cameeeeel:
The best Messi should have won Champions League for his club. The best Messi should have broken the wall of Roman Gladiator (Juventus).

This is an ignorant statement. Football is a collective sport, not an individual venture. It's not lawn tennis, nor is it sumo wrestling. You don't win Champions League for your club, especially if your club is not one particularly keen on winning.

If Messi didn't win the CL and Ronaldo did, it doesn't make Ronaldo the better performer. It only means Real Madrid as a unit were better than FC Barça. (Which really is why Ronaldo won the award, and not because he was exceptionally bright)

Can you honestly say Messi's performance at the Copa America pales in comparison to Ronaldo's performance at the Euro 2016? Even though Ronaldo won the Euros (he didn't even play more than 15 minutes in the final game) and Messi did not win Copa America, Messi's individual input was far superior to that of Ronaldo's. (Portugal as a unit deserve the accolades, not Ronaldo, who was sub-par all through the competition.)

Statistics show that Messi was the better of the two when the individual performances of both players are juxtaposed, so I really shouldn't be having this conversation with you. After all, experience has shown that Nairalanders are hardly of the habit of responding to logic.

KevinDein:
The Best is a prize awarded to the Portuguese, not because he is really the best (that title everybody who is a neutral knows corresponds to Messi) but because he was part of a very talented team winning La Liga, champions league, etc.. well, he scored a few goals, some of them penalties, tap-ins and a few offside goals... but at the end of the day is a prize given not really to the Best but to the most popular guy in the best team of the year. And this is precisely why these days some trophies should change their title

You have summed it up perfectly. The Balon D'or award has gone to the dogs. Now all you have to do is ensure that you're lucky enough to be part of a team that wins a major trophy and score a few tap-ins and BAM! You win the Balon D'or.

Sentiments aside, Messi was better than Ronaldo in all ramifications last season. Anyone who would remonstrate with that is wilfully neglecting impersonal logic for mawkish partisanship.

I was so busy that I didn't even know today was the award night. The Internet is so dry and only Real Madrid fans and Ronaldo apologists seem to be excited about the scam that happened tonight.

There is no logical basis for awarding the two worst graduating students with an Oxford scholarship. Prof. Imafidon says the purpose is to prove that graduating with a poor CGPA is not necessarily an indicator of an absent genius (we know this already). But the gospel truth is that a student's CGPA in most cases tells how self-disciplined and persevering that student is. Natural genius has no chance against an average but disciplined and determined mind. (I know this from experience)
Awarding the worst graduating students is sending the wrong message.

Isn't this professor Chris Imafidon the husband of Annie-Marie Imafidon (the computing mathematician) and the father of Samantha Imafidon (the child prodigy who took and passed the SATs at 11 years old)?

So cliché.

shine12:
A society dominated by a conservative ideology could be less progressive the same way an over-subscription to liberalism could deeply confuse society.

Humanity has reached a stage of nothing is wrong "if it makes you feel good, you can have it" as far as you don't encroach on anyone's right.

The so-called "over-subscription to liberalism" gave us the Renaissance of the 14th century, a time period I still believe was one of the greatest in our entire human history.

I think humanity is nearing the stage of complete enlightenment. (If we would excuse, for instance, the crop of individuals who on this thread made some asinine remarks about the "return of a dead Jew" or "the end of the world drawing nigh".

The main reason why people feel guilty over certain things (drinking, casual sex, smoking, masturbäting, etc) is because of the baseless moral demands of their Religion. But, the reality is that Religion is fast losing its grip, people are becoming more and more smarter, and less and less inhibited.

50 more generations and the population of religious people worldwide should have dwindled to a meagre 30%. Now that is progress.

KanwuliaExtra:


Very great sense of humor he gat.
He prolly meant in “HELL”!
You wisssssh!
TufiaaaaaaaKWA!!!!

Na wetin consine me with NL “Cotonou Boy” like you?

I have a big dick, beyond the average 6 inches. And it's very beautiful and very black. Think of it as a stallion dangling in between my legs. You sure you wouldn't like that, grandma? I could make you feel young again.

koice:


Just seeing your post. Don't come online often nowadays...

Inferno 2016 480p Esub

Thanks a bunch.

Nmeri17:


You two are undoubtedly, a match made in heaven

KanwuliaExtra, you hear this man? He said we are a match made in heaven.

LordKO:

It only takes an informed person to recognize a metaphor. Now shut up and vamoose from my mentions. Look for your mates elsewhere.

That's not even a metaphor, not by a long shot. (I suggest you click this on this link so as to know the meaning of a metaphor, seeing as you apparently do not) https://www.google.com/search?q=metaphor&client=ucweb-b&channel=sb

Don't cook up "arbitrary nonsense" out of thin air and then come around to claim that it's a metaphor (even when it's hardly a metaphor).

Look at the crap you you wrote (the one you called a metaphor), and with hubris for that matter: ''In a healthy romantic relationship/marriage, a man is seen but not heard, and a woman is not seen but heard - so automatically the woman rule the man."

In a "healthy relarionship" indeed. All these half-baked charlatans.

