Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,570 members, 7,958,763 topics. Date: Wednesday, 25 September 2024 at 10:57 PM |
Nairaland Forum / MissWrite's Profile / MissWrite's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 30 pages)
Literature / Re: Ignatius' Test by MissWrite(f): 3:22pm On Apr 06, 2020 |
1 Like |
Literature / Re: Ignatius' Test by MissWrite(f): 10:30am On Apr 06, 2020 |
1 Like |
Literature / Re: Warm, Clear, And Sunny by MissWrite(f): 7:36pm On Apr 05, 2020 |
HannahHitler: Very true. Thanks for reading and commenting 3 Likes |
Literature / Re: Ignatius' Test by MissWrite(f): 7:52am On Apr 04, 2020 |
patpeypey: ......Thanks! |
Literature / Re: Ignatius' Test by MissWrite(f): 7:51am On Apr 04, 2020 |
HannahHitler: Thank you, Hannah. This means a lot 3 Likes |
Romance / Re: True Or Dare switching 18+ by MissWrite(f): 7:29am On Mar 31, 2020 |
kay9: ......Tell me about the last time you thoroughly embarrassed yourself. What went down? T |
Literature / Re: One-night Stand by MissWrite(f): 9:01am On Mar 24, 2020 |
Ladyhippolyta88: Thanks so much, Sweetheart 2 Likes |
Literature / Re: One-night Stand by MissWrite(f): 7:06am On Mar 24, 2020 |
FengChui: Wow. Thank you so much! |
Romance / Re: I Was A Lesbian But Now I'm Straight. Will I Find A Man? by MissWrite(f): 5:26am On Dec 13, 2019 |
uboma: Okay. Let's go by what you say and assume gay people are gay through external influences. What influenced the very first gay person? |
Romance / Re: I Was A Lesbian But Now I'm Straight. Will I Find A Man? by MissWrite(f): 5:48pm On Dec 12, 2019 |
uboma: Are people born with "straight tendencies" though? I guess my question to you is this: do you think sexuality is defined by nature or nurture? There has to be some consistency to your thinking. If you think homosexuality can be "picked up" from peers, then we may also have picked up heterosexuality from our parents or other influencers. 1 Like |
Romance / Re: My Poor Communication Ability Is Killing My Relationship With Girls by MissWrite(f): 7:03am On Dec 08, 2019 |
Introversion alone doesn't make it hard for a person to hold a conversation with another. In fact, introverted people usually have a lot to say, and are able to empathize better than extroverted people. However, introverts are more prone to social anxiety, and that may be the problem you're dealing with. I heard it put this way: introversion is your way. Social anxiety is in your way. Understand what it means to be introverted and realize that it is not a deficiency. It just means that you are energised by spending time alone while being in the midst of many people may drain your energy. Extroverted people are the opposite. There's nothing wrong with either process. Social anxiety, on the other hand, is a demon that you need to slay. With your girl, I suggest you don't get hung up on the fact that you need to call her. There are many ways to communicate with a person, and you need to identify what your best way is. Most introverts like to text. Because you can control the conversation better. Reaction doesn't have to be immediate, so you don't feel put on the spot. Therefore, you feel less anxious. But your SO still gets a feel that you're not indifferent to them. As you get comfortable sharing your thoughts through texting, then voice notes.......conversation becomes easier too. If, however, you realize that you have nothing to communicate at all, introversion or even social anxiety may not be your problem. Maybe you're just schizoid. As per, socially indifferent. Whatever it is, get to the bottom of it. All the best. 3 Likes |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 9:38am On Dec 02, 2019 |
Logobenz: I'm easy to please. You already started very well with the initiative. I'm smiling right now, so thank you. It's definitely the little things. Thoughtful gestures. There's so much class in simplicity. |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 9:07am On Dec 02, 2019 |
Logobenz: Awwwwwwwn......I love gifts! How can I ever say no to that? You are too kind. Lol! You WILL hear from me again. 1 Like |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 8:55am On Dec 02, 2019 |
Logobenz: That actually warms my heart... Thank you for saying that. Have a great week |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 2:36am On Dec 02, 2019 |
Logobenz: Awww...nice. I like lefties. Do I read this right: you missed me? Well, I'm sure I missed you too . Do you have an alt? |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 2:17am On Dec 02, 2019 |
chukzyfcbb: That's exactly what happened. 1 Like |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 12:16am On Dec 02, 2019 |
Logobenz: No, I'm not. Are you? |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 12:13am On Dec 02, 2019 |
Logobenz: Lol. Very |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 10:40pm On Dec 01, 2019 |
Beeron: I never do that though. And it's been a decade. But thank you. 2 Likes |
Fashion / Re: Ladies, Can You Drive In Heels? by MissWrite(f): 10:29pm On Dec 01, 2019 |
Yes, I can. I can in any kind of footwear. But then, I drive weird - auto with two legs. My left foot is always hovering over the brakes, which betters my reaction time. So I don't necessarily crave maximum comfort. 7 Likes 2 Shares |
