Sachin? - Page 5

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

soapwatcher1

@soapwatcher1

Rocker

Posted: 12 years ago

#41

Kools, liked what you said and more than liked the tone of your post.

I get where you are coming from, do not disagree at all that Sachin is Manav's son and entitled to his share of what Manav has. My post only referred to the legalities in response to other posts here.

Yes, as I wrote elsewhere we are all products of circumstance and should never look down upon others as inferior to us because of wealth or birth, charity or otherwise. And Archana's kindness to Purvi can never be overshadowed by anything Manju, Savita or even Sulo say, it just shows their "littleness." And people do talk but just because people talk/gossip/spread rumors does not make those people right in any fashion.

As far as Purvi is concerned, I hold the baby swap against her but the other things you have cited, I can understand & justify the motives behind her actions. We can both amicably agree to disagree here. 😉

As for Heathcliff and Jane Eyre, they are two of my favorite characters too, Heathcliff more than Jane, your heart bleeds for this arrogant, helpless, cheated, vengeful man even when you know he is not doing right by Isabella, Hareton & Cathy.

Sowmya, Scarlett is another story altogether😊, absolutely love her and must have contrived a few hundred happy endings to their love story. Have you read the sequels to the book? Both disappointing after the powerful rendering by Margaret Mitchell.

Quote

sowmya

@Not_a_fan

Navigator

+ 5

Posted: 12 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: soapwatcher1
Kools, liked what you said and more than liked the tone of your post.

I get where you are coming from, do not disagree at all that Sachin is Manav's son and entitled to his share of what Manav has. My post only referred to the legalities in response to other posts here.

Yes, as I wrote elsewhere we are all products of circumstance and should never look down upon others as inferior to us because of wealth or birth, charity or otherwise. And Archana's kindness to Purvi can never be overshadowed by anything Manju, Savita or even Sulo say, it just shows their "littleness." And people do talk but just because people talk/gossip/spread rumors does not make those people right in any fashion.

As far as Purvi is concerned, I hold the baby swap against her but the other things you have cited, I can understand & justify the motives behind her actions. We can both amicably agree to disagree here. 😉

As for Heathcliff and Jane Eyre, they are two of my favorite characters too, Heathcliff more than Jane, your heart bleeds for this arrogant, helpless, cheated, vengeful man even when you know he is not doing right by Isabella, Hareton & Cathy.

Sowmya, Scarlett is another story altogether😊, absolutely love her and must have contrived a few hundred happy endings to their love story. Have you read the sequels to the book? Both disappointing after the powerful rendering by Margaret Mitchell.

Jhanvi, Scarlett is one of a kind. So exasperating sometimes, but also so strong and vulnerable at once. Stubborn too, and clever and foolish at the same time. Rhett is the right foil for her--as crude and rogue and stubborn as her, but having strength of a different kind and a little more sense 😛 There should have been a sequel for Gone with the Wind, I mean--they had to have a happy ending. But I'm not sure if the sequel by Alexandra Ripley is the right way to do it. Is there another one?--I only read this one, and that very recently. I don't know; I guess change is necessary for the characters to develop. So in that way, the sequel did right. But I'm not sure how they were developed. They are changed somehow, not just by circumstances but by their natures. Nearly completely keeping out of both Atlanta and Tara, and introducing new backgrounds and new but not-so-interesting characters instead didn't help matters. While I could still recognize the protagonists in the new Scarlett and Rhett, I couldn't connect with them the same way. I don't know what would be the right way to do it though--I guess in the hands of the right authors is when characters come to life.

And anyways, that's always a problem with sequels. In the original works, the characters and their lives are new and could be very interesting if done right. For a sequel, you're already acquainted with them and to create new stories around the same characters can be very difficult. Especially if there are only a few protagonists. I think sequels work better for the fantasy genre--like my all-time fave LOTR, HP and my current fave GoT. They usually have a lot more characters to play around with, and the way they all interact and grow is what keeps the sequels interesting. Apart from all the wand-waving and politics too, of course!

Well, this was going to be a short post and I've already gone on😆 Ciao!

