In ancient Greece, Socrates was reputed to be held in high esteem because of his knowledge.
One day an acquaintance met the great philosopher and said, 'Do you know what I just heard
about your friend?'
'Hold on a minute,' Socrates replied. 'Before telling me anything I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test.
'Triple filter?'
'That's right,' Socrates continued.
'Before you talk to me about my friend, it might be a good idea to take a moment and filter what you're going to say. That's why I call it the triple filter test. The first filter is Truth.
Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?'
'No,' the man said, 'actually I just heard about it and...'
'All right,' said Socrates.
'So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my friend ! something good?'
'No, on the contrary...'
'So,' Socrates continued, 'you want to tell me something bad about him, but you're not certain it's true. You may still pass the test though, because there's one filter left: the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my friend going to be useful to me?'
'No, not really.'
'Well', concluded Socrates, 'if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?'
This is why Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.
Friends, use this triple filter
each time you hear loose talk about any of your friends. We teach little by what
we say; we teach more by what we do; we teach most by what we are
....
“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe. “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer
Search This Blog
Thursday 12 April 2007
Blair - the consummate liar
April 12, 2007
There’s one man who must take the lie-detector test
Matthew Parris: My Week
Politicians have come up with a great idea. They now plan to subject us in Britain to US-style lie-detector tests. If we telephone to apply for a welfare benefit, our voices may be monitored by a machine for signs of the stress that lying induces. A red fib-alarm light will flash — and our file will be marked “possible liar”, and set aside for special investigation.
Oh, fantastic. Which think-tank or focus group recommended this way to the voters’ hearts? If the lie-detector experiment is judged a success, think of where the technique might be extended. Tax returns, VAT inspections, parking appeals, hosepipe violations, Customs checks at airports (“Sorry Madam — your voice shook. Please go through the Red Channel”) . . . the possibilities are endless.
You know where it should end. So why not start there? Why not subject Cabinet ministers to lie-detection tests? If they’re prepared to make voters undergo them, and they’re confident of their accuracy, how can they object if Panorama or Question Time ask them to do the same? The technique will be easy to apply because the circumstances where politicians habitually lie — in broadcast interviews and on the floor of the House — are well-suited to the discreet installation of these machines: inside the dispatch box, for instance, or next to the guest’s microphone on the BBC Today programme studio desk.
Ministers have assured us that the lie-detection devices will not make the final decision on claimants’ applications; they will simply refer suspicious claims for further scrutiny. This is generous of them. Let us be generous in return. When the lie-alert buzzer sounds on the radio, TV or beside the Speaker’s chair, let us allow that this will not automatically mean they’re lying. It will simply invite us to think twice about the speaker’s honesty, and make some independent checks.
There are those, of course, who say the technology is unproven. At Prime Minister's Questions it will face the ultimate challenge. The most consummate confidence trickster on the planet v the most accurate fib-sensor American research can devise. If at noon on Wednesday the buzzer does not sound when Tony Blair speaks, then the whole technology can be scrapped as useless.
There’s one man who must take the lie-detector test
Matthew Parris: My Week
Politicians have come up with a great idea. They now plan to subject us in Britain to US-style lie-detector tests. If we telephone to apply for a welfare benefit, our voices may be monitored by a machine for signs of the stress that lying induces. A red fib-alarm light will flash — and our file will be marked “possible liar”, and set aside for special investigation.
Oh, fantastic. Which think-tank or focus group recommended this way to the voters’ hearts? If the lie-detector experiment is judged a success, think of where the technique might be extended. Tax returns, VAT inspections, parking appeals, hosepipe violations, Customs checks at airports (“Sorry Madam — your voice shook. Please go through the Red Channel”) . . . the possibilities are endless.
You know where it should end. So why not start there? Why not subject Cabinet ministers to lie-detection tests? If they’re prepared to make voters undergo them, and they’re confident of their accuracy, how can they object if Panorama or Question Time ask them to do the same? The technique will be easy to apply because the circumstances where politicians habitually lie — in broadcast interviews and on the floor of the House — are well-suited to the discreet installation of these machines: inside the dispatch box, for instance, or next to the guest’s microphone on the BBC Today programme studio desk.
Ministers have assured us that the lie-detection devices will not make the final decision on claimants’ applications; they will simply refer suspicious claims for further scrutiny. This is generous of them. Let us be generous in return. When the lie-alert buzzer sounds on the radio, TV or beside the Speaker’s chair, let us allow that this will not automatically mean they’re lying. It will simply invite us to think twice about the speaker’s honesty, and make some independent checks.
