₦airaland Forum

buluti:
Na wah all this isreali-palestina issues. Make una take am easy.

A close look at I-man's mail, the guy put inter-alia which is "amongst other things" so he chose the ones to emphasize and summarised the others, except the meaning of the word inter-alia has change, i don't see the lie.

The summary was wrong and he admitted that much so I see this attempt as unnecessary unless you are happy seeing the guy's lies being exposed all the time.

Only someone that is happy with misinformation will not see anything wrong in the guy's post which was very clearly misleading as regards the funding.

How can the following

It turns out that much of the funding for the Council's "US./Middle East Project" comes from overseas, including the European Commission, the government of Norway, Kuwaiti and Saudi businessmen, a Lebanese politician, and, for one year, an official of the commercial arm of the Palestinian Authority, Munib Masri.

be summarized to read the following

Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations

?

Sometimes I am amazed at the level of lies and support for lies on this forum.

@davidylan,

Again, I am happy that you have also reluctantly agreed that Israel attacked its neighbors, thank God.

Truth shall always prevail over lies, na dia I stand put gidigba.

davidylan:
please help us ask Afam.

You mean why he believes in replying in kind? Simple, it is the only medicine that works for people that believe in insulting others.

davidylan:
the lands were siezed from Jordan and Egypt NOT the palestinians. Egypt and Jordan have both expressed reluctance to take the lands back! what shld Isreal do? Give it to just about anyone who can cry very loudly?

At least you now agree that the lands were seized.

At least you don't talk about Israel being attacked by its neighbors in 1967 because it has been made very clear that the claim was a lie that had been told over the years.

So, does it then mean that Israel can attack its neighbors, seize their lands while people like you wonder who they should return the lands to since according to you both Jordan and Egypt have expressed reluctance to take the lands back.

Truth shall always prevail and your comments somehow goes to show that no matter how long it takes being on the side of truth is better.

Welcome to reality my friend.

Tell them oooo.

Whenever you disagree with them the next thing is insults. However, I have the right dose of medicine for people that do so, rather than swallow their insults I return them in kind and it has been working like magic.

I-man:
You have shown yourself to be intellectually challenged.Once again,you have been unable to show how you have refuted the above.Perhaps,your benighted mind was confused by the term,"inter alia".
The Kuwaiti,Saudi and Lebanese donors were individuals,not Govts,so their country's good relations with the US is patently irrelevant.What a complete slowpoke!
In your dumb haste to correct me,you made your own mistake.The funding came from an individual,Munib Masri,working with a Palestinian organisation.Of course I made a mistake in saying Palestinian organisations,but a cretin like you had to add your own faux pas in a stupid bid to correct me.

Can you please stop the lies?

The content in bold refers, you did not make a mistake, you made several mistakes and you just admitted to one of them.

Your keyboard no dey gree type european commission and government of Norway abi you just dey avoid them?

A highly functional site is far better than any site that does nothing but look beautiful.

People visit websites to complete tasks and if they cannot complete such tasks in reasonable times they will hit the back button fast.

I have seen very beautiful websites that devote all their time and energy on the look of the homepage and once you leave the homepage you will need to constantly look at the address bar to be certain you are still on the same website.

The best websites are websites that are readable (black text on white background the winner any day), have links that point to correct information and enable the user to complete whatever tasks he/she came to complete in the first place.

As more and more websites are taken down because the owners do not see any value in them many will begin to look for websites that work be it in the area of marketing, advertising, informing or branding.

Web designers on their own should learn programming as many business owners will want to have features and functionalities that the average web designer cannot implement.

Blatant:
This sounds like a kind of elitist club with privileges.

It does not appear to be a club formed to help better the interests of the nation but rather to create a clan of people who will enjoy certain privileges. The poster wants to use this medium to attract who have foreign currency to join the club. He is probably the secretary or the treasurer of the club

Exactly my point, this is not scam.

Unfortunately, when people don't understand something rather than take time to ask questions they jump into making baseless accusations.

The same way anyone with enough cash can get discounts for goods and services and those that buy at retail prices don't.

European commission = individual?
Government of Norway = individual?
1 year funding by a commercial arm of PLO = Palestinian organizations?

You are a liar and will die a liar.

Reconcile the first 3 lines with the obvious lies you stated on this thread.

