document_title: Brooklyn Nine-Nine (season 5)

question_text: when does episode 5 of brooklyn nine nine air

text: Brooklyn Nine-Nine (season 5)

text: Summary[edit]

text: Jake and Rosa adjust to life in jail before the Nine-Nine are able to bust Melanie Hawkins when Holt is forced to make a deal with local mobster Seamus Murphy. After their release, Jake realizes he's not ready to be back out in the field and Rosa breaks up with Adrian. During the fifth annual Halloween heist, Jake proposes to Amy and they get engaged. On a trip to Los Angeles for the funeral of the Nine-Nine's previous captain, Holt learns he's in the running to become the new police commissioner and the crew vows to help him deal with Murphy. Rosa comes out as bisexual. Though the crew successfully finds a loophole that allows Holt to keep up his deal with Murphy without jeopardizing his moral code, Murphy finds out about their ruse and threatens Kevin's life.

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
Prod.
code
U.S. viewers
(millions)

91
1
"The Big House Pt. 1"
Tristram Shapeero
Luke Del Tredici
September 26, 2017 (2017-09-26)
501
2.00[1]

Jake and Rosa have been in prison for a while, with Jake having to deal with his amiable mass-murdering cannibal cellmate, and Rosa doing whatever it takes to establish herself as someone not to be messed with. Jake ends up being put in the general population after smuggling "street soups" to a feared gang led by Romero, and Holt and Terry struggle to fill a very long list of requests for help by Rosa after she realizes they're not going to stop trying to help her. Amy and Boyle badly miss Jake, and Gina is on maternity leave.

92
2
"The Big House Pt. 2"
Michael McDonald
Justin Noble
October 3, 2017 (2017-10-03)
502
1.74[2]

Jake undertakes a dangerous undercover mission at the warden's behest, but it looks like he'll end up getting killed by Romero no matter how it turns out. The squad tries to figure out how to prove Lt. Hawkins was behind the robberies she framed Jake and Rosa for. An operation to hack into her phone is one option, but a more viable and much more dangerous one involves a Hawkins-loathing mob boss named Seamus Murphy who will give Amy the information to clear Jake and Rosa if she will "do a favor for me" in return. When the operation fails, Holt secretly obtains the information from Murphy, resulting in Jake and Rosa's freedom at the cost of a favor Holt will owe Murphy in the future.

93
3
"Kicks"
Eric Appel
Andrew Guest
October 10, 2017 (2017-10-10)
503
1.68[3]

Jake must pass an official evaluation performed by Holt in order to get back in the field after his incarceration. When Jake starts doubting his choices after the prime suspect claims innocence, he sees it as a weakness, but Holt sees is as a strength. Meanwhile, Rosa gets Amy and Terry's assistance to discover if Pimento is cheating on her. Despite being proven innocent, Rosa decides to break up with him regardless after realizing she would've felt relieved had he been caught and she ended the relationship.

94
4
"HalloVeen"
Jamie Babbit
Dan Goor
October 17, 2017 (2017-10-17)
504
1.69[4]

On the fifth annual Halloween heist, all members of the squad try to capture the champion cummerbund. Charles, Rosa and Terry team up to form "The Tramps". Amy figures out Jake's plan and finds the cummerbund; it is then revealed that Jake changed the inscription on the belt from "amazing human/genius" to "Amy Santiago, will you marry me?" Amy accepts and Boyle faints upon learning they are finally engaged. While he is happy for them, Captain Holt is slightly upset by the fact that no one technically won the heist since Jake changed the belt.

95
5
"Bad Beat"
Kat Coiro
Carol Kolb
November 7, 2017 (2017-11-07)
505
1.50[5]

Jake and Terry propose to join an underground gambling ring to catch a criminal. However, in the process, Captain Holt relapses into his old gambling addiction. Charles is planning a new food truck venture and ropes in Amy as an investor, only to later tell her that the truck he bought was the scene of a notorious murder. Rosa accepts Hitchcock's and Scully's challenge when they say she can't sit all day like they do.

96
6
"The Venue"
Cortney Carrillo
Matt Lawton
November 14, 2017 (2017-11-14)
506
1.65[6]

Jake and Amy find a mansion that makes a perfect venue for their wedding only to have it snatched at the last second by The Vulture, who is also planning to get married on the same day. After finding out that his fiancé is a kind charity worker, they debate over whether they want the venue or to save Jean from her marriage. Charles and Rosa track down and rescue Sergeant Peanut Butter, whom Charles still envies for stealing his thunder when he received his Medal of Valor. Much to Charles' dismay, Peanut Butter is given the credit for the rescue despite Charles saving his life. Captain Holt tries to convince Terry to be less image-conscious after Terry begins to prepare a party for a cop he accidentally offended.

97
7
"Two Turkeys"
Alex Reid
David Phillips
November 21, 2017 (2017-11-21)
508
1.66[7]

Jake and Amy attempt to get their parents to bond over Thanksgiving dinner, but their first holiday together as a family does not go well. However, an unexpected injury causes both sets of parents to reexamine their feelings towards each other. Elsewhere, Holt and husband Kevin’s Thanksgiving pie goes missing, and Holt suspects Rosa, Boyle, or Terry may have taken the pie. After interrogating them with no luck, Holt enlists the help of Hitchcock and Scully in order to uncover the culprit and find the pie.

98
8
"Return to Skyfire"
Linda Mendoza
Neil Campbell
November 28, 2017 (2017-11-28)
507
1.73[8]

Skyfire author DC Parlov returns to the precinct after the latest manuscript for his upcoming book was stolen. Jake, Terry, and Rosa go to a convention to investigate and find out that Parlov's rival Landon Lawson also had his manuscript stolen. As the two authors accuse each other of stealing each other's work, Terry reveals to Jake that he's been writing a fantasy novel of his own. Jake encourages Terry to have Parlov look at it, only to find out that it's terrible. Back at the precinct, Holt, Amy, and Charles take a forensics course and struggle to keep Charles' mouth shut.

99
9
"99"
Payman Benz
Andy Bobrow
December 5, 2017 (2017-12-05)
509
1.94[9]

While at a funeral in Los Angeles for their former police chief, Captain Holt finds out he is in the running to be commissioner. After experiencing many difficulties like missing their flight and having their RV explode, Jake and the squad must find a way to get from Los Angeles to New York in time for Holt's interview. Jake finds out that Holt was sabotaging the trip purposefully due to his compromise with Murphy, but Jake and the squad vow to find a way to solve Holt's issue and get him to the interview on time. During the trip, Amy tries to act less serious, Terry's upset about missing his first-class flight, and Charles discovers that Rosa is bisexual and has a girlfriend.

100
10
"Game Night"
Tristram Shapeero
Justin Noble & Carly Hallam Tosh
December 12, 2017 (2017-12-12)
510
1.81[10]

After Rosa reveals she's bisexual to her colleagues, she seeks Jake's help in telling the news to her parents during a dinner with them. Though she initially pretends she's dating Jake during dinner, she comes out and invites Jake to join her family for Game Night, where she finds out how much her parents are willing to accept the change. Meanwhile, the precinct turns to Gina for help when the Cyber Crimes division is using up all their bandwidth, resulting in slow internet. After Gina helps them, she reveals she's planning on quitting the Nine-Nine to pursue a career in entrepreneurship. However, after being touched by Amy and Charles' good-byes, she decides to return to the Nine-Nine while continuing to work on her side business.

101
11
"The Favor"
Victor Nelli Jr.
Aeysha Carr
December 12, 2017 (2017-12-12)
511
1.81[10]

Seamus Murphy finally asks Holt for his favor: To request a permit for a block party that will cover up their next crime. Jake and Charles go undercover and befriend Seamus' dimwitted nephew Kyle to find out what the Murphys are planning and stop it. Amy and Rosa try to request a permit for the block party, but when they are rejected, they try to find holes in the bureaucratic system Amy's grown to adore. Terry tries to find Gina time and space to use her breast pump for her baby. After the Nine-Nine uncovers Seamus' plan, they manage to foil the planned robbery while ensuring Holt keeps up his end of the bargain. When they arrest Kyle to protect him from his uncle's wrath, Seamus finds out about the ruse and threatens Kevin's life.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Andy Samberg as Jake Peralta
Stephanie Beatriz as Rosa Diaz
Terry Crews as Terry Jeffords
Melissa Fumero as Amy Santiago
Joe Lo Truglio as Charles Boyle
Chelsea Peretti as Gina Linetti
Andre Braugher as Captain Raymond Holt
Dirk Blocker as Michael Hitchcock
Joel McKinnon Miller as Norman Scully

text: Recurring[edit]

text:
Gina Gershon as Lt. Melanie Hawkins
Tim Meadows as Caleb
Lou Diamond Phillips as Romero
Paul Adelstein as Seamus Murphy
Jason Mantzoukas as Adrian Pimento
Marc Evan Jackson as Kevin Cozner

text: Guest[edit]

text:
Dean Winters as Detective Keith "The Vulture" Pembroke
Bradley Whitford as Captain Roger Peralta
Katey Sagal as Karen Peralta
Jimmy Smits as Victor Santiago
Bertila Damas as Camila Santiago
Danny Trejo as Oscar Diaz
Olga Merediz as Julia Diaz
Fred Melamed as DC Parlov
Maria Thayer as Jean Munhroe
Rob Huebel as Landon Lawson
Reggie Lee as Dr. Ronald Yee
Mike Mitchell as Kyle Murphy

text: Ratings[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Air date
Rating/share
(18–49)
Viewers
(millions)
DVR
(18–49)
DVR viewers
(millions)
Total
(18–49)
Total viewers
(millions)