This is a very irrelevant and idiotic question. It's all I can say.

LordKO:
S/he who hold peace between the two rules, and this is definitely what women are known for. A sane, sound and responsible woman will always rule her man, she's always in charge. Power doesn't belong to s/he who superficially exercise control, but to the one that is charge. One in charge is rarely seen but is always heard.

The power rule in any form of relationship or association is the same. Examples; In politics, diplomats are seen but not heard, while politicians aren't seen but heard - in this regard the former do serve the latter. In a healthy romantic relationship/marriage, a man is seen but not heard, and a woman is not seen but heard - so automatically the woman rule the man.

@emboldened_ Who formulated that ridiculous maxim? Your secondary school class-teacher?

NeeKlaus:
I am not evasive like you pointed out and I believe I have a right to address whatever and whoever I choose to address without being guilty of a fallacy.

I stumbled upon your posts littered around various sections in the course of your (very) short stay here and I noticed you have an advanced case of superiority complex. I don't know if it's as a result of your grammatical fluency or some other psychological problem I know nothing about but you really have to come down from your high pedestal.

Also, you act like a perfectionist with your mantra of anything worth doing is worth doing well but seriously, who gives a rat's ass? This is an online forum; a virtual reality. If everything doesn't conform to your high and exquisite taste, then you can go ahead and create your own planet of perfection and reside in it exclusively. No one cares.

I don't resort to invectives because that tramples upon all aspects of intellectualism. Criticism is both constructive and destructive and I honestly doubt if I am in line with the latter.

@emboldened_Really? You ought to read Philippics, written by Marcus Cicero. (It was a litany of invectives directed at Mark Antony). And I don't think it—Philippics–"tramples upon all aspects of intellectualism".

Acidosis:


Why are you so attracted to mistakes? Is it that bad?


Anyway, thanks for highlighting that one aspect of my post. 1.8 million is 1%, not 10%, of 180 million. That's still a very good representation in a country with very low internet penetration and high illiteracy rate.

Nigeria is a country with low internet penetration? Statistically speaking, 1% is a good representation of the remainder 99%?

You never cease to amaze me with the simplistic nature of your reasoning.

Koice, what's up? Please, could you help me with a download link for the movie Inferno. Tom Hanks played the lead role and the movie was released in 2016 – in case you need that bit of detail to help narrow down your search.

I'd really appreciate if you could help me with this.

Mindfulness:

To err is human.

To be human is a boring job.

MizMyColi:


It's past 9pm.
Where else would we be if not one?

Very funny...

Mindfulness:


You wish.

And I thought you were heterodox...

Mindfulness:


Thank you my angel.

MizMyColi:


You're welcome, my ArchAngel

Oh, get a room already. I promise, it would be hot.

Monalisa185:
please how can this woman be reached? Help is about to locate her, if you have any details on how she can be reached, please let me know ASAP

Babe, na you be this?! Long time. I lost your contact since. How far? Do you still have Nike's number?

So, so, true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRh_vgS2dFE

The butch-looking, red-lipsticked girl in black tracksuit though.

Cuddlebugie:
Seest thou a man who isn't naturally encoded to conform? You should run, he's no human . WE are social beings, dear Ishilove and as such, WE have a natural tendency to conform. We are prewired this way.
Take for example, you and a group of friends are told to go into a room and wait until further instructions are given. You weren't told to sit or anything but there are unoccupied seats in the room. After about ten minutes, one of your friends decide to sit, slowly more and more people also decide to take a seat also, what do you do and whatever your answer is, what is it called?

You should know that there are two types of conformity (the good and the bad type ). The first one is compliance, an outward behaviour in which a person goes along with the attitudes and viewpoints of the majority in order to be socially accepted. Now that's crowd/herd mentality. The other form of conformity is Internalisation, a behaviour in which a person adopts the viewpoints and attitudes of a group and makes them their own. Unlike compliance, in which conformity is purely for social acceptance, the person conforms because they believe the group’s viewpoint.

Such a person is not necessarily inhuman. I would say that a person not naturally predisposed to conformity represents the peak of humanity. Why do you think all of earth's geniuses were/are mostly–if not all–Bohemians?

It's unarguable though that there are varying degrees of conformity in individuals, and that various factors also determine how conformist a group of people would be. For example, many members of a communist society would certainly be more conforming than their counterparts in a capitalist/mixed economy state.

Ishilove:

To paraphrase you, we (human beings) have an herd instinct. I disagree. Not every human being has this instinct.

Again, not everybody has the desire to be part of any pack. To be the leader of a pack, you must first belong to a pack.

Even the most individualistic human being on the planet still has some degree of conformity in him or her. By the very fact that one is on Nairaland and doing what other people do–which is to read and comment–is, too, a form of conformity. Going to school, getting married, working a corporate job–all of these things are forms of herd mentality and rigid conformity to a general standard.

It's inevitable.

MasViews:

I'm not talking about music here

I wondered what fictitious superstition (juju/jazz) had to do with women-beating, and when I saw no correlation, I naturally assumed that you were talking music.

MasViews:



I think the guy is talking about juju/jazz

You've just mentioned musical genres.