Don't worry yourself too much as with your own hands you have shown the world that you will rather lie and misinform than face facts.

Oops! What was that? I addressed Purist and topic so where the hell did this man jump from?

@Purist,

Do not waste your time on mrpataki, he is an expert in making blind arguments as he talks about things he knows nothing about in some cases.

However, I believe the registration fee is high.

@topic,

This is certainly not MLM, it is not promising anyone money or interests but discounts on products or services the club chooses to get.

This is akin to what co-operative societies do in companies, from civil service to oil companies. They get products and services at lower costs because they have a higher purchasing power.

Let us try to face facts especially when disagreeing with people lest we end up insulting others for no reasons.

I will never get involved in a club like this because it is elitist in my opinion, not because I think it is a scam because it is not.

RichyBlacK:
Ogbe mi, some rights MUST be denied!

Kobojunkie lives in America but does not appreciate the struggles America has gone through in trying to stamp out hate disguised as racism, ethnocentrism and tribalism.

How will he understand when he is already reaping the from what others put their bloods on the line to give him?

Sometimes I wonder what goes on in this guy's head. Now you may begin to wonder why someone like this will object to suicide bombers doing their thing after all na dia right abi left sef.

I-man:
This plagiarised article can be found here:http://www.nybooks.com/qa/siegman

The author,Henry Siegman,was the subject of an article here:Bashing Israel At Every Turn


Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations-http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2158

Referencing the content in bold see below the portion from the linked article that covers the funding and see for yourself why the likes of I-man will forever remain a liar and a deceiver.

So why would the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based American institution, fund this "expert" at the level of $204,151 in salary and benefits, making him, in the most recent year for which tax returns are available, its fourth-highest paid employee? It turns out that much of the funding for the Council's "U.S./Middle East Project" comes from overseas, including the European Commission, the government of Norway, Kuwaiti and Saudi businessmen, a Lebanese politician, and, for one year, an official of the commercial arm of the Palestinian Authority, Munib Masri.

But for a year's funding according to the article all the fundings have come from European Commission, the government of Norway, a Lebanese politician and two countries that are allies to the US, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Now, who is fooling who? It is clear that some people cannot live without lies.

texazzpete:
There's only one answer to the initial question 'What is in it for Israel'


SURVIVAL.

It's always amusing when fat cats on Nairaland who have never lived in a truly hostile environment start pontificating about what Israel is doing wrong. Why would someone in his right mind start criticising the proliferation of roadblocks in Israel when he knows they are surrounded by thousands of would-be suicide bombers?

I am shocked at the way thin rats on Nairaland continue to support actions that are clearly wrong and yet always explain away their support with non issues.

texazzpete:
Go ask why the Abia state residents supported the rise of the Bakassi boys with their style of jungle justice.

Abia State did not seize any neighboring land in the first place so your question though diversionary remains baseless.

Yahoomail.

Or do you need the subscription info?

From my inbox.

As the search for real peace continues.

-----------------------------------------------------------

One of the first on-line responses to the publication of
the letter to President George W. Bush and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice was a simple, straightforward
question: "What is in it for Israel?" The "it" referred
to guidelines the letter proposed for an agreement that
would end Israel's occupation of the territories the IDF
overran forty years ago in a conflict—as Israelis were
reminded by the celebrated author David Grossman when he
addressed a recent commemoration of Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin's assassination—that is now in its 10(0?)th year.

What is in it for Israel should be self-evident, but now
that three new Israeli generations have been born having
no memory of Israel without settlements, it no longer is;
for too many, the occupation—and the spiral of Israeli-
Palestinian violence that has come with it—is a given,
the natural order of things.

An agreement that leads to the end of an occupation that
with the best of intentions humiliates and brutalizes an
entire nation should be more than enough of a reason to
go for it. The subjugation and permanent dispossession of
millions of people is surely not the vocation of Judaism,
nor is it an acceptable condition for a Jewish national
revival.

The argument against an Israeli agreement with President
Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is that
they are too weak and unpopular to implement an accord
that would require them to put an end to the violence of
Palestinian rejectionist groups. Indeed, it is pointed out
that the fact that most of the violence in the West Bank
continues to come from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a
faction that belongs to Abbas's Fatah, underlines the
limits of Abbas and Fayyad's authority and their capacity
to establish the rule of law in the territories.

