NwaAmaikpe:



His ugly look is enough harassment abeg.

epic as usual.

muzeze77:
Fine gals no Dey study animal science and dem no Dey attend school wey Dey gombe , the only type of women wey Dey study for Gombe na d one wey Dey dress like masquerade, cover from head to toe

Gombe women are very fine, especially the Christians. Trust me, I interact with some of them

CanadaOrBust:
Animal science? Wonder if there is human science.

On serious note...
I dedicate this FTC to all lecturers who diligently do their jobs with no thought of sex or gender whatsoever, who award grades based on MERIT alone and nothing else

I rep Dr. Okidu, formerly of Mass comm. department, Kwara State University. That man is a diligent lecturer like you called it

I respect your courage and discipline.

Maraokere:


Exactly..but is he indirectly seeking for the award?

Wa du me

lakezone67:



I rep Dr. Okidu, formerly of Mass comm. department, Kwara State University. That man is a diligent lecturer like you called it

I’m hereby doing a challenge on his behalf. Has anybody ever been harassed in any way by aforementioned Dr. Okidu? Please speak up

BluntBoy:


Stop making assumptions like an illiterate.

making it seem is not the same as it is

No one even said lecturers ask for sex for grades, but that sexual harassment is rampant in our higher institutions.

No one has accused all lecturers of sexual harassment. You can't make a case for innocence when no charge has been made against you.

Promiscuity has been passed around to be common among doctors, nurses, pilots, hairdressers, etc. Except you are responding to an allegation during an interview on TV, radio, or during an informal conversation, there is no need to make challenges when no one has accused you or thrown it at you.

That was why I brought in the case of his wife. Perhaps, someone has accused him and he has decided to prove his innocence.

Look at this guy with his legalistic technicalities. Once again, u sure u r ok?
I’d simply repost what I posted:

Do u know the meaning of the word TRENDING?? If it were to start TRENDING in National media that Nairalanders post tribalist comments, it would be most natural for u to say you’ve never posted a tribalist comment and challenge anyone to prove otherwise. That’s just normal human behavior and if u have issue with that, the jaundice is with YOU!
And the most likely reason would be that YOU ARE GUILTY of posting tribalist comments

Why making it public??
Guilty conscience..,........

JIDECAC:
Lecturers from all universities in Nigeria should join this challenge.

Kai, you wan kee dem?
Most of dem are rotten.

This is very special lecturer

Dude should be careful what he wishes for...with technology these days him might just see himself in a movie he never acted in....

ursullalinda:
I like his boldness

Like Nwaamaikpe said, the guy is ugly. No lady would come close to him, so he won't even think of ladies.

CanadaOrBust:


Look at this guy with his legalistic technicalities. Once again, u sure u r ok?
I’d simply repost what I posted:

Do u know the meaning of the word TRENDING?? If it were to start TRENDING in National media that Nairalanders post tribalist comments, it would be most natural for u to say you’ve never posted a tribalist comment and challenge anyone to prove otherwise. That’s just normal human behavior and if u have issue with that, the jaundice is with YOU!
And the most likely reason would be that YOU ARE GUILTY of posting tribalist comments

I never wrote that he should not challenge anyone.

I wrote that it was unnecessary and childish

Might I ask you a question?

What would his challenge achieve? If no one comes out at the end of the day, is that a proof of his discipline?

How many accusers come out openly to accuse their molesters, especially if the molester held a position of authority over them?

It is safe to say that no one would come out at the end of the day because it hardly happens. So, what good would the challenge achieve? If not for BBC and Kiki, the likes of Boniface would be bold to make this same challenge because they know accusers hardly come out. The accusers who spoke to the BBC crew did not openly accuse the lecturers. Even in the documentary, their faces were blurred to protect their identity.

And should anyone come out, even with damning evidences, this lecturer could claim the evidences to be nothing but fabrications.

The challenge was unnecessary because victims hardly come out publicly to accuse their molesters.

Just like ur ugly name

NwaAmaikpe:




His ugly look is enough harassment abeg.

BluntBoy:


I never wrote that he should not challenge anyone.

I wrote that it was unnecessary and childish

Might I ask you a question?

What would his challenge achieve? If no one comes out at the end of the day, is that a proof of his discipline?

How many accusers come out openly to accuse their molesters, especially if the molester held a position of authority over them?

It is safe to say that no one would come out at the end of the day because it hardly happens. So, what good would the challenge achieve? If not for BBC and Kiki, the likes of Boniface would be bold to make this same challenge because they know accusers hardly come out. The accusers who spoke to the BBC crew did not openly accuse the lecturers. Even in the documentary, their faces were blurred to protect their identity.

And should anyone come out, even with damning evidences, this lecturer could claim the evidences to be nothing but fabrications.

The challenge was unnecessary because victims hardly come out publicly to accuse their molesters.

U should really seriously consider a career in Law. You have a naturally legalistic mind (though in a childish sort of way).
“Unnecessary” and “childish” are subjective terms (in this context). It depends on your particular bias. Important thing is that it is normal human reaction. And most people agree with the lecturer - see number of likes below. The person even has more likes than me who is the FTC

CanadaOrBust:


U should really seriously consider a career in Law. You have a naturally legalistic mind (though in a childish sort of way).
“Unnecessary” and “childish” are subjective terms (in this context). It depends on your particular bias. Important thing is that it is normal human reaction. And most people agree with the lecturer - see number of likes below. The person even has more likes than me who is the FTC

This is the most shallow post I have ever read.