1
"The Big House Pt. 1"
September 26, 2017
0.7/3
2.00[1]
0.7
1.24
1.4
3.24[11]

2
"The Big House Pt. 2"
October 3, 2017
0.6/2
1.74[2]
0.7
1.24
1.3
2.98[12]

3
"Kicks"
October 10, 2017
0.7/3
1.68[3]
0.6
1.19
1.3
2.87[13]

4
"HalloVeen"
October 17, 2017
0.6/2
1.69[4]
0.7
1.21
1.3
2.90[14]

5
"Bad Beat"
November 7, 2017
0.6/2
1.50[5]
0.7
1.29
1.3
2.78[15]

6
"The Venue"
November 14, 2017
0.6/2
1.65[6]
0.6
1.14
1.2
2.78[16]

7
"Two Turkeys"
November 21, 2017
0.6/2
1.66[7]
0.7
1.34
1.3
3.00[17]

8
"Return to Skyfire"
November 28, 2017
0.7/3
1.73[8]
0.6
1.16
1.3
2.89[18]

9
"99"
December 5, 2017
0.7/3
1.94[9]
0.6
1.15
1.3
3.09[19]

10
"Game Night"
December 12, 2017
0.7/3
1.81[10]
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

11
"The Favor"
December 12, 2017
0.7/3
1.81[10]
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD


document_title: No taxation without representation

question_text: who said taxation without representation is tyranny quote

root

text: No taxation without representation

text: Prior to the American Revolution[edit]

text: The English Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660.[4] By the 1760s, the Americans were being deprived of a historic right.[5] The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament initially contended that the colonists had virtual representation, but the idea "found little support on either side of the Atlantic".[6] John Dunmore Lang wrote in 1852, "The person who first suggested the idea [of Parliamentary representation for the colonies] appears to have been Oldmixon, an American annalist of the era of Queen Anne or George I. It was afterwards put forward with approbation by the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, and advocated for a time, but afterwards rejected and strongly opposed, by Dr. Benjamin Franklin."[7]

tag: p

text: The eloquent 1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance objecting to taxation, written by the Virginia House of Burgesses and endorsed by every other Colony, was sent to the British Government, which seems to have ignored it.[8]

text: American Revolution[edit]

text: The phrase had been used for more than a generation in Ireland.[9][10] By 1765, the term was in use in Boston, and local politician James Otis was most famously associated with the phrase, "taxation without representation is tyranny."[11] In the course of the Revolutionary era (1750–1783), many arguments were pursued that sought to resolve the dispute surrounding Parliamentary sovereignty, taxation, self-governance and representation.[12][13][14][15][16][17]

text: Representative proposals before 1776[edit]

text: In the course of the 1760s and 1770s, William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, amongst other prominent Britons and colonial Americans, such as Joseph Galloway, James Otis Jr., Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, the London Quaker Thomas Crowley, Royal Governors such as Thomas Pownall M.P., William Franklin, Sir Francis Bernard, and the Attorney-General of Quebec, Francis Maseres, debated and circulated plans for the creation of colonial seats in London, imperial union with Great Britain, or a federally representative British Parliament with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British Members of Parliament.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Despite the fact that these ideas were considered and discussed seriously on both sides of the Atlantic, it appears that neither the American Congress, nor the colonial Assemblies, nor the British Government in Westminster, at least prior to the Carlisle Peace Commission of 1778, officially proposed such constitutional developments.[26][27][28] It must be noted, however, that Governor Thomas Hutchinson apparently referred to a colonial representational proposal when he wrote that,

text: The Assembly of Massachusetts Bay...was the first which ever took exception to the right of Parliament to impose Duties or Taxes on the Colonies, whilst they had no representatives in the House of Commons. This they did in a letter to their Agent in the summer of 1764...And in this letter they recommend to him a pamphlet, wrote by one of their members, in which there are proposals for admitting representatives from the Colonies to fit in the House of Commons...an American representation is thrown out as an expedient which might obviate the objections to Taxes upon the Colonies, yet...it was renounced...by the Assembly of the Colony which first proposed it, as utterly impracticable.[29][30]

text: Jared Ingersoll Snr., colonial agent for Connecticut, wrote to his American colleague, the Royal Governor of Connecticut Thomas Fitch, that following Isaac Barre's famous Parliamentary speech against the Stamp Act in 1764, Richard Jackson, M.P., supported Barre and other pro-American M.P.s by producing before the House copies of earlier Acts of Parliament that had admitted Durham and Chester seats upon their petitions for representation. The argument was put forward in Parliament that America ought to have representatives on these grounds too.[31] Richard Jackson supposed that Parliament had a right to tax America, but he much doubted the expediency of the Stamp act. He said if it was necessary, as ministers claimed, to tax the colonies, the latter should be permitted to elect some part of the Parliament, "otherwise the liberties of America, I do not say will be lost, but will be in danger."[32][33]

text: The Knox-Burke debates[edit]

text: William Knox, an aide of George Grenville, pamphleteer and subsequent Irish Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, received an appointment in 1756 to the American provinces, and after his return to London in 1761, he recommended the creation of a colonial aristocracy and colonial representation in the British Parliament.[34] He was shortly afterwards appointed agent for Georgia and East Florida, a post which he forfeited by writing in favour of the Stamp Act. In his Grenville-backed pamphlet of 1769, The Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies Reviewed, Knox suggested that colonial representatives might have been offered seats in the British Parliament if they had sought such representation.[35] Knox submitted that,

text: whilst [the radical colonists] exclaim against Parliament for taxing them when they are not represented, they candidly declare they will not have representatives [in Parliament] lest they should be taxed...The truth...is that they are determined to get rid of the jurisdiction of Parliament...and they therefore refuse to send members to that assembly lest they should preclude themselves of [the] plea [that Parliament's] legislative acts...are done without their consent; which, it must be confessed, holds equally good against all laws, as against taxes...The colony advocates...tell us, that by refusing to accept our offer of representatives they...mean to avoid giving Parliament a pretence for taxing them.[36]

text: Edmund Burke responded to Knox, who had drawn up The Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies Reviewed as well as The Present State of the Nation (1768) under the supervision of George Grenville, by opining in his political tract Observations on a Late State of the Nation (1769),

text: NOW comes [Knox's] American representation...Is not the reader a little astonished at the proposal of an American representation from that quarter [of Grenville's]? It is proposed merely as a project of speculative improvement; not from the necessity in the case, not to add any thing to the authority of parliament: but that we may afford a greater attention to the concerns of the Americans, and give them a better opportunity of stating their grievances, and of obtaining redress. I am glad to find the author has at length discovered that we have not given a sufficient attention to their concerns, or a proper redress to their grievances. His great friend [Grenville] would once have been exceedingly displeased with any person, who should tell him, that he did not attend sufficiently to those concerns. He thought he did so, when he regulated the colonies over and over again: he thought he did so, when he formed two general systems of revenue; one of port-duties, and the other of internal taxation. These systems supposed, or ought to suppose, the greatest attention to, and the most detailed information of, all their affairs. However, by contending for the American representation, he seems at last driven virtually to admit, that great caution ought to be used in the exercise of all our legislative rights over an object so remote from our eye, and so little connected with our immediate feelings; that in prudence we ought not to be quite so ready with our taxes, until we can secure the desired representation in parliament. Perhaps it may be some time before this hopeful scheme can be brought to perfect maturity; although the author seems to be no wise aware of any obstructions that lie in the way of it.[37]

text: While Knox, Grenville and Burke were not necessarily opposed in principle to direct colonial representation in Parliament, Grenville nonetheless conjectured that Parliament retained a constitutional right to virtually represent the colonial subjects.[37][38]

text: On the American Taxation[edit]

text: Burke supported the doctrine of virtual representation in Britain.[39] Yet in his Parliamentary speech of 1774, entitled On American Taxation, Burke responded to the suggestion that America was virtually represented in Parliament by remarking,

text: What! does the electric force of virtual representation more easily pass over the Atlantic than pervade Wales, which lies in your neighborhood? or than Chester and Durham, surrounded by abundance of representation that is actual and palpable? But, Sir, your ancestors thought this sort of virtual representation, however ample, to be totally insufficient for the freedom of the inhabitants of territories that are so near, and comparatively so inconsiderable. How, then, can I think it sufficient for those which are infinitely greater, and infinitely more remote? You will now, Sir, perhaps imagine that I am on the point of proposing to you a scheme for a representation of the colonies in Parliament. Perhaps I might be inclined to entertain some such thought; but a great flood stops me in my course. Opposuit Natura. I cannot remove the eternal barriers of the creation. The thing, in that mode, I do not know to be possible. As I meddle with no theory, I do not absolutely assert the impracticability of such a representation; but I do not see my way to it; and those who have been more confident have not been more successful...My resolutions, therefore, mean to establish the equity and justice of a taxation of America by grant, and not by imposition; to mark the legal competency of the colony assemblies for the support of their government in peace, and for public aids in time of war; to acknowledge that this legal competency has had a dutiful and beneficial exercise, and that experience has shown the benefit of their grants, and the futility of Parliamentary taxation, as a method of supply.[40]