That Abbas has been unable to control violence is true
enough, but it is nevertheless a disingenuous argument.
Abbas's weakness is the result of Israeli policies—
primarily the relentless expansion of Israeli settlements
on Palestinian territory that continues even as Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert speaks about removing settlements—
that have convinced most Palestinians that Israel has no
intention of returning to the pre-1967 border and allowing
the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. An Israeli
policy that seriously rewarded Abbas for his moderation—
such as a significant release of Palestinian prisoners,
instead of several hundred out of the over 10,000 prisoners
being held by Israel; the removal of physical obstructions
and checkpoints that have strangled Palestinian economic
and social life; the dismantlement of outposts and a freeze
on further construction in the settlements, as required by
the Roadmap—would turn Abbas and Fayyad into strong leaders
overnight. But Olmert has until now only offered token
"gestures," and Palestinians have been given no reason to
believe that a change in Israeli policy will occur even
when the Palestinians choose leaders committed to non-
violence and moderation.

Checkpoints and roadblocks designed to prevent the movement
of people and goods throughout the West Bank—well over 500
such obstacles—have devastated the Palestinian economy and
turned Palestinian life, in all of its aspects, into an
endless nightmare. In 2005, following Abbas's election as
president of the Palestinian Authority and before Israel's
dismantlement of its settlements in Gaza, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and James Wolfensohn, the former
president of the World Bank who was designated as the envoy
of the Quartet (the EU, UN, US, and Russia), worked out a
detailed agreement with the Israeli government to remove
many of these obstacles. The plan included the creation of
a safe passage that would link the populations of the West
Bank and Gaza—a connection that is vitally important to the
social, cultural, and economic life of these geographically
separated entities, to which Israel had already committed
itself in the Oslo accords. The whole point of that agree-
ment was to show Palestinians that Abbas's moderation and
opposition to violence could obtain results that Israel
had denied his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. It proved the
opposite. According to Wolfensohn, Israel violated the
agreement before the ink of its representatives' signatures
had dried.

"In the months that followed, every aspect of the agreement
was abrogated," Wolfensohn, an observant Jew and a lifelong
friend and generous philanthropic supporter of Israel,
recently told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Indeed,
instead of removing checkpoints, more were added. Reading
the Ha'aretz interview, it is difficult to avoid the
impression that this firsthand experience with Israel's
dealings with the Palestinians profoundly disillusioned
Wolfensohn, who came to see the equities of the conflict
in a new light.

Syria and Hamas

The signers of the letter to President Bush stressed that
a successful outcome of the Annapolis conference would
require Syria's participation in the conference, as well
as efforts to start a dialogue with Hamas. Washington
overcame its initial reluctance to include Syria. However,
Syria has said it will not attend if the subject of a Syria-
Israel peace agreement will not appear on the Annapolis
agenda. Syria's nonattendance would result in the down-
grading of Arab attendance at the meeting to the
ambassadorial rather than ministerial level, which in
turn would defeat the American objective of using the
Annapolis gathering to create a coalition of moderate Arab
countries that, together with Israel, would be prepared
to counter the growing threat of Iranian hegemony in the
region.

Syria's absence will also prevent a serious exploration of
the Arab League's 2002 peace initiative, whose promise of
full normalization of relations with the state of Israel is
contingent on an Israeli-Syrian agreement. It would also
impede efforts at a resolution of the festering crisis in
Lebanon.

Israel and Washington have made clear their determination
to deny Hamas the fruits of its 2006 victory in the most
honest and democratic election—perhaps the only one—in the
Arab Middle East and to return to power a Fatah leadership
that lost those elections. This has surely given Hamas's
leadership an incentive to undermine any agreement reached
by Abbas in Annapolis, or in the negotiations that are
supposed to follow the conference. But if Abbas emerges
from Annapolis with parameters for an agreement with Israel
that will be seen as fair by the Palestinian public—even if
such parameters were not explicated in a joint statement of
principles by Olmert and Abbas but by Bush in his address
to the meeting—Hamas would damage its standing with the
Palestinian public if it were to seek to wreck such an
accomplishment. Palestinians have suffered too much for
too long to tolerate that kind of recklessness.