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

nelum

@manan_virika

Voyager

Posted: 12 years ago

#43

Originally posted by: Dabulls23
If Purvi's parents owned a car meaning they were well to do couple 😉 yeah right. Ok I will go with the logic Then WHy did they not leave any money in their will??? There has to be something this couple owned as far as their finances were concerned...Police could not find family, relative but what happened to Purvi's parent's Assets???? 😲 Disappeared in thin air 😳

How would the young couple know that they were going to die in an accident? I'm pretty sure they were taking the new born Purvi home for the first time so they didn't have time to right their will. Just wondering, did you write your will yet?!?!?!

Quote

CoffeeCake

@CoffeeCake

Sparkler

+ 5

Posted: 12 years ago

#44

This too much calling a gal charity just because she is nt bio daughter of the couple.

And i dnt think there was any scene where manav and archana adopted sachin. If we have to use our common sense that it was nt shown bt actually sachin was adopted so why cant we assume that purvi was adopted by archana. And if she was adopted by archana so by default she is deshmukh as even archana is deshmukh.

And if was nt adopted she is daughter of her parents. It was her fate to b part of archana's life. No1 forced archu to adopt her and no1 forced manav to say that purvi is just like ovi and teju for him.

At the end of the day she is a human being nt any product. And charaty suits well on materials.

And where purvi was forced on deshmukhs.? Archana never asked any1 to accept purvi. If she was calling baba to manav that doesnt mean she was trying to claim her right on manav. In normal world husband of mother is father. And if archana is her aayi same give her right to call manav baba. When manav dnt have any problem so no1 has right to object. So much happened bt yet manav has no problem with purvi considering him as father.

Coming to topic. I agree with tm that atleast with sachin archana should make them realize that it feels when people make u realize constantly that u r an orphan. No1 is saint in pr land. They have commited mistakes/crime bt they r safe as they r biologicaly related to each other. Bt all r throwing purvi's mistakes on her face she is nt biological kid. Thats too much. And look who is pointing out purvi's mistakes? Savi and sulo. First they should check their history.

And using logic and theories of this forum tm is right. As per rules of this forum only bio kids r important and adopted r charaty. So soham is archu's bio kid. Why cant she be partial with soham? Using logic of charity sachin is charity kid for archu. If archana ever adopted sachin thats history and archana has nothing to do with parvarish of sachu nor sachu lived with her. (amazing adopton). So why she should avoid her bio kid for one adoption paper? (i beleive rules should b same for adopted kids)

If purvi is sadak se uthai for deshmukhs so sachu is also nt less than sadak vali aulad for archu. The way purvi lost her parents same way sachu lost his dad and there was no place for sachu in shravani's big empire. So archana was nt left with any option and adopted him (if he is adopted) or allowed him to use name of his husband in charity (as we all know adoption is charity). Bt the way manav should nt avoid his bio kids 4 charity wali purvi and ovi should nt waste her time taking care of pari who is amar premi ki nishani same way archu should nt support charity wala sachin even if he is right. How could she avoid her bio child ? She should nt waste her life supporting ayashi ki nishani of sachin and shravani.

Cnflict between manav and soham is matter between bio father and bio son. Who is adopted sachin to interar? When bio sister teju have no problem than who is adopted sachin to hold grudges? As we all know adoptin is maha paap.

I dnt understand one thing. When there is discusin of ovi-arjun and purvi at that time people call her sali of arjun. And write jiju-sali so many times like purvi is real sister of ovi. Bt when there is discusin of purvi's right n deshmukh and their property at that time they declare her charity and sadak se uthai. If she is charaty than how she is arjun's sali." and if she is arjun's sali how deshmukhs have nothing to do with her adoptin!

Edited by ..aastha.. - 12 years ago

Quote

Dabulls23

@Dabulls23

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#45

Originally posted by: arshi_arvi

How would the young couple know that they were going to die in an accident? I'm pretty sure they were taking the new born Purvi home for the first time so they didn't have time to right their will. Just wondering, did you write your will yet?!?!?!