There are those, of course, who say the technology is unproven. At Prime Minister's Questions it will face the ultimate challenge. The most consummate confidence trickster on the planet v the most accurate fib-sensor American research can devise. If at noon on Wednesday the buzzer does not sound when Tony Blair speaks, then the whole technology can be scrapped as useless.
Monday 9 April 2007
Bacteria and depression
Bad is good
Apr 4th 2007
From The Economist print edition
From The Economist print edition
An unexpected explanation for the rise of depression
BACTERIA cause disease. The idea that they might also prevent disease is counterintuitive. Yet that is the hypothesis Chris Lowry, of Bristol University, and his colleagues are putting forward in Neuroscience. They think a particular sort of bacterium might alleviate clinical depression.
The chance observation that Dr Lowry followed up to arrive at this conclusion was made by Mary O'Brien, an oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London. Dr O'Brien was trying out an experimental treatment for lung cancer that involved inoculating patients with Mycobacterium vaccae. This is a harmless relative of the bugs that cause tuberculosis and leprosy that had, in this case, been rendered even more harmless by killing it. When Dr O'Brien gave the inoculation, she observed not only fewer symptoms of the cancer, but also an improvement in her patients' emotional health, vitality and general cognitive function.
Dr Lowry and his team injected their mice with M. vaccae and examined them to find out what was going on. First, they looked for a rise in the level of cytokines, which are molecules produced by the immune system that trigger responses in the brain. As expected, cytokine levels rose. They then looked directly in their animals' brains for the effect of those cytokines.
Cytokines actually act on sensory nerves that run to the brain from organs such as the heart and the lungs. That action stimulates a brain structure called the dorsal raphe nucleus. It was this nucleus that Dr Lowry focused on. He found a group of cells within it that connect directly to the limbic system, the brain's emotion-generating area. These cells release serotonin into the limbic system in response to sensory-nerve stimulation.
The consequence of that release is stress-free mice. Dr Lowry was able to measure their stress by dropping them into a tiny swimming pool. Previous research has shown that unstressed mice enjoy swimming, while stressed ones do not. His mice swam around enthusiastically.
This result is intriguing for two reasons. First, it offers the possibility of treating clinical depression with what is, in effect, a vaccination. Indeed, M. vaccae is considered a bit of a wonder-bug in this context. Besides cancer, and now depression, it is being looked at as a way of treating Crohn's disease (an inflammation of the gut) and rheumatoid arthritis.
Second, it opens a new line of inquiry into why depression is becoming more common. Two other conditions that have increased in frequency recently are asthma and allergies, both of which are caused by the immune system attacking cells of the body it is supposed to protect. One explanation for the rise of these two conditions is the hygiene hypothesis. This suggests a lack of childhood exposure to harmless bugs is leading to improperly primed immune systems, which then go on to look for trouble where none exists.
In the case of depression, a similar explanation may pertain. If an ultra-hygienic environment is not stimulating the interaction between immune system and brain, some people may react badly to the consequent lack of serotonin. No one suggests this is the whole explanation for depression, but it may turn out to be part of it.
Try Live.com - your fast, personalised homepage with all the things you care about in one place. in one place.
Thursday 5 April 2007
Cricket should look for a few good men with no stakes
Harsha Bhogle
Posted online: Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST
My father had a very interesting approach to people who came to him for, for want of a better word, “tuition”. He had two conditions. “I will accept no ‘money and you will come at 6 am,” he used to say, and we often wondered why. Much later I realised that this was his way of ensuring his independence. By not accepting money, he was not beholden to these students, and didn’t have to put up with them, and by asking them to come at 6 am, he ensured that only the truly committed came to study.
I remember this story for two reasons. Indian cricket needs help but first, it needs to find people who are not beholden to it and who are committed to it. When you have a financial stake in Indian cricket, your honesty can be threatened, your voice can be stifled. But if you have nothing to gain, and only integrity, pride and commitment to offer, you can speak up for what is right. The BCCI needs such people but I am not sure they are searching for them.
Instead, the BCCI waits while Indian cricket burns; it waits for this rare configuration of elements that will take place on April 6 and 7. For the last four days Indian cricket has been lying wounded with attack after attack made on it. But there has been no attempt to douse the fires, no damage control. If ever you wanted proof that an organisation cannot be run by committees, here it is. If someone finds worms in the chocolates you sell, you don’t wait for five days for people to arrive from different parts of the world to decide what to do. A leader, somewhere, takes ownership of the situation. Who then, leads Indian cricket?