text: However, Burke apparently qualified such remarks concerning America by stating in the same speech that,

text: The Parliament of Great Britain...is never to intrude into the place of the [provincial legislatures], whilst they are equal to the common ends of their institution. But in order to enable [Parliamentary]...superintendence, her powers must be boundless. The gentlemen who think the powers of Parliament limited may please themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the requisitions are not obeyed? What! shall there be no reserved power in the empire, to supply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and dissipate the whole? We are engaged in war,—the Secretary of State calls upon the colonies to contribute,—some would do it, I think most would cheerfully furnish whatever is demanded,—one or two, suppose, hang back, and, easing themselves, let the stress of the draft lie on the others,—surely it is proper that some authority might legally say, "Tax yourselves for the common Supply, or Parliament will do it for you." This backwardness was, as I am told, actually the case of Pennsylvania for some short time towards the beginning of the last war, owing to some internal dissensions in that colony. But whether the fact were so or otherwise, the case is equally to be provided for by a competent sovereign power. But then this ought to be no ordinary power, nor ever used in the first instance. This is what I meant, when I have said, at various times, that I consider the power of taxing in Parliament as an instrument of empire, and not as a means of supply.[40]

text: William Pitt the Elder[edit]

text: The views of Knox, Grenville and Burke did not go unchallenged: William Pitt was amongst those who disputed that a Parliamentary right or power existed to levy "internal" taxes "for the purposes of raising a revenue" without the consent of actual representatives of the "Commons of America".[41][42][43] "It is my opinion," Pitt said, "that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies."[41]

text: Colonial spokespersons[edit]

text: In 1764, the Massachusetts politician James Otis, Jr., said that,

text: When the parliament shall think fit to allow the colonists a representation in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies, will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please...But if it was thought hard that charter privileges should be taken away by act of parliament, is it not much harder to be in part, or in whole, disfranchised of rights, that have been always thought inherent to a British subject, namely, to be free from all taxes, but what he consents to in person, or by his representative? This right, if it could be traced no higher than Magna Charta, is part of the common law, part of a British subjects birthright, and as inherent and perpetual, as the duty of allegiance; both which have been brought to these colonies, and have been hitherto held sacred and inviolable, and I hope and trust ever will. It is humbly conceived, that the British colonists (except only the conquered, if any) are, by Magna Charta, as well entitled to have a voice in their taxes, as the subjects within the realm. Are we not as really deprived of that right, by the parliament assessing us before we are represented in the house of commons, as if the King should do it by his prerogative? Can it be said with any colour of truth or justice, that we are represented in parliament?

text: Otis, Jr., attended the Continental Congress of 1765 along with other colonial delegates. The resolutions of the Congress stated that the Stamp Act had "a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists" and that "the only Representatives of the People of these Colonies, are Persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no Taxes ever have been, or can be Constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective Legislature."[45][46] Furthermore, it was declared that, "it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Principles and Spirit of the British Constitution, for the People of Great-Britain, to grant to his Majesty the Property of the Colonists."[45][46]

text: Daniel Dulany, Jr., of Maryland, wrote in 1765 that, "the Impropriety of a Taxation by the British Parliament...[is proven by] the Fact, that not one inhabitant in any Colony is, or can be actually or virtually represented by the British House of Commons."[47] Dulany, Jr., denied that Parliament had a right "to impose an internal Tax upon the Colonies, without their consent for the single Purpose of Revenue."[48]

text: In 1766, Benjamin Franklin told the House of Commons that, "an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent if not laid by their own representatives. The Stamp Act says we shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such and such sums; and thus it is intended to extort our money from us or ruin us by the consequence of refusing to pay it."[49]

text: Republicanism[edit]

text: For those sympathetic to republicanism, such as James Burgh, Catherine Macauley, and Richard Price, any tax revenue measures that were voted into effect without the direct representation of Americans were "unconstitutional" and "pernicious".[50][51][52][53] Burgh felt that virtual representation was "subversive of liberty" and "unjust in its principles" and that the House of Commons must include colonial representatives when it voted on colonial matters, or operate by using the consent of the colonial Assemblies.[54][55]

text: Heightening of tensions[edit]

text: The Americans rejected the Stamp Act of 1765 brought in by British Prime Minister George Grenville, and violently rejected the remaining tax on tea imports, under the Tea Act passed in May 1773, at the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. The Parliament considered this an illegal act because they believed it undermined the authority of the Crown-in-Parliament. When the British then used the military to enforce laws that the colonists believed Parliament had passed illegally, the colonists responded by forming militias and seized political control of each colony, ousting the royal governors – with the exception of the American-born Royal Governor of Connecticut, John Trumbull, who was allowed to remain as the new Patriot Governor.

text: The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament.

text: Patrick Henry's resolution in the Virginia legislature implied that Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen, that the principle of no taxation without representation was an essential part of the British Constitution, and that Virginia alone had the right to tax Virginians.[56]

text: Efforts at conciliation[edit]

text: This offer of actual imperial representation was likewise re-stated to the delegates of the colonies via the colonial agents in 1774, according to Connecticut-born Reverend Thomas Bradbury Chandler, in his publication A Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans.[57] In February 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactorily provided for the imperial defence and the upkeep of imperial officers.[58]

text: Representative proposals after 1776[edit]

text: James Macpherson, a colonial secretary of British West Florida, defended the North administration in an officially sponsored polemic in 1776 named The Rights of Great Britain Asserted.[59][60][61] This work replied to the Continental Congress' July 6, 1775 Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms by proposing that,

text: Had the Americans, instead of flying to arms, submitted the same supposed grievance [as the taxed though unrepresented Palatine counties in England had], in a peaceable and dutiful manner, to the Legislature, I can perceive no reason why their request should be refused. Had they, like the County and City of Chester, represented, that "for lack of Knights and Burgesses to represent them in the High Court of Parliament, they had been oftentimes TOUCHED and GRIEVED with Acts and Statutes made within the said Court, derogatory to their most ancient jurisdictions, liberties and privileges, and prejudicial to their quietness, rest and peace;" this Country [of Britain] would, I am persuaded, have no objection to their being represented in her Parliament... If they are not madly bent on independence, let them propose the conditions on which they wish to continue as subjects...The Legislature of this Kingdom cannot possibly depart from any part of its supremacy over the Colonies; but it is in the power of the Colonies to share in that supremacy. If they complain of being taxed without having the privilege of sending Members to Parliament, let them be represented. Nay, more: Let their representation increase in proportion to the Revenue they shall furnish. If they wish rather to vote their QUOTA towards the general supply, through their own General Courts and Assemblies, the resolution of Parliament on that subject is still open to their choice. But, as long as they assume the language of a Sovereign State, this Kingdom can enter into no negociation [sic], can meet no compromise."[62][63]

text: The noted economist Adam Smith seconded this view in his famous 1776 publication Wealth of Nations when he recommended the Americans "to send fifty or sixty new representatives to Parliament" on the basis of the amount of taxes they would contribute to the Imperial coffers.[64] Writing in October 1776 to Lord North in Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress of the recent Declaration of Independence, and particularly of James Otis, Jr.'s pamphlet Rights of the British Colonies and its endorsement by the Massachusetts Assembly, Governor Thomas Hutchinson said,

text: The Assembly of Massachusetts Bay, therefore, was the first that took any publick of the [Sugar] Act, and the first which ever took exception to the right of Parliament to impose Duties or Taxes on the Colonies, whilst they had no representatives in the House of Commons. This they did in a letter to their Agent in the summer of 1764, which they took care to print and publish before it was possible for him to receive it. And in this letter they recommend to him a pamphlet, wrote by one of their members, in which there are proposals for admitting representatives from the Colonies to fit in the House of Commons. I have this special reason, my Lord, for taking notice of this Act of the Massachusetts Assembly; that though an American representation is thrown out as an expedient which might obviate the objections to Taxes upon the Colonies, yet it was only intended to amuse the authority in England; and as soon as it was known to have its advocates here [in London], it was renounced by the colonies, and even by the Assembly of the Colony which first proposed it, as utterly impracticable."[29][30]

text: Indeed, the resolves of the Continental Congresses of both 1765 and 1774 declared that imperial representation was too impractical on the footing that "local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament".[65] The British Government, similarly, does not appear to have formally requested discussions with the Americans concerning the issue of Parliamentary seats until 1778.[66][67] In that year "the commissioners of the king of Great Britain," known as the Carlisle Peace Commission of 1778, made an offer to the Congress of "a reciprocal deputation of an agent or agents from the different states, who shall have the privilege of a seat and voice in the parliament of Great Britain".[28][68]

text: Virtual representation[edit]