Mods here is personal attack by taking the convo in attacking fellow member personally.

response to your attack...Dont you think it is my personal business and I am not a fictional character...If fictional characters or actors are not allowed to be attacked than how is this allowed

**********************************************************************************

To others back to the topic..

No one knows when they are going to die...Will or not with even bank accounts or their assets one need to have beneficiary assigned...If Purvi's parents were rich they would have had one assinged..It is ommon policy.

Quote

Kalapi

@Kalapi

Dazzler

Posted: 12 years ago

#46

Originally posted by: Dabulls23
Mods here is personal attack by taking the convo in attacking fellow member personally.

response to your attack...Dont you think it is my personal business and I am not a fictional character...If fictional characters or actors are not allowed to be attacked than how is this allowed

**********************************************************************************

To others back to the topic..

No one knows when they are going to die...Will or not with even bank accounts or their assets one need to have beneficiary assigned...If Purvi's parents were rich they would have had one assinged..It is ommon policy.

How is own or driving in a car symbolizes wealth, not to mention - how do one know that it isn't rented - I guess wild speculations😆

Quote

soapwatcher1

@soapwatcher1

Rocker

Posted: 12 years ago

#47

Originally posted by: sowmya_jairam

Jhanvi, Scarlett is one of a kind. So exasperating sometimes, but also so strong and vulnerable at once. Stubborn too, and clever and foolish at the same time. Rhett is the right foil for her--as crude and rogue and stubborn as her, but having strength of a different kind and a little more sense 😛 There should have been a sequel for Gone with the Wind, I mean--they had to have a happy ending. But I'm not sure if the sequel by Alexandra Ripley is the right way to do it. Is there another one?--I only read this one, and that very recently. I don't know; I guess change is necessary for the characters to develop. So in that way, the sequel did right. But I'm not sure how they were developed. They are changed somehow, not just by circumstances but by their natures. Nearly completely keeping out of both Atlanta and Tara, and introducing new backgrounds and new but not-so-interesting characters instead didn't help matters. While I could still recognize the protagonists in the new Scarlett and Rhett, I couldn't connect with them the same way. I don't know what would be the right way to do it though--I guess in the hands of the right authors is when characters come to life.

And anyways, that's always a problem with sequels. In the original works, the characters and their lives are new and could be very interesting if done right. For a sequel, you're already acquainted with them and to create new stories around the same characters can be very difficult. Especially if there are only a few protagonists. I think sequels work better for the fantasy genre--like my all-time fave LOTR, HP and my current fave GoT. They usually have a lot more characters to play around with, and the way they all interact and grow is what keeps the sequels interesting. Apart from all the wand-waving and politics too, of course!

Well, this was going to be a short post and I've already gone on😆 Ciao!

Sowmya, sorry couldn't respond yesterday. There are two sequels to Gone with the Wind, one by Ripley who some allege is related to the original Mitchell (unsure of the authenticity of that claim) and the other is Rhett Butler's People which I thought was trash . I did not like Ripley's book at all :(

LOTR and HP, I can relate to, GoT spoils my Sundays as I do not watch Game of Thrones but the rest of the family does :) I was gifted the DVDs for Christmas so I could catch up :((. HP mania bordered on lunacy at our house :)) Miss those days and that camaraderie of being an HP fan! When Richard Griffiths died a month ago, he was mourned like a real relative :( Did you like the Hobbit?

But I agree, sequels never do justice to the original and neither do the screen renderings of the printed word.

You got me going as well :)) Wish I knew how to attach pics, I would have send you an invite to the next HP hangout at our house.

Edited by soapwatcher1 - 12 years ago

Quote

nelum

@manan_virika

Voyager

Posted: 12 years ago

#48

Originally posted by: Dabulls23

Quote

soapwatcher1

@soapwatcher1

Rocker

Posted: 12 years ago

#49

Vasu, no Scarlett clones on PR, she would have been fiery, goal oriented and would have pushed anything and everything out of her way! Not Archana, not Purvi, not Ovi, not Teju! Punni, perhaps? Lol.