The article is written in the form of five small personal posts by someone.
The first post for Sunday, February 20, 2005 says:
They said what I've written here will appear in the paper today. How extremely cool. They think it's just a new fad -- this blogging business. But then, they -- internet-phobics all of them -- would never really understand. I blog, therefore I am. And now it's in print as well. Ha ha! 10.04 PMIt has four other entries - two for February 19, and one each for February 18 and 17, 2005.
There is no URL of the blog from which these posts have been reproduced.
I assumed that the posts must be from Anubha Sawhney's blog. I assumed wrong. A Google search threw up no such blog.
Then I googled a number of unique phrases from the posts in the article. I still couldn't find the blog.
Maybe my search engine skills need polishing.
Another thing. The post which I have reproduced in this entry has a posting time of 10.04 PM on Sunday, February 20, 2005. I read that article around 10.30 AM this morning. There is no question of it being a typo. I seriously doubt that TOI can manage to send the newspaper to print at 10.04 AM and have it in my hands by 10.30 AM in Ambernath. And I am pretty sure that newspaper boy dropped the paper at my home around 7.00 AM (my sister-in-law is adamant on that point).
I am sure neither Anubha Sawhney nor TNN can go into the future and pick up a post (from a blog that doesn't appear to exist).
I am sure that TOI/TNN/Sunday Times has a simple explanation. And that it would probably run around the following lines:
We at TOI/TNN/Sunday Times were just being "creative" and gave the article the appearance of a blog post. Poor ignorant readers. They have never seen a blog in their life. Let us show them how blog posts look like; that's what we thought. Authenticity? Never mind that. There is something know as a creative license.
If there is any other explanation, I would like to hear it. And if it is good enough, I will apologize and take this post off my blog.