So, because many people liked and shared the post, it means something positive?

Have you factored in the possibility that intellectually deficient people liked the post, or that it was three or four persons with multiple accounts who liked the post? Or that the lecturer had sympathizers here who did so purely out of sentiment, and not necessarily because they agree?

There is an Nwaimapke (or whatever) guy on this forum, who gets a lot of likes even for very insensitive post. Does popular demand equate with sense?

Then you pointed out that unnecessary and childish were relative even though I explained why the challenge was unnecessary. I hate people who don't read. I wonder why you are arguing if you never read my post in totality. Or, perhaps, you are not very smart. If you think unnecessary and childish are subjective as far as this matter is concerned, then tell me why the challenge is necessary? That is how you argue. But no, many of you come here and write a load of rubbish without bothering for substance.

Again, you wrote of legalistic mind, and then mention this mind as childish. It would be understandable if you wrote argumentative, though. Legalistic is learnt, my friend. Argumentative is basic and can be sublimated to a "legalistic mind". Go back to school.

Moreover, you were talking about unnecessary and childish being subjective. It is unfortunate that you would yourself use the word "childish" so loosely. I explained why the challenge unnecessary, but you, all you have done, is use words anyhow in a bid to sound smart.

Read this very post of mine very well, and the immediate one, and refute them. Enough of hiding behind "legalistic" and other words that do not strengthen the argument.

BluntBoy:


This is the most shallow post I have ever read.

So, because many people liked and shared the post, it means something positive?

Have you factored in the possibility that intellectually deficient people liked the post, or that it was three or four persons with multiple accounts who liked the post? Or that the lecturer had sympathizers here who did so purely out of sentiment, and not necessarily because they agree?

There is an Nwaimapke (or whatever) guy on this forum, who gets a lot of likes even for very insensitive post. Does popular demand equate with sense?

Then you pointed out that unnecessary and childish were relative even though I explained why the challenge was unnecessary. I hate people who don't read. I wonder why you are arguing if you never read my post in totality. Or, perhaps, you are not very smart. If you think unnecessary and childish are subjective as far as this matter is concerned, then tell me why the challenge is necessary? That is how you argue. But no, many of you come here and write a load of rubbish without bothering for substance.

Again, you wrote of legalistic mind, and then mention this mind as childish. It would be understandable if you wrote argumentative, though. Legalistic is learnt, my friend. Argumentative is basic and can be sublimated to a "legalistic mind". Go back to school.

Moreover, you were talking about unnecessary and childish being subjective. It is unfortunate that you would yourself use the word "childish" so loosely. I explained why the challenge unnecessary, but you, all you have done, is use words anyhow in a bid to sound smart.

Read this very post of mine very well, and the immediate one, and refute them. Enough of hiding behind "legalistic" and other words that do not strengthen the argument.

So u want argument and refutation. Ok, I’d refute your points one by one without ad hominem personal attacks. Please try to accord me same respect.

1) UNNECESSARY and CHILDISH are subjective terms in this context. The challenge can appear such to YOU but appear quite necessary and wise to me (that’s the meaning of subjective)

2) In a forum like this the ONLY way we have to determine the popularity of an opinion is by the number of likes it receives. We have no other way. Plus it does truly work in determining POPULARITY of a comment on NL (points u mentioned not withstanding)

3) Since no single person has a monopoly on wisdom we can only decide subjectives through consensus of opinion - whichever view gets more votes (likes) carries the day. If there are 299 likes that the challenge is courageous but only 19 votes that it is childish, NL has informally adopted the view that the challenge is courageous and not childish which happens to be my view.

What that means is that u have lost that battle and should direct your energies to something else. As they say, better luck next time

CanadaOrBust:


So u want argument and refutation. Ok, I’d refute your points one by one without ad hominem personal attacks. Please try to accord me same respect.

1) UNNECESSARY and CHILDISH are subjective terms in this context. The challenge can appear such to YOU but appear quite necessary and wise to me (that’s the meaning of subjective)

2) In a forum like this the ONLY way we have to determine the popularity of an opinion is by the number of likes it receives. We have no other way. Plus it does truly work in determining POPULARITY of a comment on NL (points u mentioned not withstanding)

3) Since no single person has a monopoly on wisdom we can only decide subjectives through consensus of opinion - whichever view gets more votes (likes) carries the day. If there are 299 likes that the challenge is courageous but only 19 votes that it is childish, NL has informally adopted the view that the challenge is courageous and not childish which happens to be my view.

What that means is that u have lost that battle and should direct your energies to something else. As they say, better luck next time

You have not answered my question.

Why is the challenge necessary? If no one comes forward, would that be an evidence of his innocence?

BluntBoy:


You have not answered my question.

Why is the challenge necessary? If no one comes forward, would that be an evidence of his innocence?

Answer to your first question:
It is necessary to dissociate himself from “Nigerian lecturers are sex-for-grade”
Answer to your second question:
I think so and so do most people commenting on this thread (See my previous screenshot)