He was evacuated from the Akanu Ibiam International Airport Enugu [/b]at 1.52 p.m to United Kingdom by Flight Ambulance International of Germany hired by Anambra State Government. [b]The flight is said to be the first international aircraft to move from the airport which was recently granted an international status by the Federal Government.

Four officials of the Nigerian Immigration Service were at the airport to stamp Ojukwu’s international passport; that of his wife, Bianca; and his Chief of Staff, Prince Jonathan Bob Onyema, who accompanied him on the medical trip.

The ex-Biafran leader is to be treated at a yet to be identified hospital in London which is said to have good facilities for effective treatment of stroke.

He departed the UNTH in an Enugu State Emergency Management Response Team ambulance at 10.55 a.m after spending five days at the Intensive Care Unit unconscious and arrived the [b]Akanu Ibiam International Airport [/b]at 11.40 a.m.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/12/ojukwu-airlifted-in-a-german-air-ambulance/

^^

In the midst of all the sad story, there is a HUGE GOOD NEWS. All bolded.

We are quietly attaining our full status in Nigeria.

The Ikemba made the first international flight from Igboland.

HUGE DEAL. 

Very huge

Ivynwa:

@Onlytruth
Nnamochie biko what did they say is ailing Nna anyi ukwu Ojukwu?? May God be with him-o-o-o. God please!
Ewo-o-o. Una say make I cry, No I no go cry. I am real excited that Xmas is here and pray God heals Ojukwu for him to celebrate wt his loved one too.

Merry Xmas to everybody in the house-o-o-o. Yes-o-o-o-o.

Nne kedukwanu?!

Otego kwa o! Kee k'imelu?

You are your father's daughter! Merry Christmas my sister.

Our leader had stroke. God is on his throne though. 

babapupa:



I know it's ignorance betraying you, but for your information, Yoruba military men whooped biafra into submission.

Biafra surrendered to a Yoruba man.

Abeg keep these facts in mind anytime you get the urge to open mouth and begin talk as if den just release you from under cave.

I am one of those Igbos that will keep your fact in mind, but one fact you chose to omit is the fact of including General OLADIPO DIYA among the yoruba brave military men and heroes. The last time I saw him, he was doing some heroic act before one late Sani Abacha.

Onlytruth:

He was evacuated from the Akanu Ibiam International Airport Enugu [/b]at 1.52 p.m to United Kingdom by Flight Ambulance International of Germany hired by Anambra State Government. [b]The flight is said to be the first international aircraft to move from the airport which was recently granted an international status by the Federal Government.

Four officials of the Nigerian Immigration Service were at the airport to stamp Ojukwu’s international passport; that of his wife, Bianca; and his Chief of Staff, Prince Jonathan Bob Onyema, who accompanied him on the medical trip.

The ex-Biafran leader is to be treated at a yet to be identified hospital in London which is said to have good facilities for effective treatment of stroke.

He departed the UNTH in an Enugu State Emergency Management Response Team ambulance at 10.55 a.m after spending five days at the Intensive Care Unit unconscious and arrived the [b]Akanu Ibiam International Airport [/b]at 11.40 a.m.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/12/ojukwu-airlifted-in-a-german-air-ambulance/

Indeed historic.

Ochi_Agha:

Bravery is still bravery. The ability to say things, without being concerned for your life is something that I admire. Look at Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Patrice Lumumba and Amilcar Cabral. They spoke the truth, but their lives were ended by assassin's bullets. Their ability to speak the truth, even though their lives were in jeopardy is testimony to their bravery. I am not into the body count issue. Bravery is still bravery. And I still feel you need a thread dedicated to this issue.

and i do not dispute the fact that bravery comes in many facets. i was simply pin-pointing to physical bravery as a spin-off to the topic of the bravery of those who partook of the biafran war. ya dig ? i read the thread, marvelled at the bravery (or stupidity) of taking a machete to war-front and wondered why this kind of bravery is not exhibited when the white man is the enemy in africa during colonial times when they were whooping everyones butt and taking the queen idia and several artifacts and whatnot . so my premise was always about physical bravery, till you interjected with 'rhetoric bravery' and i tried to accommodate you.

something that also baffles me, how a group of nigerians can be mobilized to fight a war and they show so much bravery in war and yet like 1000 white men come in and dominate all these warriors and whip them all in 'punitive measures'
totally baffles me. you mean 200,000 nigerian warriors cannot smash 1000 white men ?  Tongue
this is why the black men i have respect for in the history of the world are very few
1, toussaint louverture
2, nat turner
3, shaka zulu
4, the maroons of jamaica and suriname
5, joseph cinque
6, robert mugabe
7, the black moors
8, ethiopians, ( all that shytt that britain tried with nigeria, italy tried it with ethiopia, ethiopia kicked their butts heavily ). only african country that deserves any kinda respek

all those vatos kicked so much white butt, it wasnt even funny.