Israel and the US have disqualified Hamas as a peace
partner not only because it has refused to recognize Israel
but also because it refuses to be bound by previous agree-
ments between the PLO and Israel's government. A recent
Op-Ed in Israel's Yedioth Ahronot newspaper by Zalman
Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington and a
longtime senior adviser to Likud prime ministers,
illustrates the manipulative character of Israel's
diplomacy. Shoval asks in his Op-Ed piece, "How could
the government that would replace Olmert's cabinet be able
to free itself from the pledges and commitments to be made
in Annapolis," given the "basic principle of international
law that every government inherits the rights and
obligations of its predecessors, ?"

What is remarkable is not only the shamelessness of a Likud
leader, himself a prominent Israeli lawyer, urging publicly
that Israel find ways to violate commitments it is about
to make to the Palestinians in a meeting to which the
president of the United States is a party, but of the
answer Shoval proposes: This principle of international law
applies only to states, and "after all, it is difficult to
define the Palestinian Authority as a state." Apparently
not so difficult as to prevent Israel from starving the
civilian population of Gaza by pretending that Hamas is to
be defined as a state.

Be that as it may, Abbas will have to negotiate with Hamas
the reestablishment of a unity government even in the
highly unlikely event Annapolis is a success. He cannot
risk the permanent separation of Gaza from the West Bank,
nor will the Palestinian public allow him to take that
risk. An even greater risk is that without a unity
government, Hamas—which has significant political support
in the West Bank—will replace Fatah in the West Bank as
well. Hamas will exist at least as long as Fatah, and
Palestinian governance will have to reflect that reality.

Palestinian Compromises

Is Abbas prepared to agree to compromises that Palestinians
must make if there is to be an agreement with Israel? The
answer is yes, if the demands for compromise do not go
beyond those envisioned in President Clinton's proposals
and in the Taba discussions that followed the failed Camp
David summit in 2000. The parameters of an agreement
reflecting those compromises are outlined in the letter
from Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Hamilton, et al. to President
Bush and Secretary Rice.

It is not true, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians
refuse to compromise. (Former prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu famously complained that "Palestinians take and
take while Israel gives and gives." That is an indecent
charge, not only because so far Israel has given
Palestinians nothing, but because Palestinians made the
most far-reaching compromise of all when, in 1988, Arafat
formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949
armistice line (i.e., the pre-1967 border). With that
concession, Palestinians gave up their claim to more than
half the territory that the United Nations 1947 Partition
Resolution had assigned to Palestine's Arab inhabitants.
Palestinians have never received credit for this wrenching
and historic concession, made well before Israel formally
recognized that Palestinians have a right to sovereignty
in any part of Palestine. The notion that Palestinians can
now be compelled to accept "border adjustments" at the
expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that is left
them is deeply offensive to Palestinians, and under-
standably so.

Also forgotten is that at the Camp David summit
Palestinians agreed to border adjustments to the pre-1967
borders that would allow large numbers of West Bank
settlers—about 70 percent—to remain within the Jewish
state, in an equal exchange of territory on both sides
of the border. Barak rejected the principle of one-to-one
land swaps.

In the past, the Palestinian demand that Israel accept the
Palestinian refugees' "right of return" to their homes was
a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab
League's peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that what
Arab countries are demanding is Israel's acceptance of that
right in principle, while agreeing that the number of
refugees allowed to return would be subject to Israel's
agreement.

If Annapolis fails, it will be because of Israel's
rejection of the single most central condition for
success: full disclosure of its definition of viable
Palestinian statehood. Olmert has already reneged on
his earlier endorsement of Rice's insistence that the
meeting must produce a joint statement outlining a
permanent status agreement to avoid becoming a meaningless
photo op, and it remains unlikely that any meaningful
joint declaration can be reached.

According to Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz's diplomatic
correspondent, Olmert is adept at marching "in the no-man's
land between talk and action." For Olmert, Benn says,
engaging in high-level talks and granting gestures to the
Palestinians creates "the most convenient diplomatic
situation," because such gestures are "in themselves
sufficient to remove international pressure on Israel to
withdraw from the territories and to end the occupation."
At the same time, "as long as it's all talk and there
are no agreements," internal pressures not to cede the
territories are neutralized. Olmert seems to have succeeded
in turning Annapolis into that kind of no-man's land.

