I've seen many discussion board comments like this: "Do you have the required expertise to talk about the Narmada dam issue?", "I've worked in the election commission for 15 years, what rights do you have to question me on election fraud in rural India?", "I have a masters degree in journalism, don't teach me how to report riots"... I understand this style of argument because I've been there myself. This is mostly the result of reaching a point where they realize that they cannot satisfactorily progress (based on logic/facts/etc) a discussion because of their half-baked understanding of the issue or a realization that the other guy has brought valid points to the table that cannot be refuted and instead of conceding the discussion in an honest manner they hide behind their credentials.

Truly a useless observation but I have to point it out: After Federer won his first set and was walking to his chair, he took the optimum route so that the towel boy from the court corner didn't have to cover a few extra steps, which also means that Federer didn't have to wait a few extra seconds to grab his towel. Interestingly, he won the set without breaking a sweat.

UO - 2

Forsyth writes in The Fist of God about why intelligence officers may sell themselves to foreign countries:

The motives for being so recruited to serve another country vary.  The recruit may be in debt, in a bitter marriage, passed over for promotion, revolted by his own regime, or simply lust for a new life and plenty of money.  He may be recruited through his own weaknesses, sexual or homosexual, or simply by sweet talk and flattery.

Two things pricked me from the above passage -- 1) The use of 'he'.  I know how it's a matter of style for a lot of writers to use 'he' or 'him' while they obviously mean both the genders.  Forsyth doesn't particularly strike me as that kind of a writer because of his colossal attention to detail, especially when there were women defectors.  Since thrillers/suspense are primarily aimed at men, it even makes sense for a young man to imagine a woman as a recruit for espionage.  It adds spice.  2) Sexual or homosexual - Is homosexual not sexual?  Such political incorrectness spotlights that he still thinks from a different age.

UO

Stewie is highly literate and sophisticated whereas Goundamani is nowhere like that.  But Stewie's realization comes close to that of Goundamani's where the character says something irreverant and crude but those around carry on as if they didn't hear.