How unsubtle a reference. Stop spewing crap you know nothing about .

What ludicrous comparisons. The Ethiopian army heavily outnumbered the Italian forces and had the advantage of Russian military advisers plus knowledge of the enemies intent to attack and furthermore, the Ethiopians deliberately initiated the offensive on the Italians by revolting and repudiating a treaty after ammassing modern weapons for years and being sure they were in a position to fight. And some oaf is comparing this to a few Dane guns and arrows and spears versus many Maxim guns.


Who told you 1000 British soldiers defeated 200,000 Nigerians? There were no 200,000 soldiers in any Nigerian kingdom or city-state in 1897. It's funny how 16th and 17th century references to the size of the army of a certain city-state are now extrapolated by lazy pseudo-scholars to the 19th century when there is direct written evidence by those who actually conducted the invasion that contradicts this fanciful tale of hundreds of thousands of soldiers of opposition.

A certain city-state had its end brought about by Nigerian collaborationists (Hausas, and local Niger Delta recruits) and cowardly British troops hiding behind Maxim machine guns while their African recruits did most of the fighting (by their (British soldiers) own admission even!) and yet someone is here spewing crap about groups that went to fight Africans with single shot rifles being defeated by those Africans.

Resistance continued from this 1897 date to 1899 by one General Ologbosere and by Oviaweri


Now get back to the topic of Ojukwu and stop giving the forum a chance to see how daft you are.

PhysicsQED:

How unsubtle a reference. Stop spewing crap you know nothing about .

What ludicrous comparisons. The Ethiopian army heavily outnumbered the Italian forces and had the advantage of Russian military advisers plus knowledge of the enemies intent to attack and furthermore, the Ethiopians deliberately initiated the offensive on the Italians by[b] revolting and repudiating a treaty[/b] after ammassing modern weapons for years and being sure they were in a position to fight. And some oaf is comparing this to a few Dane guns and arrows and spears versus many Maxim guns.


Who told you 1000 British soldiers defeated 200,000 Nigerians? There were no 200,000 soldiers in any Nigerian kingdom or city-state in 1897. It's funny how 16th and 17th century references to the size of the army of a certain city-state are now extrapolated by lazy pseudo-scholars to the 19th century when there is direct written evidence by those who actually conducted the invasion that contradicts this fanciful tale of hundreds of thousands of soldiers of opposition.

A certain city-state had its end brought about by Nigerian collaborationists (Hausas, and local Niger Delta recruits) and cowardly British troops hiding behind Maxim machine guns while their African recruits did most of the fighting (by their (British soldiers) own admission even!) and yet someone is here spewing crap about groups that went to fight Africans with single shot rifles being defeated by those Africans.

Resistance continued from this 1897 date to 1899 by one General Ologbosere and by Oviaweri


Now get back to the topic of Ojukwu and stop giving the forum a chance to see how daft you are.

Menilek signed a treaty of Amity and granted Italy rule over Eritrea. However the Italians used a mistranslation of the treaty to claim rule over Ethiopia as well. At first, Menilek attempted to negotiate but was unsuccessful. The rest of your post is fine.

PhysicsQED:

How unsubtle a reference. Stop spewing crap you know nothing about .

What ludicrous comparisons. The Ethiopian army heavily outnumbered the Italian forces and had the advantage of Russian military advisers plus knowledge of the enemies intent to attack and furthermore, the Ethiopians deliberately initiated the offensive on the Italians by revolting and repudiating a treaty after ammassing modern weapons for years and being sure they were in a position to fight. And some oaf is comparing this to a few Dane guns and arrows and spears versus many Maxim guns.


Who told you 1000 British soldiers defeated 200,000 Nigerians? There were no 200,000 soldiers in any Nigerian kingdom or city-state in 1897. It's funny how 16th and 17th century references to the size of the army of a certain city-state are now extrapolated by lazy pseudo-scholars to the 19th century when there is direct written evidence by those who actually conducted the invasion that contradicts this fanciful tale of hundreds of thousands of soldiers of opposition.