text: In Britain, representation was highly limited due to unequally distributed voting constituencies and property requirements; only 3% of the population could vote and they were often controlled by local gentry. This meant that spurious arguments had come to be employed in Britain to try to explain away and cover up the iniquities in its political life.[69][70][71] Therefore the British government tried to argue that the colonists had virtual representation in their interests. In the winter of 1764–65, George Grenville, and his secretary Thomas Whately, invented the doctrine of 'virtual representation' in an attempt extend the scope of such unjust arguments to America, and thereby attempt to legitimise the pernicious policies of the Stamp Act.[72][73][74] In English history, "no taxation without representation" was an old principle and meant that Parliament had to pass all taxes. At first, the "representation" was held to be one of land, but, by 1700, this had shifted to the notion that, in Parliament, all British subjects had a "virtual representation." "We virtually and implicitly allow the institutions of any government of which we enjoy the benefit and solicit the protection," declared Samuel Johnson in his political pamphlet Taxation No Tyranny. He rejected the plea that the colonists, who had no vote, were unrepresented. "They are represented," he said, "by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England." However, the tradition of greater democracy amongst Americans gave impetus to the well-founded charge, voiced by Britons and colonists alike, that virtual representation was "sophistry" and "a mere Cob-web, spread to catch the unwary, and intangle [sic] the weak."[75][76] The colonial insistence on direct representation as opposed to virtual representation has thus been seen by later commentators to have "usher[ed] in a profound political and social revolution, which rooted out most of the remaining traces of monarchic rule and feudalism inherited from the only partially complete English bourgeois revolution. The Americans carried through the bourgeois democratic revolution on a scale never before seen in history."[77]

text: Colonial reactions[edit]

text: Virtual representation was wholly rejected in the colonies, who said the "virtual" was a cover for political corruption and was irreconcilable with their belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. In 1765, the American lawyer and politician James Otis, Jr., responded to Soame Jenyns' The Objections to the Taxation of Our American Colonies, by the Legislature of Great Britain, Briefly Considered.[78] Otis' own publication was entitled Considerations on Behalf of the Colonists, in a Letter to a Noble Lord.[78] He wrote in it, "To what purpose is it to ring everlasting changes to the colonists on the cases of Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield, who return no members? If those now so considerable places are not represented, they ought to be."[78][79] Writing in his 1763 publication The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, Otis declared that,

text: Every British subject born on the continent of America, or in any other of the British dominions, is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of parliament, (exclusive of all charters from the Crown) entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great Britain. Among those rights...which it is humbly conceived no man or body of men, not excepting the parliament, justly, equitably and consistently with their own rights and the constitution, can take away...[are that the] supreme and subordinate powers of the legislation should be free and sacred in the hands where the community have once rightfully placed them...[that the] supreme national legislative cannot be altered justly ’till the commonwealth is dissolved, nor a subordinate legislative taken away without forfeiture or other good cause. Nor then can the subjects in the subordinate government be reduced to a state of slavery, and subject to the despotic rule of others...Even when the subordinate right of legislature is forfeited, and so declared, this cannot affect the natural persons either of those who were invested with it, or the inhabitants, so far as to deprive them of the rights of subjects and of men — The colonists will have an equitable right notwithstanding any such forfeiture of charter, to be represented in Parliament, or to have some new subordinate legislature among themselves. It would be best if they had both...[Furthermore, the right of every British subject is that the] supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person, or by representation.[80]

text: Otis simultaneously refuted, in The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, a contemporary argument that attempted to rationalise virtual representation on the basis of the colonial agents' alleged influence on British policy.[80] "As to the colonists being represented by the provincial agents," he wrote,

text: I know of no power ever given them but to appear before his Majesty, and his ministry. Sometimes they have been directed to petition the parliament: But they none of them have, and I hope never will have, a power given them, by the colonists, to act as representatives, and to consent to taxes; and if they should make any concessions to the ministry, especially without order, the provinces could not by that be considered as represented in parliament.[80]

text: Colonists said no man was represented if he were not allowed to vote. Moreover, even "If every inhabitant of America had the requisite freehold," said Daniel Dulany, "not one could vote, but upon the supposition of his ceasing to become an inhabitant of America, and becoming a resident of Great Britain."[81] The colonists and like-minded Britons insisted that representation was achieved only through an assembly of men actually elected by the persons they were intended to represent.[16]

text: The argument between the colonies and Parliament sought to resolve how the British 'commoners' of the various part of the Empire were represented most constitutionally[18] – as Daniel Dulaney, an American Loyalist and lawyer, put it "[the] constitutional authority [of Parliament's rights to bind American subjects] depends upon the single question, Whether the Commons of Great-Britain are virtually the representatives of the Commons of America, or not.[82]

text: Pitt and Camden[edit]

text: The theory of virtual representation was attacked in Britain by Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden, and his ally William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. William Pitt argued in 1766 that the Commons of Britain ought not to tax the '"Commons of America" without gaining consent of their representatives in stating, "even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives. Why did [Grenville] confine himself to Chester and Durham? He might have taken a higher example in Wales—Wales, that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated."[41] He then said,

text: I am no courtier of America. I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country. When two countries are connected together like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both... let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent."[83]

text: In his first speeches in Parliament, Lord Camden vigorously attacked the declaratory act which was proposed to mollify the crown on the repeal of the Stamp Tax. After his first affirmation of "no taxation without representation" Camden was attacked by British PM Grenville, Chief Justice James Mansfield, Robert Henley, 1st Earl of Northington, and others.[84] He responded:

text: [T]he British Parliament have no right to tax the Americans. I shall not consider the Declaratory Bill now lying on your table; for to what purpose, but loss of time, to consider the particulars of a Bill, the very existence of which is illegal, absolutely illegal, contrary to the fundamental laws of nature, contrary to the fundamental laws of this constitution? A constitution grounded on the eternal and immutable laws of nature; a constitution whose foundation and centre is liberty, which sends liberty to every individual who may happen to be within any part of its ample circumference. Nor, my Lords, is the doctrine new, it is as old as the constitution; it grew up with it; indeed it is its support; taxation and representation are inseparably united; God hath joined them, no British parliament can separate them; to endeavour to do it, is to stab our very vitals. … My position is this—I repeat it—I will maintain it to my last hour,—taxation and representation are inseparable; this position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own, is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery. Taxation and representation are coeval with and essential to the constitution. … [T]here is not a blade of grass growing in the most obscure corner of this kingdom, which is not, which was not ever, represented since the constitution began; there is not a blade of grass, which when taxed, was not taxed by the consent of the proprietor. … I can never give my assent to any bill for taxing the American colonies, while they remain unrepresented; for as to the distinction of a virtual representation, it is so absurd as not to deserve an answer; I therefore pass it over with contempt. The forefathers of the Americans did not leave their native country, and subject themselves to every danger and distress, to be reduced to a state of slavery: they did not give up their rights; they looked for protection, and not for chains, from their mother country; by her they expected to be defended in the possession of their property, and not to be deprived of it: for, should the present power continue, there is nothing which they can call their own; or, to use the words of Mr. Locke, ‘What property have they in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to himself?’"[85]

text: In an appearance before Parliament in January, 1766, former Prime Minister William Pitt stated:

text: The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it.[86]

text: Grenville responded to Pitt, saying the disturbances in America "border on open rebellion; and if the doctrine I have heard this day be confirmed, nothing can tend more directly to produce a revolution." External and internal taxes are the same, argued Grenville.[87]

text: Modern use in the United States[edit]

text: In the 1860s, suffragette Sarah E. Wall of Worcester, Massachusetts invoked the principle of "no taxation without representation", initiating an anti-tax protest in which she encouraged women not to pay taxes until they were granted the right to vote. Soon after she began this movement, the Worcester city tax collector sued Wall for refusing to pay taxes, and the case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1863. In "Wheeler v. Wall," the court ruled against Wall and held that despite not having the right to vote, women are still obligated to meet their tax burden. Even still, Wall refused to cooperate with the collector, and as a result, officers seized and sold her property in order to raise the money necessary to meet her tax obligation. After several years, Wall's inexorability eventually prevailed, as the collector began to ignore Wall and allow her to abstain from paying taxes.[88] In 1884, Susan B. Anthony cited Wall's audacity and willingness to stand up for women's suffrage, stating, "for the last twenty-five years, [she] has resisted the tax gatherer when he came around. I want you to look at her. She looks very harmless, but she will not pay a dollar of tax. She says when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will give her the right of representation she will pay her taxes."[89]

text: The phrase is also used by other groups in America who pay various types of taxes (sales, income, property) but lack the ability to vote, such as felons (who are, in many states, barred from voting), people who work in one state and live in another (thus having to pay income tax to a state they don't live in), or people under 18.[90]

text: To become citizens of the United States, immigrants most often must be permanent residents for a period of time (usually 5 years).[91] Permanent residents must pay taxes on their worldwide income and, in most cases, cannot vote. However, throughout the 19th century, many states did allow immigrants to vote after they had declared their intention to become citizens. This was primarily because these new states were populated in large part by immigrants who had not yet attained citizenship. Throughout U.S. history, non-citizens have been allowed to vote in 40 U.S. states and territories.[92] As of 2005, non-citizens are allowed to vote in seven jurisdictions in the United States: Chicago and six towns in Montgomery County, Maryland.[93]

text: In 2009, the phrase "taxation without representation" was also used in the Tea Party protests, where protesters were upset over increased government spending and taxes, and specifically regarding a growing concern amongst the group that the U.S. government is increasingly relying upon a form of taxation without representation through increased regulatory levies and fees which are allegedly passed via unelected government employees who have no direct responsibility to voters and cannot be held accountable by the public through elections.[94]

text: A modified version of the phrase, "no tuition without representation", is sometimes used in disputes over governance in higher education in the United States to emphasize student's rights to a voice in institutional decisions. The term first emerged in a 1977 dispute at Union County College in New Jersey.[95] It has been used more recently in disputes at Dartmouth College,[96] UC Berkeley School of Law,[97] and elsewhere.

