Paresh Rawal - the best guest - Page 12

Originally posted by: chatbuster

SHADY- aise kar tu, get ur pals to agree on the above recap- it's not really a very hard read now, is it? phir shuru hote hain with the courtroom drama- but we wont revisit these then 😊

dont want another 20 pager because we are still searching for the wisdom in Occam's razor- or is it chainsaw? or cannot understand fairly simple ideas i generally try to put together for some of the folks LOL

incidentally if you think u found some inspiration or support (intentional or unintentional) in what anol wrote, do let me know what it was. wld be happy to dispel those notions. as usual.😉

Is agreeing on the above a prerequisite for answering my question on Paresh ji's comments?? 😕

In my opinion, the transcripts show that Paresh was not overly negative, but that he also interspersed all his comments with positive feedback, so that the contestants do not feel hurt, and he still gets his honest opinion across.

Isn't that what you wanted? That it is okay to be honest, but he should put forward his opinions in a less 'blunt' and more sensitive way?

So my only reason for quoting that was to see how you could make those opinions less blunt. And that's what all of us want to see.

Anol - brilliant post... After a long long time, I have read something of such high quality in the forum...

I only wish that you had to do lesser hawaldari, and we could get more of these quality posts from you...

Originally posted by: chatbuster

if we accept the above + put that music reviewer/ CELEB judge example aside as an outlandish one, we could start with the courtroom/ transcript drama?

lemme know where we are... ab "foundation" strong hona chahiye before we build further, no?😉

arre lagta yahaan group research project chal raha hai😉

Originally posted by: punjini

Sorry I refuse to accept that the comparison between music reviews in publications and TV music show reviews by judges is outlandish.

1)Both are in the public domain

2) Both are media

3)Both are not obliged to contestants/performers and supposed to be honest opinions (could be positive or negative or neither)

Therefore, if we find critical music reviews acceptable and welcome, then we must necessarily accept honest opinions on reality TV shows.

The comparison between office appraisals and reality show judgments are misplaced because:

1)one is in the public domain, the other is confined to boss(es)-employee (private domain)

2)one is just an opinion with take-it-or-leave-it approach, the other is solely meant to help in improving the performance of the employee (or even the boss in 2-way appraisals) therefore it is usually worded in "positive" terms in keeping with "interpersonal communication protocol"

There is really nothing much to compare between office appraisals and EMAET guest opinions, so one can't really expect the guests to adhere to office appraisal protocols.

Now I really must take leave because I have just 24 hours to finish my work and catch my flight. Happy debating everybody!

PG, chaliye. no problem- we cld have talked abt that some more.

but do u agree with the general recap i have up there? if so, then i can proceed with shady's transcript.

have a nice safe flight!

Originally posted by: Jaadoogar

Mere question ka answer kahan hai? 2 din 2 raat ho gayen.

yaar, is reading a general problem nowadays? someone has to have a few basics right from my perspective b4 they can expect me to deal with them in a sensible way.

now tell me, did u read the stuff i had put on the recommended reading list?😉

Originally posted by: shadyhtown

Is agreeing on the above a prerequisite for answering my question on Paresh ji's comments?? 😕

In my opinion, the transcripts show that Paresh was not overly negative, but that he also interspersed all his comments with positive feedback, so that the contestants do not feel hurt, and he still gets his honest opinion across.

Isn't that what you wanted? That it is okay to be honest, but he should put forward his opinions in a less 'blunt' and more sensitive way?

So my only reason for quoting that was to see how you could make those opinions less blunt. And that's what all of us want to see.

itna utaavla kyoon ho raha hai?

for reasons mentioned above, i do want to have some closure to where we are so far. btw, dont feel compelled to agree- do it only if u agree with what i have there! last thing i want is intellectual dishonesty!

as for all the rest of it, debate/ logic/ proof- uspe bhee debate kar sakte hain. but first things first- recap, transcripts, then wherever the lil hearts lead us to...

so lemme know...

Originally posted by: chatbuster

The topic of this thread is "Paresh Rawal - the best guest". Why would anyone object to the transcripts that tell us exactly what he said when he was a guest?

haha... hope a lil recap wont hurt "nobody" now?

1. for 10-20 pgs, i have been saying that negative feedback shld ideally not be provided in public view; basically 1 position.

Disagree - negative feedback is acceptable in the public domain, as long as it is honest and not biased

2. received various responses which i wld not like to characterize. but take "samajhdhar ko ishaara kaafi" and "honesty is the best policy" type of responses from various gunijan. what was the implication there?

The implication is just what it seems. Honesty is the best policy. If you are asked for an honest opinion, give it. Don't lie.

3. the implication so far was that negative feeedback is ok.

Yes

4. what are we trying to show now with the transcripts? that paresh was not negative.

With the transcripts, I am only trying to show that he was not 'blunt', as you put it. That he was sensitive to their feelings, yet he was honest.

5. a different tack, what say?

No different. We just moved to the point on bluntness and sensitivity. Honesty has already been universally accepted by both sides as being important. Now the question is 'bluntness'.

do i have it right so far? lemme know before i continue. will dispense with the transcript dont worry

Those are my opinions in regards to your questions. They are set in stone, and are not open for debate. So let's not even go there. Now that you know my opinions, maybe you can consider working on his comments.

Originally posted by: shadyhtown

Those are my opinions in regards to your questions. They are set in stone, and are not open for debate. So let's not even go there. Now that you know my opinions, maybe you can consider working on his comments.

look bud, we have problems with such simple things? it's a recap. not a post for us to again go spouting off. there'll be plenty of time to state opinions which "somene cant prove/ disprove" etc.- i'll take care of that notion later btw. but the QUESTION again, in case you still dont get it is the following- is the HISTORICAL RECAP correct? it is supposed to be a history piece, not a pholosophy or opinion piece. do u understand the question???

let's start with 1. my question was:

for 10-20 pgs, i have been saying that negative feedback shld ideally not be provided in public view; basically 1 position.

do u have a different view of what i had been saying? the "set in stone" answer you gave indicates that is indeed the case. and i think i debunked that for Punjini. go and read a few posts back. better still, i'll bump it up here now. phir batana

Originally posted by: Jaadoogar

arrey yaar itna time nahin hai book padhne ka, waise bhi book ki baat pe tum thore yaqeen karoge. Isse acha tum hi de do solution to time barbaad nahin hoga.😉

arre yaar, book kabhie nahee padhna? isliye😉

Originally posted by: chatbuster

look bud, we have problems with such simple things? it's a recap. not a post for us to again go spouting off. there'll be plenty of time to state opinions which "somene cant prove/ disprove" etc.- i'll take care of that notion later btw. but the QUESTION again, in case you still dont get it is the following- is the HISTORICAL RECAP correct? it is supposed to be a history piece, not a pholosophy or opinion piece. do u understand the question???

I know what you meant.. it was a recap.. but it was only partly correct.. which is why I've modified it and mentioned which parts are correct and which are not..