A certain city-state had its end brought about by Nigerian collaborationists (Hausas, and local Niger Delta recruits) and cowardly British troops hiding behind Maxim machine guns while their African recruits did most of the fighting (by their (British soldiers) own admission even!) and yet someone is here spewing crap about groups that went to fight Africans with single shot rifles being defeated by those Africans.

Resistance continued from this 1897 date to 1899 by one General Ologbosere and by Oviaweri


Now get back to the topic of Ojukwu and stop giving the forum a chance to see how daft you are.

you aint said nothing but a word. 200,000 warriors is a conservative estimate. the population of nigeria back then was at least 40 million people. how do less than a thousand white british people whoop and control 40 million people ?

200,000 soldiers in 1897 is a complete fabrication.

Who said 1000 British soldiers fought or whooped 40 million people or the armies of the societies in which these 40 million were found? Not I. Not History. Not Reality.

PhysicsQED:

200,000 soldiers in 1897 is a complete fabrication.

Who said 1000 British soldiers fought or whooped 40 million people or the armies of the societies in which these 40 million were found? Not I. Not History. Not Reality.

dude you lack critical thinking skills. can you read between the lines or do you just like to be spoon-fed ? warriors are not born. they are made. in a population of over 40 million i am sure there will be at least 200,000 warriors amongst them who will be willing to defend their land if they are being invaded. i am not saying that there are physically 200,000 warriors fighting the british. the fact that such warriors only seem to get brave when fighting other black people is what i am harping on. gerrittt ? why is it that you can get at least 200,000 warriors when fighting the biafran war but when the white man is whooping butt nobody steps up to the plate, they all cower and take it, this is what i am talking about. even today you can see traits like this. africans very brave and brazen when they are in front of a fellow black man but when a white man appears, they become subservient and meek and humble and timid.

buzugee:

dude you lack critical thinking skills. can you read between the lines or do you just like to be spoon-fed ? warriors are not born. they are made. in a population of over 40 million i am sure there will be at least 200,000 warriors amongst them who will be willing to defend their land if they are being invaded. i am not saying that there are physically 200,000 warriors fighting the british. the fact that such warriors only seem to get brave when fighting other black people is what i am harping on. gerrittt ? why is it that you can get at least 200,000 warriors when fighting the biafran war but when the white man is whooping butt nobody steps up to the plate, they all cower and take it, this is what i am talking about. even today you can see traits like this. africans very brave and brazen when they are in front of a fellow black man but when a white man appears, they become subservient and meek and humble and timid.

Are you truly, really, and actually, this dumb?

In a population of 40 million, there are different separate groups, not all of which are city-states with armies and not all of which are averse to the coming of white invaders but some who actually welcome them with open arms and some who are just traders or farmers. Furthermore these groups all fought in separate conflicts with whites and some did not fight at all or fought on the side of white invaders because it was actually against their interests to preserve the existing power balance. Furthermore, until white visitors commit any transgressions, why would there be mass mobilizations of all fit youth to fight them? Dunce.

To compound your stupidity you directly contradict yourself. You earlier express admiration for the Zulus, Haitians and Ethiopians, all of whom are black and fought in tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands (Ethiopians) against white invaders or oppressors then you come and say blacks can only amass huge armies to fight civil wars or against other blacks.

PhysicsQED:


Are you truly, really, and actually, this dumb?

In a population of 40 million, there are different separate groups, not all of which are city-states with armies and not all of which are averse to the coming of white invaders but some who actually welcome them with open arms and some who are just traders or farmers. Furthermore these groups all fought in separate conflicts with whites and some did not fight at all or fought on the side of white invaders because it was actually against their interests to preserve the existing power balance. Furthermore, until white visitors commit any transgressions, why would there be mass mobilizations of all fit youth to fight them? Dunce.

