-he died. On your watch. If you want honour and not be branded a POS brigand outlaw, go to the courtyard and open your stomach with your own sword and not make a sound please. This was so commonplace that Bushido tradition even had a system for WHERE you should go execute yourself the most painful way imaginable ( cutting through your belly and entrails, spleen to liver). Welcome to Samurai culture. The 'Rajput-fans' amongst us, if they really care so much about honor, should pick up a book on medical Japanese culture an give it a read. They would love it, if they actually value honour above everything else.
  5. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    As for 'respecting a community', its clear who is insulting the community and people of TODAY and who is commenting on long-dead people and HISTORY, with zero effect on people's lives.
  6. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Ok. So point out the BS. Subcontinental muslim converts kept their caste system, kept their ancestral tales, kept their social structure. This is self-evident. And yes, i consider it much braver, to survive under a system that oppresses you, than seeking a quick and easy death. But then again, you said you'd prefer your wife died/killed herself when dishonoured, so i don't expect much from people who value honour over people's lives. They are the definition of cowards and sociopathic cultural values. Especially when these are sociopathic values that involve murdering your own child. It does.Which is why there is zero evidence of this so-called dharmic Rajput warfare and so much evidence of 'kill your enemies on the battlefield any which way you can'. We have plenty of evidence of night raids, ambushes, switching sides in middle of battle, from the Pratiharas. Against their own Indian kin. And you wish us to believe these nonsensical stories of Rajput honour when it came to foreign muslims. Laughable nonsense. There are a couple of 'inscriptions' that mentions Bappa-Rawal, from 1400s, written by an unrelated Rajputs, saying he was the father of Khumana. Again, zero inscriptions from his time or from his dynasty, zero coins bearing his name or seal. Zero mention in any history- Rajput or otherwise, till hundreds of years later, when the folklore around him got strong. Identical to Robin hood. Nothing exists to even hint Bappa-Rawal existed for a 500 year period spanning his existence. This is true for a lot of mythological characters of folklore, spanning many cultures. Robin Hood is the most common example of it.
  7. Combined Indo Pak All Time ODI Team

    Anyone who puts Inzy in an all-time ODI anything - including Pakistan team, does not know a thing about ODI cricket. Inzy was not good enough batsman to make up for routinely running himself and his partners out and costing the team 15-20 runs in the field due to his glacial fielding. Inzy was shielded a lot in his ODI career, because he has safe hands and manned the slips in the 90s, as in the 90s, you could get away with a permanent 1st slip in ODIs. If it were modern ODIs/teams with lesser bowlers (thus making 1st slip redundant), Inzy might've been dropped at his prime in ODIs. Also, Afridi has no business being in an alltime ODI and Razzaq over Kapil show just one thing - you don't understand ODI cricket/never saw Kapil in the format. Kapil is one of the strongest contenders for #7 slot in ALLTIME WORLD ODI XI. Why ? because was the perfect #7 - capable of playing responsible knocks but good for a run-a-ball 20-25 runs, extremely economical fast-medium bowler ( ideal ODI candidate for 1st change bowler) and an exemplary ground-fielder. #7 in ODI is a spot that you want a bowling all-rounder to fill, preferably one who can bash quick runs. Nobody fits the template from the subcontinent better than Kapil. Add to the fact that he was a good tactician in ODIs, an easy-going leader to follow and exemplary ground-fielder, it makes Kapil a lock for the ODI team.
  8. Combined Indo Pak All Time ODI Team

    And Azhar over both of them. Scored at a faster rate, was one of the best and earliest subcontinental guy to be good at 'rotating strikes and stealing singles' and still one of the best all-round fielders from the Indian subcontinent ( i rate Azhar's fielding higher than Virat's - not as flashy with ground fielding, but an amazing chaser of the ball and way, way safer hands than Virat anywhere in the field).
  9. Combined Indo Pak All Time ODI Team