text: Washington, D.C.[edit]

text: In the United States, the phrase is used in Washington, D.C. as part of the campaign for a vote in Congress, to publicize the fact that Washington residents pay Federal taxes, but do not have representation in Congress. In November 2000, the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles began issuing license plates bearing the slogan "Taxation without representation".[98] In a show of support for the city, President Bill Clinton used the "Taxation Without Representation" plates on the presidential limousine; however, President George W. Bush had the tags replaced to those without the motto shortly after taking office.[99] President Barack Obama announced his intention to use the plates with the motto beginning at his second inauguration.[100] President Donald Trump continued usage of the plates with the protest motto after he was elected, though he has stated he has "no position" on the issue of granting D.C. statehood.[101]

text: In 2002, the Council of the District of Columbia authorized adding the slogan to the D.C. flag, but no new flag design was approved.[102][103] In 2007, the District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters program was created based on the successful 50 State Quarters program.[104] DC submitted designs containing the slogan, but they were rejected by the U.S. Mint.[105]

text: Modern use in the United Kingdom[edit]

text: British Prime Minister John Major used a modified version of the quote, with the order reversed, in October 1995, when at the United Nations's 50th Anniversary celebrations he said, "It is not sustainable for states to enjoy representation without taxation," in order to criticize the billion-dollar arrears of the United States' payments to the UN, echoing a statement made the previous month at the opening session of the UN General Assembly by UK Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind.[106]

text: Modern use in Canada[edit]

text: In Canada, Québec politician Gilles Duceppe, former leader of the Bloc Québécois, has repeatedly cited this phrase in defending the presence of his party in Ottawa. The Bloc is a Québec sovereigntist party solely running candidates in Canadian Federal elections in the province of Québec. Duceppe's evocation of the phrase implies that the proponents of Quebec's sovereigntist movement have the right to be represented in the body (which they are), the Canadian Parliament, which levies taxes upon them.[107] He will usually cite the sentence in its original English.[108]

text: Use in Australia[edit]

text: The first government of South Australia was by a Legislative Council, whose members were chosen by the Crown and from which office-bearers "Official Members" were selected by the Governor. John Stephens and his South Australian Register were among those who campaigned for democratic reform.[109] Partial reform took place in 1851, when a majority of Members of the South Australian Legislative Council, 1851–1855 were elected.


question_text: who is in charge of north carolina colony

text: Governor of the Colony of North Carolina was the top executive of the government of the British colony of North Carolina. The Carolina colony which comprised all of the land below Virginia and north of Spanish Florida was founded in 1663. It was controlled by the Lords Proprietors, a group of eight English noblemen led informally by member Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury. Dissent over governance of the province led to the appointment of a deputy governor to administer the northern half of the colony in 1691.

text: The office of Governor of the separate colony of North Carolina was first recognized in 1712 when Edward Hyde received his commission from the Lords Proprietors.

text: In 1729, seven of the Lords Proprietors sold their interests in Carolina to The Crown, and North Carolina became a royal colony. From 1729 until 1776, when the Colony declared its independence from Britain, the Governors were appointed by the King.


document_title: List of Pittsburgh Pirates seasons

question_text: how many games did the pittsburgh pirates win last year

text: List of Pittsburgh Pirates seasons

text: Season by season[edit]

text:
World Series Champions
(1903–present) †
National League Champions
(1883–present)
*
Division Champions
(1969–present) ^
Wild card Berth
(1994–present) ¤

tag: table

text:
MLB
season
Team
season
League
Division
Finish[a]
Wins[b]
Losses
Win%
GB[c]
Post-season
Awards[8]

Pittsburgh Alleghenys

1882[7]
1882
AA

4th
39
39
.500
15

1883
1883
AA

7th
31
67
.316
35

1884
1884
AA

11th
30
78
.278
45½

1885
1885
AA

3rd
56
55
.505
22½

1886
1886
AA

2nd
80
57
.584
12

1887
1887[m]
NL

6th
55
69
.444
24

1888
1888
NL

6th
66
68
.493
19½

1889
1889
NL

5th
61
71
.462
25

1890
1890[n]
NL

8th
23
113
.169
66½

Pittsburgh Pirates

1891
1891[o]
NL

8th
55
80
.407
30½

1892
1892
NL

6th
80
73
.523
23½

1893
1893
NL

2nd
81
48
.628
5

1894
1894
NL

7th
65
65
.500
25

1895
1895
NL

7th
71
61
.538
17

1896
1896
NL

6th
66
63
.512
24

1897
1897
NL

8th
60
71
.458
32½

1898
1898
NL

8th
72
76
.486
29½

1899
1899
NL

7th
76
73
.510
25½

1900
1900
NL

2nd
79
60
.568
4½
Lost Chronicle-Telegraph Cup (Superbas) 3-1

1901
1901
NL *

1st
90
49
.647
–
Pre-World Series Era NL Champions *

1902
1902
NL *

1st
103
36
.741
–
Pre-World Series era NL Champions *

1903
1903
NL *

1st
91
49
.647
–
Lost World Series (Americans) 5–3 *

1904
1904
NL

4th
87
66
.569
19

1905
1905
NL

2nd
96
57
.627
9

1906
1906
NL

3rd
93
60
.608
46

1907
1907
NL

2nd
91
63
.591
17

1908
1908
NL

2nd
98
56
.636
1

1909 †
1909[p]
NL *

1st
110
42
.724
–
Won World Series (Tigers) 4–3 †

1910
1910
NL

3rd
86
67
.562
17½

1911
1911
NL

3rd
85
69
.552
14½

1912
1912
NL

2nd
93
58
.616
10

1913
1913
NL

4th
78
71
.523
21½

1914
1914
NL

7th
69
85
.448
25½

1915
1915
NL

5th
73
81
.474
18

1916
1916
NL

6th
65
89
.422
29

1917
1917
NL

8th
51
103
.331
47

1918
1918
NL

4th
65
60
.520
17

1919
1919
NL

4th
71
68
.511
24½

1920
1920
NL

4th
79
75
.513
14

1921
1921
NL

2nd
90
63
.588
4

1922
1922
NL

3rd
85
69
.552
8

1923
1923
NL

3rd
87
67
.565
8½

1924
1924
NL

3rd
90
63
.588
3

1925 †
1925
NL *

1st
95
68
.621
–
Won World Series (Senators) 4–3 †

1926
1926
NL

3rd
84
69
.549
4½

1927
1927
NL *

1st
94
60
.610
–
Lost World Series (Yankees) 4–0 *
Paul Waner (MVP)[e]

1928
1928
NL

4th
85
67
.559
9

1929
1929
NL

2nd
88
65
.575
10½

1930
1930
NL

5th
80
74
.519
12

1931
1931
NL

5th
75
79
.487
26

1932
1932
NL

2nd
86
68
.558
4

1933
1933
NL

2nd
87
67
.565
5

1934
1934
NL

5th
74
76
.493
19½

1935
1935
NL

4th
86
67
.562
13½

1936
1936
NL

4th
84
70
.545
8

1937
1937
NL

3rd
86
68
.558
10

1938
1938
NL

2nd
86
64
.573
2

1939
1939
NL

6th
68
85
.444
28½

1940
1940
NL

4th
78
76
.506
22½

1941
1941
NL

4th
81
73
.526
19

1942
1942
NL

5th
66
81
.449
36½

1943
1943
NL

4th
80
74
.519
25

1944
1944
NL

2nd
90
63
.588
14½

1945
1945
NL

4th
82
72
.532
16

1946
1946
NL

7th
63
91
.409
34

1947
1947
NL

7th
62
92
.403
32

1948
1948
NL

4th
83
71
.539
8½

1949
1949
NL

6th
71
83
.461
26

1950
1950
NL

8th
57
96
.373
33½

1951
1951
NL

7th
64
90
.416
32½

1952
1952
NL

8th
42
112
.273
54½

1953
1953
NL

8th
50
104
.325
55

1954
1954
NL

8th
53
101
.344
44

1955
1955
NL

8th
60
94
.390
38½

1956
1956
NL

7th
66
88
.429
27

1957
1957
NL

7th
62
92
.403
33

1958
1958
NL

2nd
84
70
.545
8

1959
1959
NL

4th
78
76
.506
9

1960 †
1960
NL *

1st
95
59
.617
–
Won World Series (Yankees) 4–3 †
Dick Groat (MVP)
Vern Law (CYA)[f]

1961
1961
NL

6th
75
79
.487
18

1962
1962
NL

4th
93
68
.578
8

1963
1963
NL

8th
74
88
.457
25

1964
1964
NL

6th
80
82
.494
13

1965
1965
NL

3rd
90
72
.556
7

1966
1966
NL

3rd
92
70
.568
3

Roberto Clemente (MVP)

1967
1967
NL

6th
81
81
.500
20½

1968
1968
NL

6th
80
82
.494
17

1969
1969
NL
East
3rd
88
74
.543
12

1970
1970[q]
NL
East ^
1st
89
73
.549
–
Lost NLCS[d] (Reds) 3–0

1971 †
1971
NL *
East ^
1st
97
65
.599
–
Won NLCS (Giants) 3–1
Won World Series (Orioles) 4–3 †
Roberto Clemente (WSMVP)