To compound your stupidity you directly contradict yourself. You earlier express admiration for the Zulus, Haitians and Ethiopians, all of whom are black and fought in tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands (Ethiopians) against white invaders or oppressors then you come and say blacks can only amass huge armies to fight civil wars or against other blacks.

ok i see i am dealing with a not-so-smart person here. when war breaks out there are ways to spread the message for all warriors to pick up arms. it happened in the biafran war. in war people unite against the common enemy. all petty differences are put aside. my enemies enemy is my friend. if you choose the side of an invader (which by your low IQ we can guess is what you will do seeing as you are justifying some taking sides with the invaders instead of their brothers) then that pretty much explains my whole point which is nigerians are tribalistic cowards

and the stupidity that is compounded is yours because i did not say 'blacks', i am refering to nigerians but your chicken brain is too silly to read between the lines. i am the same person who trumped out the black people i admire. any person with an iota of brain cell can then deduce that i am not referring to all black people.

buzugee, you are my friend in all by PhysicsQED is speaking the truth. You are contradicting yourself. Just end the discussion

Ochi_Agha:



buzugee, you are my friend in all by PhysicsQED is speaking the truth. You are contradicting yourself. Just end the discussion

dude, you are looking for an argument with me. just by how you quickly jumped on how the guys girlfriend is ugly (cuz i said she was foine) till you actually realized after looking at her picture that she is fine. so i aint even gonna take you serious. you are simply looking for an argument

buzugee:

dude you lack critical thinking skills. can you read between the lines or do you just like to be spoon-fed ? warriors are not born. they are made. in a population of over 40 million i am sure there will be at least 200,000 warriors amongst them who will be willing to defend their land if they are being invaded. i am not saying that there are physically 200,000 warriors fighting the british. the fact that such warriors only seem to get brave when fighting other black people is what i am harping on. gerrittt ? why is it that you can get at least 200,000 warriors when fighting the biafran war but when the white man is whooping butt nobody steps up to the plate, they all cower and take it, this is what i am talking about. even today you can see traits like this. africans very brave and brazen when they are in front of a fellow black man but when a white man appears, they become subservient and meek and humble and timid.

The main reasons the British were successful were
1. They had more resources
2. The states in the Nigerian geographic expression were not united. For instance, the Yoruba states had several armies that were battle hardened but were more concerned about fighting each other to notice the British creeping up on them. The Ibadan were enaged with the Ekiti, Ijesha, and Fulani, the Egba were engaged with the Ijebu
3. Trade - States like Lagos did not put up a resistance because it had been trading with Europeans for centuries

Having said that, several states did put up a fight. The Ijebu lost at Imagbon, the Benin, the Hausa-Fulani states, and others all lost military campaigns to the British. Not forgetting the long and many battles with the many but small Igbo villages and hamlets.

Katsumoto:

The main reasons the British were successful were
1. They had more resources
2. The states in the Nigerian geographic expression were not united. For instance, the Yoruba states had several armies that were battle hardened but were more concerned about fighting each other to notice the British creeping up on them. The Ibadan were enaged with the Ekiti, Ijesha, and Fulani, the Egba were engaged with the Ijebu
3. Trade - States like Lagos did not put up a resistance because it had been trading with Europeans for centuries

Having said that, several states did put up a fight. The Ijebu lost at Imagbon, the Benin, the Hausa-Fulani states, and others all lost military campaigns to the British. Not forgetting the long and many battles with the many but small Igbo villages and hamlets.

1, THEY HAD MORE RESOURCES ? not even a viable argument. in haiti, the might of three super-powers (spain, france and england) combined their resources against the ramshackle home-made weapon of a bunch of ragtag slaves and they got thoroughly whooped. keep in mind the invading army was like 300,000. in the case of nigeria the british empire only sent about 1000 troops. see the difference in numbers ? but the 1000 troops were smart. they knew that the chicken brained nigerians were tribalistic people (as we see in NL everyday ) so they pretty much pitted one side against the other and sat back and watched . thats how they whooped our butts. simple and plain 'divide and conquer'

Can you people please argue this on another thread? Like in the culture section. I am enjoying this discussion and I cannot wait to participate, but this is not the thread for it.

i cant belive that in this modern day and age i am arguing with a bunch of nigerians who unlike me dont see the absurdity in a 1000 foreign invaders controlling a population of 40 million plus for nearly a century ? like seriously am i the crazy one or are you guys just a bunch of sissified pacifists ?

Ochi_Agha:

Can you people please argue this on another thread? Like in the culture section. I am enjoying this discussion and I cannot wait to participate, but this is not the thread for it.

what are ya king tut or somebody ? bossing people around and designating sections to folks ?

buzugee:

i cant belive that in this modern day and age i am arguing with a bunch of nigerians who unlike me dont see the absurdity in a 1000 foreign invaders controlling a population of 40 million plus for nearly a century ? like seriously am i the crazy one or are you guys just a bunch of sissified pacifists ?