    Sachin Veeru Kohli Azhar Dhoni + Yuvraj Kapil Dev (c) Akram Kumble Waqar Saqlain
  10. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Hate ? You really think i 'hate' long dead people who have 0% influence on my life ? Thats laughable. To wish death before dishonour, means you love honour more than the person. Simple logic. Yes, i know its a different culture, but such cowardliness needs to be called out for what it is. There are zero coins, inscriptions, etc. of Bappa Rawal. Bappa-Rawal is not history, its mythology & folklore. Like Robin hood. Yes, but there is also a religious component to this. Pratiharas were Hindus. Pals were Buddhists. Rashtrakutas were Jains. You really want to focus on how these religions backstabbed each other, in India, to hand over India on a plate, to the outsider, in a country with so low literacy ? Bad idea. But as i said, the MAIN reason, why that period of history is consigned to university level and not high school is because its quite complicated and too vast, with also a lot of unanswered questions in it. They are dead people. With 0% influence on our current lives. If we can't talk honestly about that kind of a topic, then we can't expect honesty in ANY topic. Thats the whole point - i don't consider Rajputs chivalrous. Those who commit suicide, are not chivalrous, they are cowards. Infact, suicide in modern medicine is most commonly linked to depression, not valour. Nobody denied that after the Pals, Bengal is a big fat zero in anything political or military, until the arrival of the British. But hey, give me Bengalis or Biharis or UP-ites who converted and lived to tell the tale, than cowards who killed themselves and burnt their women and children for some fanciful notion of honour over survival. Those who value murder and suicide over survival, simply have no place in being glorified for their struggle. I consider Rajputs as murderer of children - their own. I am sorry, but you don't get to glorify child murder. Just as you don't get to glorify genocide, rape, loot, etc. I can clearly tell, you are not a parent. Because if you were a parent who loves their kid no matter what, you'd wish your child to be a sex slave over being dead. These kind of harmful and lowly values need to be weeded out of Indian cultures -including the Rajputs- than glorified. PS: following rules of dharma in battle is a common myth propagated by Rajput communities to explain their laughable failures. There is plenty of evidence that Rajputs conducted night warfare, conducted raids, etc. As they should. A Warrior's job is to win a war by killing his enemy combatants. I don't care if he does it via poison, at night, by flooding the camp, by trampling them under elephants.Get. the. job. done. Rajputs failed and then invented ludicrous stories of 'dharmic warfare'. Nobody practiced 'dharmic warfare' because Dharmic warfare is an oxymoron.
  11. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Sure we are. Army of savages went a lot other places too, in the same timeframe. The spaniards, the Georgians, the Byzantine women - they are all more respectable than the Rajput woman. because they chose to live and struggle, than a quick death. I am also not judging modern Rajputs. Just their cowardly ancestors. There is no honour, no glory, in suicide. None. zero. If your wife was in the same position as the Rajput women, i HOPE you wish her to live through the rape, abuse and slavery- in the faint hope that ONE DAY she can be free, instead of killing herself to preserve her purity. I know I do !
  12. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    1. Palas were not Rajputs. There were also no Guhilots in the 8th century. There were Pratiharas. 2. Nobody takes about the 700 AD -1100 AD period in Indian history because : a) Its the period of Kannauj triangle and is extremely complicated. and 2) It becomes crystal clear that those years are the reason Turkic-Afghans broke through in the first place, because Indians were way too busy killing each other and destroying each other in a 400 year near-continuous war. c) it also brings up a lot of inconvenient truths about Indians collaborating with the Arabs and the turks, against their own, for power. Rashtrakutas supported the Arabs in Sindh vs Rajputs. Why ? because the Pratiharas, who were originally vassals of the Chalukyas that Rashtrakutas displaced, struggled against them. Rajputs were A-ok with Bin Qasim, so long as he made sure Paramaras were also destroyed (which he couldn't). 3. It is very offensive to 'respect' cowards who chose death over 'live and fight another day'. I'd rather live with my beliefs being oppressed, than die for them. Because if i die, my beliefs die with me, automatically.If i live, i get to propagate my beliefs- even if its under-cover. This is how the Jews survived the Roman empire ban on Judaism, also Seleucid ban on Judaism. The problem i have, is with depicting Rajputs as brave. They were anything but brave. If Rajputs are brave, so is a suicide bomber. Because those who chose a quick death, especially over belief systems, than survival and struggling to preserve their heritage, are not brave. They are the definition of haughty cowards who throw away their lives in a meaningless manner. That is the problem i have with Rajput depiction in history and media : cowardly, abhorrable behaviour being glorified as bravery.
  13. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    There is nothing to understand. Muslims invaded and raped and pillaged elsewhere too. Did the Byzantine women immolate themselves ? Did the Spaniards immolate themselves ? What about the African slave trade- both by the muslims and the Europeans- did the African women immolate themselves ? No. Because they were stronger women and stronger people than the Rajputs. Indian women do take great pride in being pure- so do women from most other cultures. But those who take purity over survival, are cowards, who lack the wherewithal to survive. I am not judging them by the modern standards, i am judging them by their own. People who go for a sure-fire suicide mission and their women/children immolate themselves, they are not brave - because they lack the bravery to survive in face of tremendous odds, odds others have beaten. They are an example of 'what NOT to do'.
  14. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Thats not a reason to kill one self. and those who kill themselves in face of adversity are not brave, they are haughty.
  15. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Rough, as in you can tell apart, empirically speaking, Shane Warne vs Alan Donald. Beyond that, you are not seeing anything worth deducing with your eyes, you are simply applying prior knowledge. hence, flawed. We were speaking of STOCK DELIVERY. The post i quoted, specifically talked about stock delivery. And no, i have never seen an Indian bowler- Srinath or otherwise, have a 147kph STOCK DELIVERY except Aaron
  16. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    IF there were no batsmen or wickets and their whole bodies were blotted out, you are just seeing a ball being bowled front on the pitch, you won't be able to tell whether Starc is quicker than Bhuvi , via tv. And that proves, you cannot tell the speeds. PS: What you call bias, i call not getting carried away for my favourite team.
  17. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Correct. And even if you can, its completely egotistic to say YOU can from 100 feet away via tv but people who actually face those bowlers and see 1000x more balls than you, cannot. Do you see the illogic of that ?
  18. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    None of that changes the fact that you are talking out of your rear end when you say you can tell who is faster and who is slower from TV. Like i said, don't make me get out my formulas for you, because then the embarrassment would be total. This is not just physics, this is simple image mapping that is used ALL THE TIME by video softwares. Your and Rkt's egotistic BS will not go unchallenged.
  19. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    But a guy who thinks he can predict speed from watching a front-on view from tv, knows more than professional experts, does. There is a difference between you and me. I know i know nothing. You don't know you know nothing and instead are misleading others. PS: We are talking about stock ball/stock ball over a spell here. Not one-offs. That was the whole context of Vilander's post.
  20. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    I've never seen anyone from our bowlers, except Aaron, cross 147. Note, these two are after Waqar's stress fractures and everyone who's faced him says he was at his fastest prior to 1996. So that makes it highly likely that he was stock-balling somewhere in the 150kph range. Not true. We are talking about the top 1% here, not the 'average cricketer'. Top 1% may also be subject to 'golden generation' effect. Nobody scores as much points in hockey as Gretzky does. Or come up with save % as Dominic Hasek. Nobody in tennis today has the 115mph second serve, except for John Isner. Cricketing fast bowlers, went through a golden generation period from 1975-1995. Just like how spinners went through a golden generation from 1965-80 and 95-2010.
  21. Thommo - how quick was he?'