That is why I believe the various vice-presidents and secretaries and holders of other currently irrelevant titles have let themselves down. Not just because they did nothing, but because they fanned the fires themselves by making statements all over the place. The obsession with the media, with the thirty seconds of fame and two days of notoriety, will be the eventual ruin of Indian cricket.
And so we need a dictator, a benevolent dictator, which is really what the head of a family is. Many years ago I had suggested that Indian cricket is a “poor little rich kid” desperately in search of parents. Little has changed to cause me to alter that opinion. The kid is hurt at the moment and has stumbled but is there someone to give it a hand, a warm embrace; is there someone to take ownership of the kid?
So then, who leads Indian cricket? Who is it whose chest puffs with pride and who says “this is my baby”?
And till we find this benevolent dictator, all these meetings will have little value. If, on April 6, many captains and many vice-presidents and many secretaries are going to sit around a huge table wondering what to do next, they might as well call it off now and save everyone a lot of time and money. One person has to decide where Indian cricket goes. He can seek help, advice, opinion, comment, whatever but one person has to decide. Alex Ferguson decides for Manchester United, Ali Bacher did for South African cricket and, at a vital moment, Indira Gandhi did for India in December 1971. Fifteen people talking together in a room will mean, at best, thirty cups of tea and coffee and five packets of biscuits. No more.
There are immediate issues to be decided. The coach, the captain and therefore, the future of many senior players. There are reports to be discussed and the perpetrators of leaks have to be identified and put on television as villains. And someone has to ask: why are the nine players, including, presumably, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly, so worked up? What does an admirable person like Rahul Dravid has to say? And most important; even if the manner of delivery of the coach’s message was unpalatable, was the message wrong?
Are we saying that the attitude of the players cannot be questioned? Were players playing to stay in the team? By taking the easy way and sacking the foreigner we cannot bury the questions he has raised for he might be right on many counts. If Chappell goes and there is no enquiry into player attitudes it means we are perpetuating the star system and creating the atmosphere for further decline in our cricket.
There are no overnight answers to these questions for the process must begin with identifying a full-time leader who will take responsibility for the situation. Then you need to appoint a captain, guarantee him freedom, look for a coach, ease tensions in the team and look for a cricket committee of no more than four or five people who have passion, integrity and humility, to meet six times a year to review where Indian cricket is going. Not to take decisions but to check if the plan is on stream for decisions can only come from one leader.
And to prevent hasty decisions, the tour of Bangladesh in May must be rescheduled forthwith. We can issue Bangladesh guarantees, if necessary payments, but a hastily put together team at this stage can do nobody any good.
Oh, and as a postscript, when Australian cricket was faced with a similar situation in 1985, they appointed two honourable, proud men as captain and coach, decided that players would be picked on attitude and that if it meant some good players had to leave, so be it. It served them very well but remember it was backed by a desire to do good. Can Indian cricket take a similar call?
Posted online: Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST
My father had a very interesting approach to people who came to him for, for want of a better word, “tuition”. He had two conditions. “I will accept no ‘money and you will come at 6 am,” he used to say, and we often wondered why. Much later I realised that this was his way of ensuring his independence. By not accepting money, he was not beholden to these students, and didn’t have to put up with them, and by asking them to come at 6 am, he ensured that only the truly committed came to study.
I remember this story for two reasons. Indian cricket needs help but first, it needs to find people who are not beholden to it and who are committed to it. When you have a financial stake in Indian cricket, your honesty can be threatened, your voice can be stifled. But if you have nothing to gain, and only integrity, pride and commitment to offer, you can speak up for what is right. The BCCI needs such people but I am not sure they are searching for them.
Instead, the BCCI waits while Indian cricket burns; it waits for this rare configuration of elements that will take place on April 6 and 7. For the last four days Indian cricket has been lying wounded with attack after attack made on it. But there has been no attempt to douse the fires, no damage control. If ever you wanted proof that an organisation cannot be run by committees, here it is. If someone finds worms in the chocolates you sell, you don’t wait for five days for people to arrive from different parts of the world to decide what to do. A leader, somewhere, takes ownership of the situation. Who then, leads Indian cricket?
That is why I believe the various vice-presidents and secretaries and holders of other currently irrelevant titles have let themselves down. Not just because they did nothing, but because they fanned the fires themselves by making statements all over the place. The obsession with the media, with the thirty seconds of fame and two days of notoriety, will be the eventual ruin of Indian cricket.