I guess you haven't heard of the British policy of "Divide & Rule." It is easy to defeat a people, when they are divided. This is what the Spanish employed as they defeated the mighty Aztecs and Inca with only a few soldiers. Keep in mind that these two great empires found in the Americas had millions of subjects and soldiers.

Ochi_Agha:

I guess you haven't of the British policy of "Divide & Rule." It is easy to defeat a people, when they are divided. This is what the Spanish employed as they defeated the mighty Aztecs and Inca with only a few soldiers. Keep in mind that these two great empires found in the Americas had millions of subjects and soldiers.

is that not enough to warn my fellow brothers and sisters that tribalism is a 'dangerous' mindset to have ?

buzugee:

1, THEY HAD MORE RESOURCES ? not even a viable argument. in haiti, the might of three super-powers (spain, france and england) combined their resources against the ramshackle home-made weapon of a bunch of ragtag slaves and they got thoroughly whooped. keep in mind the invading army was like 300,000. in the case of nigeria[b] the british empire only sent about 1000 troops.[/b] see the difference in numbers ? but[b] the 1000 troops were smart.[/b] they knew that the chicken brained nigerians were tribalistic people (as we see in NL everyday ) so they pretty much pitted one side against the other and sat back and watched . thats how they whooped our butts. simple and plain 'divide and conquer'

What sort of infantile argument is that? The British sent only 1000 men to subdue Nigeria!!!!!

Katsumoto:

What sort of infantile argument is that? The British sent only 1000 men to subdue Nigeria!!!!!

yes. less than 1000. is that a surprise to you ? . in some towns only 10 or 20 white colonial soldiers were in charge while their uncle-tom african counterparts were the enforcers. you didnt know ? 

buzugee said:

in the case of nigeria the british empire only sent about 1000 troops. see the difference in numbers ? but the 1000 troops were smart. they knew that the chicken brained nigerians were tribalistic people (as we see in NL everyday ) so they pretty much pitted one side against the other and sat back and watched . thats how they whooped our butts. simple and plain 'divide and conquer'

You are broadly correct but it had nothing to do with Nigerians being ''chicken-brained''.

Nigerians are not less smart than Haitians, Zulus, Ethiopians, or any one else on earth.

They are just less united.

Division (or ethnic chauvinism) among west and central African groups is rooted in historical factors that go back at least 3,000 years, starting from the Nile Valley migrations southwards which split up hitherto homogeneous communities and fostered a sense of 'independence' among the later balkanized groups of former 'brothers' who came to settle in the forest regions, their divison and mutual suspicion serving to provide a perfect hunting ground for slaves and 'native collaborators'.

ROSSIKE:

buzugee said:

You are broadly correct but it had nothing to do with Nigerians being ''chicken-brained''.

Nigerians are not less smart than Haitians, Zulus, Ethiopians, or any one else on earth.

They are just less united.

Division (or ethnic chauvinism) among west and central African groups is rooted in historical factors that go back at least 3,000 years, starting from the Nile Valley migrations southwards which split up hitherto homogeneous communities and fostered a sense of 'independence' among the later balkanized groups of former 'brothers' who came to settle in the forest regions, their divison and mutual suspicion serving to provide a perfect hunting ground for slaves and 'native collaborators'.

i can definitely get with that.

ARE YOU REALLY, TRULY, ACTUALLY, this [size=14pt]DUMB[/size]? Let's take this idiocy apart line by line.

buzugee:

ok i see i am dealing with a not-so-smart person here. when war breaks out there are ways to spread the message for all warriors to pick up arms.

What does that have to do with what I earlier posted you incorrigible dunce? The event of 1897 which your hyena brain kept making you allude to or explicitly reference was a conflict separate from the other conquests of the rest of Nigeria. Prior to that war, Nana of Itsekiri was deposed and it was even Itsekiri traders that spread the message to Benin that the white man was bringing war, allowing Benin to know to send a preemptive strike force to destroy a British party whose intention was to replace the Oba with a British stooge. Regardless, there were no 200,000 soldiers to fight the British invaders.

it happened in the biafran war. in war people unite against the common enemy. all petty differences are put aside. my enemies enemy is my friend.