  22. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/95065.html Waqar, circa 1996 has one at 150kph+. 153kph vs RSA in 1993.
  23. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    ^^ The point you are missing, is that only reason you can tell height of the ball,is because you have a reference (wickets & batsmen). There is no reference for the depth perception, so you cannot tell from head-on how fast the ball is going. Sure, you can tell apart a Kumble from a Kuldeep, but thats like saying you can tell apart two bowlers who are nearly 15-20 mph speed difference. Which, in effective cricketing terms, means nothing. And no, you actually cannot tell apart 80mph from 95mph from head-on view. This is why people ask, 'how fast is this new guy bowling' when bowling speeds are not shown. Because not having a reference point to how fast they are, means you actually can't tell. RKT is saying he can tell if a bowler is 135kph or 145 kph from a head-on view. That is categoric, 100%, false.
  24. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Bolded part, is 100% wrong. Because you cannot tell depth from that angle. Point is easily proven, when you look where the wicketkeeper is standing,in relation to the batsman from that angle, versus side-on view. In a side-on view, the true length of the pitch is preserved in the 2d, hence side-on views are ok to tell who is faster/who is slower. head-on view, the image is approximating length AND depth, that is how you can tell whether a person is standing on another's head or directly behind them. But you CANNOT tell, from that angle, how much behind them, the wicketkeeper is standing. What i am saying, is when you are seeing a ball bowled AT YOU or side-on, with a trained eye, you can tell if ball A is faster or slower than ball B. For skilled pros, they can tell them apart with great accuracy. For amateurs like us, we are not as accurate, but we still can tell them apart. But from head-on view, nobody can tell how fast the ball is, or which ball is faster than the other, with something like +/- 50kph range. You can't for e.g., tell from the head-on view, how far the ball is bouncing, if you have no reference point (wickets, batsmen etc) to compare. This should tell you, how all you are doing, is repeating an optical illusion as a fact.
  25. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Your bias is noted against experts, but you simply saying ALL experts are biassed, doesn't make it so. It makes YOU crazy, to allege every single cricket professional out there is exgaggerating and using hyperbole. Poor batsmanship exgaggerated pace, for professionals who's JOB is to negotiate fast deliveries, but YOU, an armchair critic, who hasn't faced any of them, can tell from a 2d image, with zero depth perception, how fast the bowlers were. Sorry, we are not falling for your egotistic nonsense. Whenever people claim ALL experts are wrong and they are right, it usually means two things : a) they are narcissitic egotists and b) they are bat-$hit crazy.

Guest, sign in to access all features.