And so we need a dictator, a benevolent dictator, which is really what the head of a family is. Many years ago I had suggested that Indian cricket is a “poor little rich kid” desperately in search of parents. Little has changed to cause me to alter that opinion. The kid is hurt at the moment and has stumbled but is there someone to give it a hand, a warm embrace; is there someone to take ownership of the kid?
So then, who leads Indian cricket? Who is it whose chest puffs with pride and who says “this is my baby”?
And till we find this benevolent dictator, all these meetings will have little value. If, on April 6, many captains and many vice-presidents and many secretaries are going to sit around a huge table wondering what to do next, they might as well call it off now and save everyone a lot of time and money. One person has to decide where Indian cricket goes. He can seek help, advice, opinion, comment, whatever but one person has to decide. Alex Ferguson decides for Manchester United, Ali Bacher did for South African cricket and, at a vital moment, Indira Gandhi did for India in December 1971. Fifteen people talking together in a room will mean, at best, thirty cups of tea and coffee and five packets of biscuits. No more.
There are immediate issues to be decided. The coach, the captain and therefore, the future of many senior players. There are reports to be discussed and the perpetrators of leaks have to be identified and put on television as villains. And someone has to ask: why are the nine players, including, presumably, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly, so worked up? What does an admirable person like Rahul Dravid has to say? And most important; even if the manner of delivery of the coach’s message was unpalatable, was the message wrong?
Are we saying that the attitude of the players cannot be questioned? Were players playing to stay in the team? By taking the easy way and sacking the foreigner we cannot bury the questions he has raised for he might be right on many counts. If Chappell goes and there is no enquiry into player attitudes it means we are perpetuating the star system and creating the atmosphere for further decline in our cricket.
There are no overnight answers to these questions for the process must begin with identifying a full-time leader who will take responsibility for the situation. Then you need to appoint a captain, guarantee him freedom, look for a coach, ease tensions in the team and look for a cricket committee of no more than four or five people who have passion, integrity and humility, to meet six times a year to review where Indian cricket is going. Not to take decisions but to check if the plan is on stream for decisions can only come from one leader.
And to prevent hasty decisions, the tour of Bangladesh in May must be rescheduled forthwith. We can issue Bangladesh guarantees, if necessary payments, but a hastily put together team at this stage can do nobody any good.
Oh, and as a postscript, when Australian cricket was faced with a similar situation in 1985, they appointed two honourable, proud men as captain and coach, decided that players would be picked on attitude and that if it meant some good players had to leave, so be it. It served them very well but remember it was backed by a desire to do good. Can Indian cricket take a similar call?
Monday 2 April 2007
Kumble didn’t get a fair deal
| Javagal Srinath March 31, 2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We have shared rooms and we have shared secrets, have celebrated the good times and consoled each other in times of disappointment. We have also had some of our moments of enlightenment together. I remember once, in our early days, as a pair of excited newcomers to international cricket (in the times when players still shared rooms), we used to spend endless hours discussing the game and the people who played it. We both had tremendous expectations from our seniors - we thought they would teach us, hear us out and generally be supportive. It did not work that way in an intensely competitive world, and we were both often terribly disappointed. So we sat down and analysed our attitudes. We realised it was important to keep our expectations rational. We did so, trying thereafter to manage on our own. Anil was instrumental in shaping my career at the international level at its most nascent stage. I learnt a lot from him, essentially that however great the odds, one should never give up. I learnt that no matter the state of the wicket, the level of the match, or the state of the game, one should never mentally surrender. The intensity with which he played rubbed off on everyone who came into contact with him. I think the greatest lesson anyone can take from Anil's story is to never quit trying. Anybody who has ever had a lean patch and wants to bounce back should look at him. He has done it so many times. No one has more fighting spirit than Anil Kumble. Across the years, I think Kumble's greatest disappointment has been the way he was treated despite being the country's highest wicket-taker. Time and again, he has not been given due credit for his performances; he has faced immense criticism despite his best efforts, and has had to come back and prove himself again and again. It has been unfair to him and is a shameful reflection on those who judged him. I think one big factor was that Anil Kumble never had a godfather. He is completely self made, unique in many ways. What made him a great bowler was there was no parallel (in the way he bowls) in Indian cricket, perhaps Chandra being the closest. The rest are more traditional bowlers. But his uniqueness was as much an insecurity (to him) as a strength. What worried him early on was that people would think him predictable, say that he would be read very well by the opposition. Whenever he was compared to Warne and found wanting, it really worked him up. It was only around the late 90s that he came to terms with it, realised that his uniqueness was his strength, figured what he could work on and what he could not. The Anil Kumble you see in public, is also the Anil Kumble you see in private. He is a quiet, reserved, deeply intense man who doesn't open up with people he doesn't know, but is extremely sociable with those he does. He loves to talk, to sing. We have a wonderful relationship. It is a relationship I cherish, despite the fact that we had our fair share of differences and arguments. Through it all, our friendship has endured. One thing that we understood early in our cricketing life is that you have to find your own footing without depending on someone; the people you know doesn't matter, performances do. As the curtain comes down on one aspect of a fantastic career, I suggest we enjoy watching however much we can see of Anil Kumble. History is a harsh judge but I am willing to bet that in the years to come, he could well be deemed incomparable. (Javagal Srinath is a former India cricketer) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Try Live.com - your fast, personalised homepage with all the things you care about in one place. in one place.