Music/Radio / Re: What Music Are You Listening To Right Now? by MissWrite(f): 7:51pm On Oct 16, 2019 |
1 Like |
Romance / Re: Nairalander Lets Know The Wisest Moniker To You. by MissWrite(f): 8:12am On Oct 04, 2019 |
Guest007: Aww....you're so sweet, dimps.. 2 Likes |
Family / Re: Unmarried, Childless Women Are Happiest People Of All, Says Expert by MissWrite(f): 1:42pm On Sep 29, 2019 |
bigfrancis21: Big Francis, i think you've built yourself a strawman here. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that women, in general, aren't aspiring to be married anymore. I am saying that some people want to be married and some people do not. It's not just women, for that matter, but people in general. And people would be happiest when they do what they want to do. The thing which is in their specific nature to do. If you are a person who wants to be married, it would make sense that nothing you do (career or other) would fulfill your craving for starting a family. There can be no substitute.These are the people in the videos you've uploaded - people looking for spouses and kids. You know what you won't be able to show though? All the videos that were NOT made. A person who doesn't want to be married will not be looking for a potential wife/husband. And therefore, there won't be a video of "how not to achieve what you don't want to achieve." The people you refer to are people who want career and family, have prioritized them as they saw fit, and are navigating through the consequences of their decisions. You cite feminism as a factor in landing a woman in this position, where she finds it more difficult to find a mate. That's certainly a discussion worth having. But it's a different discussion, not this one. Feminism is much less (if at all) a factor in deciding whether a woman (person) wants to be married or not. I believe that's more a question of a person's nature or psychological constitution. For instance, my decision stems from the fact that i thrive in solitude. I am reclusive, introverted, and I abhor commitment. And I am not narcissistic enough to replicate myself in the form of a child. I can't instill self-esteem in a child. This is my unique perspective on this thing. A family would cause me so much stress that I might be tempted to kill myself. In order to preserve my life, I do not engage in these kinds of relationships. Now, I consider myself to be a very extreme case, but there are people who also do not find as much value in marriage and kids as others do for a variety of reasons. And each of them is as valid as the next. Where feminism may have a whisper of a say here, is in the fact that my financial freedom allows me do what I want to do without compromise. But it definitely did not make me this way. 5 Likes 1 Share |
Family / Re: Unmarried, Childless Women Are Happiest People Of All, Says Expert by MissWrite(f): 12:58pm On Sep 28, 2019 |
Breaststroke: Aww, shucks.....Thank you! |
Family / Re: Unmarried, Childless Women Are Happiest People Of All, Says Expert by MissWrite(f): 12:50pm On Sep 28, 2019 |
Guest007: ....hey, lovely! |
Family / Re: Unmarried, Childless Women Are Happiest People Of All, Says Expert by MissWrite(f): 9:39am On Sep 28, 2019 |
Values are and should always be personal for a person to reap any kind of benefit. Society cannot value something for an individual, it can only value something for itself. A society might value marriage because it helps increase its population while providing structure for its growing members. But it doesn't mean every individual would find satisfaction in being drafted to this cause. Some will, others won't. People who want to be married, but aren't, would be less happy than they could be after their goals are met. People who don't want to be married, but somehow found themselves hitched, would be less happy than they would have been without the commitment. None of these people would necessarily be miserable, depending on how big of a deal marriage is to the individual. A person's happiness depends on so many factors. Therefore, a comparison of the happiness of married and unmarried people across the board cannot be used to judge which marital status is more beneficial to people in general. In the end, it comes down to the individual. What would make YOU happy or happIER? We are not in a race, competing for who is happiest. We are just trying to serve ourselves the best way we can. And the fact that single people might occasionally admire a cute family; or that married people occasionally envy the freedom of single people doesn't necessarily mean they chose wrongly. Because afterwards, they realise that they wouldn't have had the lasting desire to make the scenario work for themselves. Let's just be who we are, and do our heart's conviction. It's the only way to be happy. 15 Likes 3 Shares |
Religion / Re: Who Created God? by MissWrite(f): 1:54am On Sep 27, 2019 |