The Cost of Failure

The importance of reaching such an agreement now rather
than in the future should be self-evident. For if Annapolis
fails, the likelihood that Israel will again have a
moderate Palestinian interlocutor is close to zero. Not
only the prospect of a moderate Palestinian leadership but
also the commitment of all Arab countries to normalizing
relations with Israel following a peace agreement will be
casualties. Hamas's insistence that moderation, as under-
stood by Israel, is a synonym for Palestinian capitulation
will become widely accepted, and not only in the Arab
world.

The disillusionment that would follow a failed effort in
Annapolis would therefore leave Israel with the most
dismal of prospects for renewing a peace process with the
Palestinians and with Arab countries. It certainly could
not happen in circumstances as favorable as they are today,
for the growing skepticism in US policy circles about
Israel's real intentions in the territories, as suggested
by the letter to Bush and Rice by this country's most
eminent elder statesmen and stateswomen, is bound to change
what has been the reflexive US support that Israel has been
able to count on until now, particularly during the past
two administrations.

More important, should Annapolis fail, prospects for
resuming a viable peace process at some future date will
be made increasingly unlikely by the changing demographic
balance in Palestine. A clear Arab majority in historic
Palestine, a situation that is imminent, will persuade
Palestinians and their leaders that the quest for a two-
state solution is a fool's pursuit. They may conclude that
rather than settling for even less than 22 percent of
Palestine—i.e., less than half the territory that the
international community confirmed in the 1947 Partition
Resolution of the UN is the legitimate patrimony of
Palestine's Arab population—it would be better to renounce
separate Palestinian statehood and instead demand equal
rights in a state of Israel that includes all of Palestine.
Why settle for crumbs now if as a result of their decisive
majority they will soon become the dominant political and
cultural force in all of Palestine?

If the international community has been largely indifferent
to—or impotent to do anything about—what some have tried
to portray as a quarrel between Israel and Palestinians
over where to draw the border between the two, it is far
less likely to remain indifferent to an Israel intent on
permanently denying its majority Arab population the rights
and privileges it accords to its minority of Jewish
citizens. It would be an apartheid regime that, one hopes,
a majority of Israelis would themselves not abide.

Annapolis may well be a historic watershed—the last
opportunity to salvage not only a two-state solution but
a Jewish state that remains a democracy.

------------------------------------------------------------

ono:
Hmn. Well, since you have an axe to grind with me on the Igbo civil war palava, why not just go to that thread and bring up whatever it is that's bothering you there? Must you go all over the place, even in threads that have no relevance of any sort to the Igbo war, to display your stupidity and warped sense of understanding of issues?

I insist, you need see a shrink asap. slowpoke of the Forum.

Axe to grind with a complete fool? Nope. It's just that you never disappoint when it comes to displaying your stupidity. People like you that wish others dead simply because you felt they were doing well should be dismissed as misguided and hateful lot.

It seems that common sense is now returning to some people on this forum, this is really good news.

Purist:
Actually, we've had hundreds of people signing up already just within a few days, and the number keeps increasing day by day.

Ummm. . . yeah you're wrong. I had the opportunity to speak one on one with the leader of this project a few days back. He told me that after the prelaunch phase, the fee will be reviewed. He said there will be student registration which will cost about N10,000 to enable students of various universities across the country to be a part of this. Then later next year, the fee may be reduced to about N2,500 for the "common people" to also be a part of it.

Also, last time I learnt, two positions out of the five dedicated to orphanages, had cycled out already.

Ok, all the best.

The registration fee is what struck me as being high, not the benefits where are real.

I am aware of the Closed User Group some PTOs are offering and actually issued a cheque which I later canceled within days as the PTO had serious network problems.

The savings are real no doubt but the N30,000.00 registration fee is my concern.

Take care.

ono:
Christ! you haven't changed Afam. See man, you need to grow up. Why call me a fool after reading my entry. You'd be better off with a shrink by your side to vet your post before putting it in here for all to read. Stupid man.

Nope, I haven't changed from good to bad if that's what you meant. So, you can't figure why I referred to you as a fool? You surprise me, it is because you are one.

Do you still wish the Igbos dead because they were doing well before the war? The type of idiotic mindset some deranged human beings have here is disgusting.