1972i
1972
NL
East ^
1st
96
59
.619
–
Lost NLCS (Reds) 3–2

1973
1973
NL
East
3rd
80
82
.494
2½

1974
1974
NL
East ^
1st
88
74
.543
–
Lost NLCS (Dodgers) 3–1

1975
1975
NL
East ^
1st
92
69
.571
–
Lost NLCS (Reds) 3–0

1976
1976
NL
East
2nd
92
70
.568
9

1977
1977
NL
East
2nd
96
66
.593
5

1978
1978
NL
East
2nd
88
73
.547
1½

Dave Parker (MVP)

1979 †
1979
NL *
East ^
1st
98
64
.605
–
Won NLCS (Reds) 3–0
Won World Series (Orioles) 4–3 †
Willie Stargell (MVP, WSMVP)

1980
1980
NL
East
3rd
83
79
.512
8

1981[j]
1981
NL
East
4th
25
23
.521
5½

6th
21
33
.389
9½

1982
1982
NL
East
4th
84
78
.519
8

1983
1983
NL
East
2nd
84
78
.519
6

1984
1984
NL
East
6th
75
87
.463
21½

1985
1985
NL
East
6th
57
104
.354
43½

1986
1986
NL
East
6th
64
98
.395
44

1987
1987
NL
East
4th
80
82
.464
15

1988
1988
NL
East
2nd
85
75
.531
15

1989
1989
NL
East
5th
74
88
.457
19

1990
1990
NL
East ^
1st
95
67
.586
–
Lost NLCS (Reds) 4–2
Barry Bonds (MVP)
Doug Drabek (CYA)
Jim Leyland (MOY)[g]

1991
1991
NL
East ^
1st
98
64
.605
–
Lost NLCS (Braves) 4–3

1992
1992
NL
East ^
1st
96
66
.593
–
Lost NLCS (Braves) 4–3
Barry Bonds (MVP)
Jim Leyland (MOY)

1993
1993
NL
East
5th
75
87
.463
22

1994[k]
1994
NL
Central
4th
53
61
.465
13
Playoffs cancelled

1995
1995
NL
Central
5th
58
86
.403
27

1996
1996
NL
Central
5th
73
89
.451
15

1997
1997
NL
Central
2nd
79
83
.488
5

1998
1998
NL
Central
6th
69
93
.426
33

1999
1999
NL
Central
3rd
78
84
.484
18½

2000
2000[r]
NL
Central
5th
69
93
.426
26

2001
2001[s]
NL
Central
6th
62
100
.383
31

2002
2002
NL
Central
4th
72
89
.447
24½

2003
2003
NL
Central
4th
75
87
.463
13

2004
2004
NL
Central
5th
72
89
.447
32½

Jason Bay (ROY)[h]

2005
2005
NL
Central
6th
67
95
.414
33

2006
2006
NL
Central
5th
67
95
.414
16½

2007
2007
NL
Central
6th
68
94
.420
17

2008
2008
NL
Central
6th
67
95
.414
30½

2009
2009
NL
Central
6th
62
99
.385
28½

2010
2010
NL
Central
6th
57
105
.352
34

2011
2011
NL
Central
4th
72
90
.444
24

2012
2012
NL
Central
4th
79
83
.488
18

2013
2013
NL
Central
2nd ¤
94
68
.580
3
Won NLWC (Reds)
Lost NLDS (Cardinals) 3–2
Andrew McCutchen (MVP)
Clint Hurdle (MOY)
Francisco Liriano (CBPOY)

2014
2014
NL
Central
2nd ¤
88
74
.543
2
Lost NLWC (Giants)

2015
2015
NL
Central
2nd ¤
98
64
.605
2
Lost NLWC (Cubs)

2016
2016
NL
Central
3rd
78
83
.484
25

2017
2017
NL
Central
4th
75
87
.463
17

Totals[1][9]
W
L
Win%

236
296
.444
Pittsburgh Alleghenys (AA) regular season record (1882–86)

10158
9937
.505
Pittsburgh Alleghenys/Pirates (NL) regular season record (1887–2017)

10394
10233
.504
All-time regular season record (1882–2017)

43
53
.448
All-time postseason record

10437
10286
.504
All-time regular and postseason record

text: These statistics are current as of October 4, 2017.

text: Record by decade[edit]

text: The following table describes the Pirates' MLB win–loss record by decade.

text:
Decade
Wins
Losses
Pct

1880s
418
504
.453

1890s
649
723
.473

1900s
938
538
.636

1910s
736
751
.495

1920s
877
656
.572

1930s
812
718
.531

1940s
756
776
.493

1950s
616
923
.400

1960s
848
755
.529

1970s
916
695
.569

1980s
732
825
.470

1990s
774
779
.498

2000s
681
936
.421

2010s
641
654
.495

All-time
10394
10233
.504

text: These statistics are from Baseball-Reference.com's Pittsburgh Pirates History & Encyclopedia,[1] and are current as of January 16, 2018.

text: Footnotes[edit]

text:
a The Finish column lists regular season results and excludes postseason play.
b The Wins and Losses columns list regular season results and exclude any postseason play. Regular and postseason records are combined only at the bottom of the list.
c The GB column lists "Games Back" from the team that finished in first place that season. It is determined by finding the difference in wins plus the difference in losses divided by two. In seasons that the Pirates finished in first place, the figure represents the number of games they finished ahead of the second place team.
d NLCS stands for National League Championship Series.
e MVP stands for Most Valuable Player.
f CYA stands for Cy Young Award.
g MOY stands for Manager of the Year.
h ROY stands for National League Rookie of the Year.
i The 1972 Major League Baseball strike forced the cancellation of the first seven games (thirteen game-days) of the season.[10]
j The 1981 Major League Baseball strike caused the season to split into two halves. This caused Major League Baseball to hold the Divisional Series so that the first- and second-half champions could play each other to determine playoff spots for the NLCS and World Series.[11]
k The 1994–95 Major League Baseball strike ended the season on August 11, as well as cancelling the entire postseason.[12]
l The official Pirates website uses the spelling of "Alleghenies" rather than "Alleghenys".[7]
m The Pirates first season at Recreation Park.[13]
n The Pirates final season at Recreation Park.[13]
o The Pirates first season at Exposition Park.[13]
p On June 29, 1909, the Pirates played their final game at Exposition Park. The two teams opened Forbes Field the following day, June 30, 1909.[14]
q The Pirates played their final game at Forbes Field on June 28, 1970.[15] Three Rivers Stadium hosted its first Pirates' game on July 16, 1970.[16]
r The Pirates' final season at Three Rivers Stadium.[13]
s The Pirates first season at PNC Park.[13]

tag: ul


document_title: Gram per cubic centimetre

question_text: 1 cubic cm of water is how many grams

question_tokens: 1 cubic cm of water is how many grams

text: Gram per cubic centimetre

text: This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Gram per cubic centimetre is a unit of density in the CGS system, commonly used in chemistry, defined as mass in grams divided by volume in cubic centimetres. The official SI symbols are g/cm3, g·cm−3, or g cm−3. It is equivalent to the units gram per millilitre (g/mL) and kilogram per litre (kg/L). The density of water is about 1 g/cm3, since the gram was originally defined as the mass of one cubic centimetre of water at its maximum density at 4 °C.

text: Conversions[edit]

text: 1 g/cm3 is equivalent to:

text: 1 kg/m3 = 0.001 g/cm3(exactly)

text: 1 lb/ft3 ≈ 0.01602 g/cm3 (approximately)

text: 1 oz/gal ≈ 0.00749 g/cm3 (approximately)


document_title: Pinhole occluder

question_text: what is the effect of the pinhole on visual acuity testing

text: Pinhole occluder

text: A pinhole occluder is an opaque disk with one or more small holes through it, used by ophthalmologists, orthoptists and optometrists to test visual acuity. The occluder is a simple way to focus light, as in a pinhole camera, temporarily removing the effects of refractive errors such as myopia. Because light passes only through the center of the eye's lens, defects in the shape of the lens (errors of refraction) have no effect while the occluder is used. In this way the ophthalmologist, orthoptist or optometrist can estimate the maximum improvement in a patient's vision that can be attained by lenses to correct errors of refraction.[1] This can be used to distinguish visual defects caused by refractive error, which improve when the occluder is used, from other problems, which do not.[2] The pinhole occluder can also be used in testing visual acuity in mydriatic patients. In this case the pinhole occluder compensates for the inability to contract the iris assisting the eye in obtaining a retinal projection similar to that of a non-cycloplegic eye.

text: Squinting and looking through a tiny hole made with a finger works similarly to a pinhole occluder, by blocking light through the outer parts of the eye's lens.[3] An improvised pinhole has a similar but better effect. The same principle has also been applied as an alternative to corrective lenses: a screen of pinholes is mounted on an eyeglass frame and worn as pinhole glasses.

