The word can't have any shock effect if you use it all the time. It is indeed only a word, but it isn't even that if it's done to death. Bad language can energize normal language, but bad language used all the time is no language at all. The only signal that it sends is that the user is in the grip of anger, or is nervous, or is a member of the male television cooking profession, or perhaps all three.
Great ppt on what young MBAs need to do in current times
very year there are more huge product-liability awards, and every year manufacturers have to put more warnings in the owners' manuals, and every year the radish-brains come up with newer, more-innovative ways to injure themselves. There will come a day when every product you buy will come with an actual living lawyer inside the box, sealed in plastic; as soon as you break the seal, the lawyer will emerge and start preparing your product-liability lawsuit. (This system is feasible because product-liability lawyers are spore-based organisms who can survive for years without air.)
Q. I would like to use the word ''synergy'' more often. What does it mean?
A. ''Synergy'' is one of the key words used by business professionals to indicate that they have no clue as to what business they are actually in…
–K. Houser sent an article on shark attacks from USA Today, quoting a shark expert as follows: “To have shark attacks, you have to have people together with sharks in the water.''
Q. You need BOTH?
A. Yes. To create synergy.
Every person has both the dog of optimism and the dog of pessimism inside of them. The one you see most often is the one you feed most often. It really is that simple. I truly hope that you feed the hopeful one in 2009 – the one with the bright, shining eyes of possibility – and live a life of passion, not pretense.
Here's the link: http://www.acleareye.com/thoughts/Article_Nine_Predictions_for_2009.pdf
How Delhi loves the winters… The glass panes on the buses, which were otherwise intact, were sure to break in the winters, and the killing cold would come and fill your lungs with ice. Everywhere, the smell of roasting peanuts. Under the flyover nearby, a man makes expert Omelettes and places them in Buns.
You don’t drink tea by cups in Delhi, you drink them by the conversations. One doesn’t say ‘I have four cups’, instead – the line reads ‘We had tea over two hours of gup-shup (Conversation)’. In the terraces of the buildings built in haste during the Partition, people in colourful shawls and muffs balance hot samosas in their hands.
It is a central paradox of writing that true greatness only becomes apparent over time, and yet that the judgements of the future are substantially dependent on what the present chooses to publish, publicise and preserve. Viewed from the pinnacles of hindsight, literary history looks like a stately procession of great texts. A snapshot taken at any particular moment, however, reveals a far messier business; one clogged with readers, writers, commercial obligations, prejudices and misconceptions. Everything we might call the canon of literature—those enduring works that collectively form a standard we judge others by—is busily being forged or maintained within that snapshot. And somewhere close to the heart of this business lies one of the most ancient and contentious of all artistic institutions: the literary prize. Prizes are an attempt to mould, and to pre-empt, posterity. Their answers rarely satisfy; they seem, sometimes, to possess an astonishing capacity for ignoring talent. Yet
Just Mohit on Rahul Nanda R.I.P Raghav Nanda on Rahul Nanda R.I.P Alex on Rahul Nanda R.I.P Anon on Rahul Nanda R.I.P Deepak on RIP Karthik Pazayanur jc economics tuition on Wildly Important Goals Angus on Integrating Bookshelves… LudvigSunström on Reading in 2012 Dennis Paul on Rahul Nanda R.I.P Anon on Rahul Nanda R.I.P Mukundan on RIP Karthik Pazayanur Just Mohit on Big Picture Guy on Career… Margery on Big Picture Guy on Career… Anonymous on Rahul Nanda R.I.P sewing machine revie… on Integrating Bookshelves…