@texazzpete,

Some inherit hypocrisy, others acquire it, in your case you inherited it and topped it up with acquired one.

Unfortunately, a lot of hypocrites don't even realize what they so I am not surprised that you are trying to deny what you did.

I am glad that someone else saw through your plain hypocrisy.

You go about starting threads against islam and arabs and yet have the guts to be complaining about factual posts on the actions of the West.

You are really sick and hypocrites like you shouldn't be mixing up with human beings.

@nigeria1,

Now it is very clear that you are a big idiot and a fool. You can take your frustration elsewhere. If I am a 419 then your father and everyone in your family are real criminals, silly thing.

Keep deceiving yourself with your useless and senseless grammar.

While we wait for the government to eradicate poverty or give every jobs Nigerians should be allowed to carry arms. A lot of innocent people have been wasted for no reason and this is wrong.

@nigeria1,

It is very clear that you are not balanced.

I never called your website crappy. I simply stated that we have 2 different domain names resolving to a single frame based website and needed to know the connection between the two names.

Even the telephone company name is way too different from a domain name .com

Next time, read through very well and pay attention when responding to questions especially those you are addressing in your replies.

Purist:
If you're interested in being a member of this revolutionary club, please indicate your interest here and I'll get back at you. N30k is the registration fee.

Regards.

N30,000.00 for registration? Not sure you are interested in getting a sizable number of Nigerians that genuinely want Nigeria to be better.

Sounds elitist to me, hope I am very wrong.

Someone nominated OBJ from the piece. OBJ did not nominate himself.

So to make a statement that UNILAG refuses to honor OBJ is misleading as UNILAG is not under any obligation to honor anyone so rejecting any name for reasons best known to them should not be a big deal, well, unless the media as usual want to sell more copies.

www.nigeriaone.com or www..com?

www.nigeriaone.com is a frame based website drawing data from www..com.

Funny thing is that when you try to go directly to www..com you are redirected to www.nigeriaone.com.

Even the forum has .com as it's name.

@nigeriaone,

Abeg, wetin be the connection between nigeriaone.com and .com?

astronp7:
I have a site and my pictures are on it because I believe we from this part of the world need a better representation online. And also we need to be accountable to what we say or do.

1. Who is sure that what you have there is your picture?

2. People in real life have been known to swindle others they did business with face to face let alone online

3. What is the connection between better representation online and having your picture on your website?

On your personal website you are free to do what you want to do including putting your pictures.

On your business website your pictures don't have any business there.

Why is it hard for you to understand simple things?

Big B1:
Group20: You and I: corrupt.

You may be corrupt but I am not. Speak for yourself and people you know.

mazaje:
About the advert placed in one of the papers for a job opening which warned those not earning twenty million Naira and above, per annum, in their present job not to apply means nothing because those that earn such amount constitute less than 4 percent of the entire labour force in nigeria, the issue of one's mates owning houses in lush areas in abuja and lagos are still lies because as we all know over 75 percent of the houses in the lush areas in abuja are owned by the selfish politicians and the top government functionaries not the average public and private workers. when such properties are owned by the people in the private sectors its usually the CEO/MD's that own them.

El Rufai once stated that about 70% of Abuja was owned by the Igbos. Not sure we have a lot of Igbos as top politicians in Nigeria so your statement that 75% of the houses in the lush areas in Abuja are owned by the selfish politicians and top government functionaries not the average public and private workers.

nigeria1:
And i thank God for it,

You this afam, you no know say i fit be your boss sha, ??

I guess you are right there because any idiot can be a boss.

But for me I would rather go into unemployment market than have a boss that reasons like you, na curse?

Abedisi:
@Afam @Ndipe, Thoughtful and Bogus. I thought that piece was written by Ndipe! How come you both post the same topic. I smell pussy,

On a forum like this the easiest way to figure out a thread is the title and I cannot remember seeing any thread with the title of this thread.

The source of the article was clearly stated. And the title of the original piece was even used as the title of the thread.

And I don't open every single thread even on this politics section. I only read threads with titles that interest me.

na.com:
So do i,and i think Afam is the pussy for biting an article written by Emeka Offoaro and previously posted by Npide.

Could you please tell your father the same thing when next you set eyes on him? Thank you.

Just as stupidity and lying runs in your blood I guess, interesting.