text: Differential diagnosis :

text:
pinhole worsen vision: Macular diseases,[4] central lens opacities[5]
Vision static with pinhole: Amblyopia[citation needed]


document_title: Yeh Un Dinon Ki Baat Hai

question_text: yeh un dinon ki baat hai cast swati real name

text: Yeh Un Dinon Ki Baat Hai

text: Synopsis[edit]

text: This section may be too long and excessively detailed. Please consider summarizing the material while citing sources as needed. (September 2018)

text: The story starts in 1990, place being Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Naina Agarwal Ashi Singh is a quintessential good girl who tops her school every year. She is a student of class 11th and studies in 'Pragati Vidya Ka Mandir', a Hindi medium government school. At home she is looked after by her chachiji Bela Agarwal Madhusree Sharma and chachaji Anand Agarwal Sachin Khurana. Her chachaji is her strength and supports her always. Her mother passed away when she was young. Her father, Rakesh Agarwal Chandresh Singh is a librarian in her school. He is very strict, short tempered and stubborn person. Her elder brother Arjun Agarwal Somendra Solanki/Vivaan Singh is a cricketer and studies in Naina's school in class 12th. Bela chachi and Anand chacha has two daughters: elder one Pooja Shweta Rajput, who has completed her studies and younger one Preeti Ayesha Kaduskar, who is also studying in Naina's school. Naina is very close to Preeti. Naina's taiji Beena Agarwal Abha Parmar and tauji Jagdeesh Agarwal Sanjay Batra lives in their neighbourhood and have a son Prateek Agarwal aka Pralay babu. Swati Kristina Patel is her best friend in school.

text: Sameer Maheshwari Randeep Rai is a good looking, charming and happy-go-lucky, rich spoiled brat. His father passed away when he was young, after which his mother Vishakha Vaishnavi Mahant married Vivek Somani Sandeep Rajora. Sameer is disheartened with the fact that his mother left him alone in childhood, in the guardianship of his nanaji Jaiprakash Maheshwari Kiran Kumar, who is a well-known businessman of Ahmedabad and the trustee of 'Pragati Vidya Ka Mandir' school. As a result, the mother-son relation becomes bitter. Also Sameer do not respect his step father. Sameer's mother along with her other family lives in Delhi. Whereas Sameer was compelled to spend all his childhood in different boarding schools. As of now he was a student of class 11th in an elite class convent boarding school at Nainital but because of his pranks he got rusticated from there. Sameer comes to Ahmedabad to live with nanaji and decides to complete his schooling in Ahmedabad. Sameer is very close to his nanaji.

text: In Ahmedabad, Sameer's cousin Munna aka Manoj Sanjay Choudhary visits him and ask him to take admission in his school i.e. Pragati Vidya Ka Mandir. As a result Sameer ends up taking admission in not only Naina's school but also in her class. In school, Munna introduces Sameer with his friend and classmate Pandit Raghav Dhir. Soon they three become best friends. Munna-Pandit warn Sameer to stay away from Naina, as she is too obedient to teachers. Whereas Naina, after seeing Sameer, falls for him instantly. She constantly tries to get his attention, but usually ends up in situations where she has to stand against him. Sameer's mother is furious because of his careless attitude towards his life & studies. She tells Sameer that he is a failure. To show her that he isn't, Sameer decides to contest and win the Head boy competition in school. Naina's brother, Arjun, also contests to be the head boy. Sameer decides to take help of Naina in studies to which she agrees but Munna-Pandit don't trust Naina, so they try different ideas to help Sameer win the competition. One of them was to steal the keys of library and get the exam papers. They successfully get the papers but Sameer refuses to cheat. One after the other incidents take place, which leads to misunderstandings between Naina and Sameer. Sameer loses the competition. Later, Pandey Sir (Principal) Ahsaan Qureshi discovers that the exam papers were already out. Knowing half truth, Naina accuses Sameer of stealing which he denies. Naina's father slaps Sameer and questions his upbringing. As a result, a feeling of hatred and revenge arises in Sameer's heart for Naina. Sameer then decides to make Naina fall in love with him so that he can question her father's upbringing just like he questioned Sameer's. Hearing this Sameer's rivals keep a bet that if Sameer make Naina say 'I love you', they will start following him but if he fails, they will chop off his hair. Sameer agrees to the bet.

text: In order to win the bet Sameer tries many ways. Some of his efforts bring success and Naina forgives him. Later she discovers that it was not Sameer but Arjun who've stolen the paper and cheated. Filled with extreme guilt and realizing her hidden feelings towards Sameer, she accepts Sameer's proposal of "special friendship". Now, Sameer is happy as he managed to make Naina his girl friend while Naina too is happy as she is in love, unaware of Sameer's real intentions. Sameer and Naina start calling each other. During such conversations, Sameer starts realizing that Naina is not as bad as he thought. On the contrary, she is a good person. But he still tries to win the bet, as he hasn't forgiven her yet. On the other hand, Swati (Naina's best friend), who also have a crush on Sameer, gets to know about Naina and Sameer. Feeling hurt she decides to end her friendship with Naina but Naina re conciliates with her by apologising. Later a school trip to Mount Abu was announced. Sameer wanted Naina to come along the trip as it would be the perfect opportunity to win the bet. So he helps Naina in finalising the wedding of her cousin Pooja didi. After much drama Naina finally gets the permission from home. Swati-Naina, Munna-Pandit and Sameer spend quality time together on the trip. Munna expresses his liking towards Swati. Whereas Sameer and Naina come close to each other. Their bond becomes strong and Sameer realises that he cannot break her heart. In fact he starts feeling guilty because the way Naina looked after him during the trip, nobody had cared about him so far. He decides to tell Naina the 'truth', but is unable to do so fearing that Naina will end the friendship. However on after the other incidents take place and circumstances build in a such a way that Naina say 'I Love you' to Sameer. Instantly Sameer's rivals show up and tell her the 'truth'. Trip ends with Sameer winning the bet but losing Naina.

text: After returning to Ahmedabad from Mount Abu Munna-Pandit discovers that Sameer has also fallen for Naina, but not accepting. Sameer try to apologise Naina but after many failed attempts, he realises that he too is in love. Once Arjun gets to know about Naina and Sameer. In a scuffle with Sameer, Arjun injures his leg. The blame come on Sameer as Arjun can't play his selection match. Naina's father (Rakesh Sir) wants Sameer to be rusticated but Sameer's nanaji (school's trustee) saves him. Knowing that Sameer loves Naina, nanaji gives him a punishment that Sameer will regularly visit Arjun's house and serve him till he is completely cured. On the home front, preparations of Pooja didi's wedding starts. As per punishment, Sameer along with Munna-Pandit enters Naina's house to serve Arjun. He constantly tries to seek an apology from Naina but she ignores him. Once he presumes Preeti as Naina and confess his love. Hearing the confession Preeti gets shocked but surprisingly she gives her nod to Sameer and accepts him as her 'jijaji'. Now Sameer has the support of Preeti (Naina's cousin) & Swati (Naina's best friend). Meanwhile pre-wedding rituals starts and so the arrival of guests. Sameer keeps on convincing Naina. In between Arjun gets cured due to Sameer's care. This gesture of Sameer wins Naina's heart. She forgives Sameer realising that he is a changed person now. The wedding gets over making Naina and Sameer friends again. Later Sameer helps Arjun in winning the match. Sameer and Naina confesses their love and embrace each other beautifully.

text: It's 1991, the buzz for the farewell party for senior batch starts. Sameer's nanaji give a saree of his late beloved wife to Sameer, as his blessing for Naina. Sameer meet Naina at Shefali's Hema Sood house and gift her that saree asking her to wear it in farewell. Naina tells him that after farewell she would go to her village for few days. Farewell day comes. Naina waits for Sameer but he never comes because his nanaji passes away the same day. Unaware of the tragic incident Naina leaves for village. Here, Sameer falls into depression and is taken to Delhi by his mother. When Naina returns she get to know about the incident. Feeling shattered she visits Sameer's house and is shocked to hear that he has moved to Delhi. With the help of Munna-Pandit, Naina and Sameer finally speak to each other over the phone. On the other hand, Sameer keeps on getting frustrated in his mother's house as his step grandmother Mrs. Somani Kittu Gidwani keep on instigating family members against him. During a phone conversation, Naina asks Sameer to remain clam. They promise each other that they will become each other's strength and will write letters. After some time, Sameer get caught in bad company and become a victim of bad habits. Naina realizes that Sameer is in trouble. She plans to send Munna-Pandit to Delhi. Munna-Pandit shows him the right path and spend some memorable time together. Slowly Sameer's relation with his mother, his younger step brother Rohan Rohit Chandel and his younger step sister Deepika Ridhima Taneja starts improving. However later on Sameer's mother fell ill and his step grandmother brainwashes him that he is unlucky for everyone he loves. Because of the death of his father at a young age and his nanaji, he too presume it and decides to leave Naina for her well being. Few months later noticing the rash behaviour of her mother-in-law towards Sameer and Sameer's growing lack of confidence, his mother decides to send him back to Ahmedabad. She asks his cousin brother Kamlesh Maheshwari Rajendra Chawla to live with Sameer and take care of him.