Are you too dense and dull to grasp that the common enemy for a few groups WAS Benin and that these were not mere "petty differences" but longstanding discontent and that they would not ally with Benin only to preserve the existing power balance?

if you choose the side of an invader (which by your low IQ we can guess is what you will do seeing as you are justifying some taking sides
with the invaders instead of their brothers)

What on earth are you rambling about? What's this about "brothers"? Were groups of people who mostly knew only other black people and didn't even understand the ways of nor constantly intermingle with these other groups of blacks supposed to develop some sort of black nationalist ideology apropos of nothing? Dumbass. Let's take the example of the Aro:

General William C.G. Heneker, Bush Warfare:

The power of the Aros grew, and the country about was parcelled
up amongst the 14 towns. The buying and selling of slaves, was the Aro merchants’
chief form of business. Towns outside the area were raided, and slaves, pro-cured in
this manner, should the “long juju” not produce a sufficient number. Shortly before the
operations of the Aro Field Force began, the town of Obegu, friendly to the Government,
was raided by the Aros, who massacred some 400 men, women and children. The
objects of the expedition were primarily to subjugate the 14 families of the Aro tribe and
destroy the “long juju,” then to capture the ringleaders in the Obegu massacre

Should the groups of people around Obegu have allied with the British, or with those who raid and sell their people? Benin was insignificant in the slave trade but it can certainly not have been expected that those who opposed its power over regional trade would just up and realign with it on the random basis that the people of Benin looked more similar to them than the invaders of Benin. Anachronistic application of black nationalist ideology to history is completely imbecilic.

then that pretty much explains my whole point which is nigerians are tribalistic cowards

Coming from the dunce who blindly advocated the transfer of all African cultural property to Europeans because he's too scared to see if Africans have the competence to curate the pieces themselves. Coming from the coward who sits behind a computer reading conspiracy theory crap but then typing stuff about picking up arms to fight the power structure.

and the stupidity that is compounded is yours because i did not say 'blacks', i am refering to nigerians but your chicken brain is too silly to read between the lines.  i am the same person who trumped out the black people i admire. any person with an iota of brain cell can then deduce that i am not referring to all black people.

You goat brained lying fool if you mean to say Nigerians say Nigerians don't later completely change what you are referring to to Nigerians and then COWARDLY accuse others of "not reading between the lines" when your rambling idiotic contradictions are exposed.

You specifically said:

this is what i am talking about. even today you can see traits like this. africans very brave and brazen when they are in front of a fellow black man but when a white man appears they become subservient and meek and humble and timid.

Africans = only Nigerians? Pinhead. Say what you mean and mean what you say. If you degrade every black African in one generalization I will not out of nowhere take it to reference only Nigerians because of prior references to brave Zulus and Ethiopians. Or does black Africa now consist of Ethiopia, Zululand, and Nigeria? Clown.



I would like to apologize to all the other posters in this thread and those all those in general who are concerned about a sick man's health for contributing to the massive derailment of an already somewhat derailed thread, however some things just need to be countered, some fool is saying 1000 British men conquered all of Nigeria.

ROFL @ Andre Uweh. Do you not have a job or something to do in the real world? Maintaining multiple Nairaland personas must be quite tiring and time-consuming, no?

Such dishonesty defeats the purpose of an online forum like this, does it not?

Mods, how about you reveal the IP of each post when made? Or if for security reasons, you are unwilling to do this, why not reveal a hashed version of each IP (i.e., apply a hash function to the IP and post that)?

If Seun does this, most of the intellectual fraudsters here likely will be more easily exposed (though of course a persistent and slightly more clever fraudster can get around this.)

eku_bear:

ROFL @ Andre Uweh. Do you not have a job or something to do in the real world? Maintaining multiple Nairaland personas must be quite tiring and time-consuming, no?

Such dishonesty defeats the purpose of an online forum like this, does it not?

Mods, how about you reveal the IP of each post when made? Or if for security reasons, you are unwilling to do this, why not reveal a hashed version of each IP (i.e., apply a hash function to the IP and post that)?

If Seun does this, most of the [b]intellectual [/b]fraudsters here likely will be more easily exposed (though of course a persistent and slightly more clever fraudster can get around this.)

ROTFL!

So what has been intellectual in any of adabada/andre uweh/otorugbo/ 26 other IDs [might even be Dede 1] 's post now

Oh, so by "intellectual fraud" I mean making a bunch of different user accounts and maintaining them as separate identities which then post to back up up on arguments

Wasnt really a commentary on the quality of his posts one way or another, just this particular tactic he uses

Hmm, but maybe there is a better term to describe Andre Uweh's fraudulent behavior.