shadeyinka: The second law of thermodynamics – increase or constancy in entropy – doesn’t negate the possibility of infinite regression at all, actually. You referred to the Heat Death of the universe or Big Freeze – the point at which all usable energy has been turned into unusable energy. When entropy is maximum, and there is no heat gradient anymore to achieve work. The universe would become an eternally expanding, cooling entity of ‘nothingness’. This may sound paradoxical, but in physics ‘nothing’ refers to the absence of everything but quantum fluctuations. The conjecture on the universe’s fate does not end with heat death; there is also the prediction that heat death would be followed by either The Big Rip or Vacuum Decay, eventually kick-starting a new universe from the quantum fluctuations left behind, which possess a non-zero probability of becoming ‘something’ (the exact occurrence which is now assumed to have preceded the Big Bang). The occurrence of The Big Rip would depend on the behaviour of dark energy – an entity that has been discovered to be the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe, usurping the influence of the amount of matter+energy (normal stuff) in deciding how quickly we approach heat death, and thereby preventing the likelihood of contraction and implosion (the Big crunch) where the quantity of ‘normal stuff’ might have exceeded the critical threshold in order to stop expansion. The occurrence of vacuum decay would depend on whether we currently find ourselves in a false or true stable state, that is, if the possibility of quantum tunnelling would arise. All this means is that, in spite of that attainment of thermal equilibrium, things still happen. Our kind of life and civilization would be over long before the death of the last star when the universe is plunged into darkness, but there still is the possibility that other life forms would be supported throughout the years leading up to heat death. After that the universe would be cold and lifeless until it repeats itself. This conjecture is supported by Poincare’s Recurrence Theorem and the presence of quantum fluctuations in the absence of ‘something’. Therefore, the fact that things can never stop existing supports the possibility of infinite regression. I think you should rephrase by saying Well yes, before the Big Bang there was nothing. Nothing means quantum fluctuations with a non-zero probability of becoming something. That, in essence, isn’t ‘nothing’. Because there was never ‘nothing’. There is an infinite number of ways stuff can be arranged. This arrangement is called a ‘microstate.’ The human being is a microstate of ‘stuff.’ And that specific arrangement has a non-zero probability of occurring, therefore, it has occurred. But relatively, some microstates are way more likely to exist than others. The possible microstates of ‘Something’ are infinite, but there is only one way for ‘nothing’ to exist. It is therefore more probable to have something rather than nothing, and thus, the state of ‘nothingness’ is highly unstable. It will eventually produce something. Please note that we are talking about quantum fluctuations and not literally nothing, which is an ‘impossibility’. Just by trying to define nothing, you would be acknowledging that there was, in fact, something to define. We don’t have to ‘witness’ things to make conjecture. What we base our conclusions upon is the evidence of things, just like the afterglow (still visible today) hints at the occurrence of the Big Bang. The rest is inductive reasoning: we have more reason to believe that things that happen have happened before and will happen again, than believing in things which have never been evidenced. The task here is not to prove things conclusively (which is logically impossible), it is simply to show that infinite regression is logically possible. And that is done by showing that it is not logically impossible. We have, after all, witnessed the emergence of one universe already. Infinite regress might be frustrating because it appears to ‘beg the question’ (for every effect I would raise you a cause) but then, the occurrence is, in fact, likely. First, I have proved that an infinite regression is impossible. The theory of "Multiverse" must terminate at a point. There is no saying how many universes may exist in the multiverse, but the key is that the universes are only casually linked in the multiverse, and the fate of one universe seems to have no bearing on the other universes of the multiverse. Universes are clusters – the closed system. The ‘thing’ that preceded the big bang that created our universe was the ‘nothingness’ left behind by the destruction of its predecessor – quantum fluctuations. As earlier said, given long enough, these quantum fluctuations will explore all possible microstates simply because there is a propensity to do so. The probability to become matter is not zero. All this stuff about attaching probability as a quality to existence, making a dent on the validity of deterministic causation (especially at the subatomic level), was started by Bohr and Heisenberg. It might feel like science is shifting the goal post in claiming the entity of ‘nothingness’. But there it is. That is the recent argument. I think if you define CONSCIOUSNESS as SELF AWARENESS or SELF IDENTITY would simplify the issue considerably. If you define consciousness as self-awareness or self-identity, then we can conclude that anything which acts in its own interest is self-aware. This means that a plant which acts in a way to maximize its food supply is self-aware. You call it irritability – response to stimuli, but every action is a response to a stimulus. The point is: what is the purpose of that action? If the action is in interest of ‘self’ then there must be awareness of ‘self.’ Even though I disagree with your definition of consciousness in general, I strongly disagree that sentience is a deciding factor of consciousness. I believe you are now using the word interchangeably with the term ‘awake’, which is a popular usage but it doesn’t make consciousness nearly as interesting as it actually is, because it does not account for the ego-component. In your case, consciousness is easily reduced to the interaction between sensory neurons and the brain, which is all a manifestation of the interactions between physical matter. Response to stimuli. Irritability. And you said yourself – the distinction between consciousness and irritability must be made. And that’s why, in my previous post, I set aside the uninteresting component of consciousness – the thinking and feeling ‘self’, which are simply interactions between neurons, corresponding to response to stimuli at the cellular level – and extricated the part that I called the ‘being.’ Which still is a component of all matter, but it also is a unique perspective from which the universe observes itself. The concept of free-will is a fallacy. You do things for two reasons, one – because you want to; two – because you are compelled to. And because you cannot will yourself to want anything, you have no control over your wants. If you have no control over your wants, then you do not have free-will. When I referred to ‘awareness’ of a wall by the wall, I am not referring to ‘knowledge.’ I am simply referring to the interaction between different configurations of matter, and their respect for density. The fact that a ball does not pass through a wall shows that matter has ‘acknowledged’ or registered a barrier. Awareness is necessary for the interaction of things. Or we can say, the interaction of things demonstrates awareness. There is only an unawareness of things that don’t exist. Artificial Intelligence is First a Code and Sets of Data trained within some constraints to make human like choices. The fact that "artificial intelligence" look intelligent is simply because intelligent people coded it to act in manners similar to how intelligent humans would jave acted. This very well support my case. Artificial Intelligence demonstrates how thought and emotions are a macro aggregation of binary questions. It is basically all a response to stimuli. “If this happens, then react this way.” It’s interaction between physical things. All things react in specific ways in the presence of another thing, down to one molecule of oxygen combining with two molecules of hydrogen to form water. Not everything is aggregated to mimic thought and emotion as perceived in humans. Human beings have observed and understood the universe (or the Earth) enough to replicate and insert deterministic causation into an AI. Deterministic causation is not a wonder; it is simply the fundament of existence. But because two events cannot be isolated, in nature, to conclusively determine that one caused the other, we must accept that causation is practically probabilistic. With an AI, working inside out, determinism becomes more apparent as the way things really are. My frame of reference to chaos is the Big Bang. Some scientists have tried to evade the problem of the big bang being an "explosion" for it breaks the law of entropy. Order cannot come out of disorder. The new theory (modifying the BBT) has to do with a controlled expansion (rather than a bang). Unfortunately, this also produces the big flaw that every planet, star and galaxy were fully wholly subset of the gravitational singularity: this is impossible. In the interest of keeping it short: The Earth is not a closed system, therefore, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. The universe, however, is. Artificial intelligence is First a Code/Algorithm and Training Data. These are products of intelligent minds and not random movements of electrons. Iterations. Of course, man can create his own gods BUT this is not synonymous with man creating God as a response to his fears. The ultimate ‘being’ I believe in is not necessarily a ‘creator.’ It is simply the summation of all things, with an ego (analogous with the ego of a tree, a chair, a rat, a person) and the tendency to self-preserve. It won’t be a God, because a god is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all the other choice qualities. This being would just be ‘the objective truth.’ The objective morality that permits all things that can ever exist in order to sustain its own nature. As long as you can identify evil in the world, your morality is not supreme. And you are not the ultimate being. The ultimate being is not localized to any universe. It must comprise everything that exists through infinity. Why this commotion of statistical odds called earth? Because that is the nature of this ultimate being that encompasses all existence, and it is selfish. It serves only its own morality. And from that perspective, nothing is evil or random. 4 Likes |