Tuesday 6 March 2007
Pradosh - quoting 'Steve Wright'
1- I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
2- Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
3- Half the people you know are below average.
4- 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
5- 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
6- A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good.
7- A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
8- If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.
9- All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.
10- The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
11- I almost had a psychic girlfriend, but she left me before we met.
12- OK, so what's the speed of dark?
13- How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
14- If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
15- Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
16- When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
17- Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
18- Hard work pays off in the future, laziness pays off now.
19- I intend to live forever; so far, so good.
20- If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
21- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
22- What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
23- My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder."
24- Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
25- If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
26- A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
27- Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
28- The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread.
29- To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.
30- The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
31- The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.
32- The colder the x-ray table, the more of your body is required to be on it.
33- Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film.
And ...
34- If your car could travel at the speed of light, would your headlights work?
2- Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
3- Half the people you know are below average.
4- 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
5- 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
6- A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good.
7- A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
8- If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.
9- All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.
10- The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
11- I almost had a psychic girlfriend, but she left me before we met.
12- OK, so what's the speed of dark?
13- How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
14- If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
15- Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
16- When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
17- Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
18- Hard work pays off in the future, laziness pays off now.
19- I intend to live forever; so far, so good.
20- If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
21- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
22- What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
23- My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder."
24- Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
25- If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
26- A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
27- Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
28- The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread.
29- To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.
30- The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
31- The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.
32- The colder the x-ray table, the more of your body is required to be on it.
33- Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film.
And ...
34- If your car could travel at the speed of light, would your headlights work?
Saturday 3 March 2007
Astrologer in trouble
MADURAI: An astrologer in Tamil Nadu has landed himself in trouble with a court summoning him to appear for allegedly predicting a long life for a dead man.
A judicial magistrate court in Sirkazhi, about 200 km from here, on Friday summoned Sivasamy of Vaitheeswarankovil, who practices 'naadi jothidam', on a cheating complaint by one Gopalakrishnan.
Under the method, predictions are based on ancient palm leave manuscripts, said to have been written by Tamil saint Agasthiyar. The manuscript with predictions for a particular person is located based on the thumb impression.
Gopalakrishnan said he had recently approached Sivasamy, who runs a centre at Vaitheeswarankovil, near Sirkazhi, home to 'naadi' astrology, and gave his thumb impression.
The astrologer picked up a manuscript and read out the predictions. The predictions were also given in writing on payment of Rs 2,000. But, the predictions were false, he claimed.
As a test case, he then gave the thumb impression of a person, who died in 2003, to the astrologer and paid the fee. The astrologer gave in writing that the person, whose thumb impression was given, would have a long life.
Seeking action against the astrologer, Gopalakrishnan in his complaint said he did not want another person to be cheated like him.
Judicial Magistrate Neelavathy posted the case to March 21.
A judicial magistrate court in Sirkazhi, about 200 km from here, on Friday summoned Sivasamy of Vaitheeswarankovil, who practices 'naadi jothidam', on a cheating complaint by one Gopalakrishnan.
Under the method, predictions are based on ancient palm leave manuscripts, said to have been written by Tamil saint Agasthiyar. The manuscript with predictions for a particular person is located based on the thumb impression.
Gopalakrishnan said he had recently approached Sivasamy, who runs a centre at Vaitheeswarankovil, near Sirkazhi, home to 'naadi' astrology, and gave his thumb impression.
The astrologer picked up a manuscript and read out the predictions. The predictions were also given in writing on payment of Rs 2,000. But, the predictions were false, he claimed.
As a test case, he then gave the thumb impression of a person, who died in 2003, to the astrologer and paid the fee. The astrologer gave in writing that the person, whose thumb impression was given, would have a long life.
Seeking action against the astrologer, Gopalakrishnan in his complaint said he did not want another person to be cheated like him.
Judicial Magistrate Neelavathy posted the case to March 21.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)