text: It's 1992, Sameer comes to Ahmedabad, where he is greeted generously by Kamlesh mama, Prabha mami Vaishali Nazareth, their son Devang Atul Verma and his wife Poonam Subuhi Joshi. It is last day of school too, so everybody is emotional in school and celebrate memories. Remembering the words of his step grand mother, Sameer tries his best to hide from Naina and Munna-Pandit. One day Naina's and Sameer's paths meet each other coincidentally in the rush of the market. Later when Munna-Pandit also discovers Sameer in Ahmedabad, they confront him. Sameer tells them about his ill-fate and takes a promise from them that they'll not tell anything to Naina until she is done taking admission in a college. After few months admission process gets completed and all the school friends (Munna, Pandit, Sameer, Swati, Preeti, Kamya Malina Kumra and Hema Hema Sai) end up taking admission in the same college i.e. VJN except Naina, as her chachaji wants her to study in PMU. But, due to her father's stubborn nature and other events, Naina is left with no option than to take admission in VJN. On first day of college all the friends get surprised to see Naina joining them. Naina tries hard to talk to Sameer but he ignores her. They go through a nasty fight. However later Sameer realizes his mistake and apologises. There love blossoms again. Later the group decides to participate in Mr. & Miss Fresher competition and prepare for a dance performance. But their rival group (who are also their batchmates), which includes Karthik Hitesh Sharma, Sunaina Parikh Nishi Singh, Mitali Charu Trikha and Priyank Vaibhav Srivastava steal their idea and perform on their songs. As a result, they are left with no option than to perform on a new song. After the performance Sameer wins the title of Mr. Fresher but the title of Miss. Fresher, goes to Suniana instead of Naina. Meanwhile, Arjun and Shefali's love blossoms. The Story moves forward and Naina & Sameer enjoy their first bike ride together. Afterwards all the friends enjoy the salon day. Later Munna and Swati go through a fight and to resolve things among them, Naina plans a get together at her house where all the friends spend quality time together. Munna and Swati confess their love for each other. Later, Naina-Sameer and Munna-Swati watch a movie together. All the friends enjoy their first year of college. Finally exam time comes. After exams Sameer celebrates Naina's birthday and take her to a picnic spot, on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. Here both of them spend some memorable time, but when Naina returns home she observes a chaos there as all the family members were accusing Arjun and Shefali for running away to marry. Shefali tell everyone that they love each other but Arjun denies. Therefore, Arjun and Shefali's relationship come to end. Shefali leaves the town and Arjun was sent to Jaipur. Fearing her family's wrath and knowing that she'll too break from the family pressure, Naina breaks up with Sameer. Sameer and Munna-Pandit make plans to convince Naina but all their plans fails miserably. Naina's taiji forces her to get married and finds a prospective bridegroom, a to-be C.A, Sharad, who is short tempered guy. Naina unwillingly agrees to get marry. Whereas Sameer chooses an unfamiliar path of meditation.

text: It's second year of college (1993). After holidays when college opens, Naina and Sameer see each other after a month of separation. Sameer, after hearing that Naina is getting married to someone else, proposes Sunaina. He uses every opportunity to make Naina jealous because he still loves Naina. Whereas Preeti constantly motivates Naina to take a stand for herself, which Naina was not able to. On the other hand Naina's prospective in-laws including Sharad are very narrow minded. They want Naina to sacrifice her dreams after marriage. Naina's chacha and chachi doesn't approve this marriage proposal but are helpless as Naina's father is okay with it. However after much drama Naina breaks her alliance with the help of her chachaji. Also she and Sameer tell the truth to Anand Chacha that they love each other. Her chachaji happily approves their relation, even though it meant going against the family. Naina and Sameer rejoice. Feeling insulted, Sunaina plans a revenge on Sameer and Naina. She contests for General Secretary election in college. On the other hand Sameer and the group want Naina to fight against Sunaina. This upsets Swati as she also wanted to contest the election. Sunaina takes advantage of this and brainwashes Swati against her friends. One after the other incidents happen and Swati feels more and more sidelined by other group members and joins hands with Sunaina. The Voting day comes. Naina chooses Swati and Sunaina, Kartik as their vote counting vigilantes. When the results come, Naina loses the election but Sameer claims that there had been a mishap with the votes. Principal Ma'am Guddi Maruti gives him time to prove. Naina discovers the missing votes in Swati's bag. Swati accepts this and says that everyone in their group was favouring Naina, even Munna, her boyfriend. The group finds out about Swati's betrayal. The missing votes were produced before Principal and Naina was declared winner.  Munna refuses to forgive Swati and breaks up with her. It’s Naina first day as the G.S in college, all goes well but Swati is a bit sad. There is still resentment deep seated in her heart. Sunaina wants Naina to fulfil her election promises but plans to not let them happen to insult Naina.

text: Theme song[edit]

text: The opening theme of the show Yeh Un Dinon Ki Baat Hai is composed by Anu Malik. The lyrics are written by Sanjay Chhel and it comprises the voices of legendary singers Kumar Sanu and Sadhana Sargam.The song is quite popular on YouTube and has been praised for its melodious lyrics which refreshes the happenings in 1990's.[9][10]

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Ashi Singh as Naina Agarwal
Randeep Rai as Sameer Maheshwari
Somendra Solanki / Vivaan Singh Rajput as Arjun Agarwal (Naina's elder brother / Shefali’s love interest / Juhi’s love interest)
Hema Sood as Shefali Victor (Naina and Arjun's neighbour / Arjun's love interest / Naina’s pen-friend)
Nidhi Bhavsar as Juhi (Taiji's niece / Arjun's love interest)
Sanjay Choudhary as Manoj aka Munna (Sameer and Pandit's best friend/Swati's love interest/Sameer’s cousin)
Raghav Dhir as Pandit (Sameer and Munna's best friend)
Kristina Patel as Swati (Naina's classmate/best friend/Munna's love interest)
Malina Kumra as Kamya (Naina's classmate and friend)
Hema Sai as Hema (Naina's classmate and friend)
Ayesha Kaduskar as Preeti Agarwal (Naina and Arjun's cousin/Pooja's sister)
Sachin Khurana as Anand Agarwal (Naina, Arjun and Pralay's uncle / Preeti & Pooja's father)
Madhusree Sharma as Bela Agarwal (Naina, Arjun and Pralay's aunt / Preeti & Pooja's mother)
Shweta Rajput as Pooja Agarwal (Preeti's elder sister/Naina's cousin)
Love Joshi as Varun Mittal (Pooja’s husband)
Chandresh Singh as Rakesh Agarwal (Naina and Arjun’s Father/librarian of school)
Abha Parmar as Beena Agarwal (Naina, Preeti, Pooja & Arjun's Taiji / Pralay's mother)
Sanjay Batra as Jagdish Agarwal (Naina,Preeti,Pooja & Arjun's Tauji / Pralay's father)
Aditya as Pralay Agarwal (Jagdish and Beena's son)
Vaishnavi Mahant as Vishakha Somani (Sameer's, Rohan's & Deepika's Mother)
Kiran Kumar as Jaiprakash Maheshwari (Sameer's maternal grandfather)(dead)
Rishina Kandhari as Shanti ma'am (Maths Teacher, Pragati Vidya ka Mandir school)
Ahsaan Qureshi as Pandey sir (Principal of Pragati Vidya ka Mandir school)
Rushad Rana as Lochan Sir (English and Drama Teacher, Pragati Vidya ka Mandir school)
Rakesh Kukreti as Awasthi Sir (Science Teacher, Pragati Vidya ka Mandir school)
Sandeep Rajora as Vivek Somani (Rohan's and Deepika's Father and Sameer's step-father)
Rohit Chandel as Rohan Somani (Sameer's younger step-brother)
Ridhima Taneja as Deepika Somani (Sameer's younger half sister)
Kittu Gidwani as Grandmother of Rohan and Deepika and step-grandmother of Sameer
Simran Lulla as Amrita (Sameer's friend and neighbour in Delhi)
Hitesh Sharma as Kartik (Sameer's rival in college)
Nishi Singh as Sunaina (Naina's rival in college)
Charu Trikha as Mitali (Kartik's friend)
Vaibhav Shrivastav as Priyank (Kartik's friend)
Jayshree T. as Phulla Bua
Guddi Maruti as Principal of VJN College
Vishnu Sharrma as Jayesh Bhoumik Raval aka JBR (Accounts Professor, VJN College)
Rajendra Chawla as Kamlesh Maheshwari (Sameer's mamaji)
Vaishali Nazareth as Prabha Maheshwari (Sameer's mamiji)
Atul Verma as Devang Maheshwari (Sameer's cousin/ Son of Sameer's mamaji)
Subuhi Joshi as Poonam Maheshwari ( Daughter in law of Sameer's mamaji/ Wife of Devang)
Sadiya Siddiqui as Naina's voiceover
Jiten Lalwani as Sameer's voiceover

text: Reception[edit]

text: The show has received excellent reviews and is considered to be doing very well. It was particularly hailed for a fresh outlook and for bringing out the nostalgia and the flavours of the 90s well.[11] It topped Sony TV shows by gaining a TRP of 1.1 its first week.[7][12]

text: The Times of India hailed it as one of the best TV shows launched in 2017 and praised the performances of newcomers Ashi Singh and Randeep Rai.[8]

text: UK's weekly Asian newspaper Eastern Eye praised the creative team of the show for leaving no stone unturned to recreate the city of Ahmedabad from an earlier era and called it a tribute to the city.[13]

text: This show has also earned compliments from various television as well as film actors.[14]

text: For the Gold Awards 2018, Ashi Singh was nominated for 'Best Debut in a Leading Role' in Female category.[15]