Crime / Re: Onyekackukwu Chukwuebuke Igwilo Rapes Student Who Came To Watch Movie In Room by MissWrite(f): 10:49am On Sep 24, 2019 |
Larryfest: Business sense . If you wait for the investment to mature over a longer tenure, you might reap bigger returns (just saying ) - say the guy has transformed himself from pauper to senator. Don't knock it. The bottom line is: the crime was committed, and the man is beholden. He has only got himself to blame. He can hope for swift retribution, but it will only come when it will. You do bad, best believe you're owed one. I couldn't resist. Disclaimer: I don't support rape. Obviously. I don't think rape is funny. I don't think rape should be trivialized and compared to banking. I also don't think that the experiences of victims should be undermined simply because they did not respond to the rape as generally expected. That's what you seem to be doing. Clowning aside, here's what I really think. Women (and men) are well aware that the evidence diminishes the longer they wait to report an incident. However, in spite of all the advice you can give, the response to trauma differs from person to person. And then there is the fact that, because of our culture, many women (and men) internalize the situation. They feel shame or guilt (thinking that they are somehow to blame for what's happened to them). It takes a bit to get to that point where they can accept that they weren't a culprit in their own rape; it gets especially confusing when the rapist wasn't some random stranger, and there was some element of grooming involved. If it takes twenty years to get to that point where a report is made (and statutes of limitation allow), just know that those twenty years weren't easy years for this person. They are years during which this person has dealt with internal conflict resulting from the incident. Also, don't forget that the concept of reporting rape in Nigeria is only just gaining traction. Twenty years ago, the stigma around being raped was so crippling that people would rather not report it. Victim blaming and shaming was rife. And the culprits weren't held to account. Today, it's different. There's been a power shift. Today, victims are put on a pedestal. And while this too may be an imperfect system which can be abused, it serves to keep people on their toes. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Religion / Re: Who Created God? by MissWrite(f): 6:46am On Sep 24, 2019 |
shadeyinka: But infinite regression is logically possible. In fact, it seems a more likely conclusion to come to by inductive reasoning, considering the law of conservation. We have never witnessed anything resulting from nothing, therefore, we have no reason to believe that something can result from nothing, when it could be concluded that something has changed from one thing into another. The argument against infinite regression is that the universe can be dated, therefore, we have arrived at the beginning, and must insert the "uncaused cause" at this point. I'm arguing that the origin of the universe does not necessarily lead to the origin of existence and an uncaused cause. It, rather, could be a point of change; and it could be opening us up to an even larger cosmos than we realized. And I come to this conclusion based on the fact that, by everything we know, change is more likely than creation/destruction. The fact that a person can be dated, for example, doesn't negate the fact that there was an interaction between sperm and ovum prior to his "existence". Who's to say how large the cosmos really is. The Earth orbits the sun. Our solar system orbits the centre of the Milky Way. And We have no reason to believe that the Milky Way does not orbit the centre of something bigger. And on it goes. The path doesn't necessarily lead to an uncaused cause because the idea of infinity could be explained by imagining a non-liner entity, solely in terms of cause and effect. This idea would be supported by hard determinism, or at least a compatibilist notion, where every event (perceived as past and future) has been predetermined to exist; and that events may have plural determinants across the space-time fabric. The unpredictability observed at the subatomic level does not rule out that every event has a cause. It only shows that no cause could be identified. Not at the time; not with the available instruments. Until you can proof that Consciousness can be achieved by chemical reactions alone. What is consciousness? When non-materialists contemplated that the "Human soft-ware" must be proof of the existence of God, they implied thinking and feeling were both a part of this non-material substance. But thinking and feeling aren't so much a substance as they are a series of cause-effect reactions. As we have learned, prior to the creation of artificial intelligence, every event can ultimately be isolated and simplified into a response to a yes/no question. Binary. One stimulus triggers a specific response. On a macro-level, this would manifest as thought, feeling, free-will and action. Eckhart Tolle - the hippie new-age religionist - made me rethink the idea of consciousness. Or rather, presence (according to him). And maybe, awareness (according to me). He suggested that the unchangeable element about a person was his being - the fact that a person would always feel like himself, regardless of time. The notion of "I" or ego. I think that this might be an identical concept, irrespective of person, animal, or plant (maybe even inanimate objects). I feel every bit as me as you would feel as you. And the awareness of the self manifests itself in our tendency to self-preserve. Consider phototropism in plants, for instance; a plant in a dark room curves towards the light to enable itself make food through photosynthesis. This behaviour demonstrates that the plant is 'aware' of the sun. And in order for anything to be aware of a next thing, it must first be aware of itself. If a ball is thrown against a wall, the wall interrupts its projection. That's a reaction between two things 'aware' of each other, even if it is simply a reaction to mass and density. The point here is to separate the 'thinking-self' and 'feeling-self' (which are series of cause-effect reactions, and a quality, in varied proportions, of living things) from the being. The "I" or ego is an attribute of everything that exists. And it simply means that everything is its own centre - a unique point of view - its own source of morality. It is a quality that is inseparable from a thing. The formation of anything naturally results in the formation of its being. In the Freudian model of the human psyche/Soul, this entity would correspond to the Ego; where the id is biological component, and the Superego is the sociological component. Freud defined the Ego as the psychological component, of course, and claimed that the Ego was the decision-maker. He also claimed the Id was incapable of learning and holding memories, but we know that children can burn their fingers and become smarter through that experience which is remembered, therefore, Freud is not irrefutable. And I argue that the Ego is not a decision-maker but simply a witness to itself - the experiencer - the presence - the being. All this to say that consciousness, as popularly defined, isn't a monolith of non-matter. The part that requires 'creation' (being) is an inseparable quality of matter. Thinking and feeling are merely results of interaction between matter. Therefore, consciousness does not necessarily require a God to exist. Until you can show how chaos can result into order. Is this a push for intelligent design and fine-tuning? Chaos is only chaos because it appears random. But I made a case earlier for hard determinism - every event has a cause. If every event has a cause, then nothing is random. And if nothing is random, then there is never objective chaos, is there? Human beings may perceive an environment which isn't fine-tuned to our existence as chaotic, but this just may prove that we aren't supposed to be the most vital beings of the cosmos. At least not across the space-time fabric. This may be the "Age of Man" but who's to say that the future won't be "The Age of Ants." And then the ants would assume that the universe was fine-tuned to their existence, and decide to call everything preceding that time, chaos. Fine-tuning is an illusion. What is really going on is natural selection. As the environment changes, the fittest thrive. Until you can show that a computer code can self generate itself from alpha-numeric characters. The technology is, apparently, still in its infancy, but artificial intelligence can be used to write code. You can do further research on that, I just checked it out for the purpose of this reply, so I really don't know much about it. To be honest, it won't be all that surprising since AI possess the laws of logic. When you have a physical evidence for these, stop saying "bla black black God of gaps..." In answer to the thread, "Who created God?" I'd say Man. Man created this God in response to his fears of the finality of death, the apparent meaninglessness of life, the need for protection from conflicting moralities, and the ignorance of the workings of his environment. This isn't to say that an ultimate being does not exist. In fact, I strongly believe in an ultimate being. But such a being would constitute everything that exists. It would be amoral from our own perspective, simply because (like everything else that exists) it serves its own ego to preserve itself in its unique nature. 5 Likes 1 Share |
Music/Radio / Re: What Music Are You Listening To Right Now? by MissWrite(f): 9:23pm On Jun 07, 2019 |
Guest007: Hey, sweetie.... ......I miss you too. You okay? Cute dp, btw. |
Music/Radio / Re: What Music Are You Listening To Right Now? by MissWrite(f): 10:20pm On Apr 25, 2019 |
ibkayee: Lol.......I know!!! It's so good though. 1 Like |
Music/Radio / Re: What Music Are You Listening To Right Now? by MissWrite(f): 8:48pm On Apr 23, 2019 |
3 Likes |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 30 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 142 |