₦airaland Forum

wirinet:
. . . , the energy contained there in is recycled back into the universe.

. . . .Reincarnation. . . . ?

^^^ Exactly what I am on about here. Since this is a scientific fact that neither Matter nor Energy can be destroyed, must we not conclude that the energy which is the life force of a living creature does not perish at death, but merely changes form.

Is this not a good argument for the existence of that same energy in a different form - an intangible form - which may be analogous to what is meant by the term - "the spirit of a creature. . ."

For after all what is meant by the word "spirit" if not an intangible force. . .

vedaxcool:
I had asked my sister the same question that those who claim energy can neither be created nor destroyed never quite explain what eventually occurs to certain energy once they leave their bodies of origin like you have pointed out in the dead rat. But i think that that theory should not hold water any more cause the Big bang theory clearly shows that energy was created, hence if Energy was created then it can be destroyed or even if it cannot be destroyed it was created and disproves the above theory.

It is altogether incorrect to state that the Big Bang theory proves that energy can be created - because that presupposes that "nothingness" existed before the Big Bang - which is scientifically incorrect, because the Big Bang Theory posits that the universe began to expand from a singularity - and not from nothingness. It is said that all the energy existing in the universe today already existed in a single densely packed point before the expansion, and as such you are wrong to conclude that the big bang "created" energy.

Hi Tudor, how are you today? Before we discuss the details, please do suggest a more appropriate title to me and I will be glad to apply it, thanks.

But in doing so, please note what my intention for this thread is: to demonstrate that the life force within a living craeture, which is indeed energy, does not cease to be exist - given that energy does not cease to exist. Thus I wish to discuss the whereabouts or state of that life-force or energy,

Do revert, thanks.

_{I hope you are in a good mood today.}

Given the fist law of Themodynamics explained above (that given that energy is neither created or destroyed), the energy obvious in the first picture but absent(or transformed) in the second picture still exists.

Where is that energy?

Materialists, please discuss, thanks.

And contrast it with this -

In physics, energy balance is a systematic presentation of energy flows and transformations in a system. Theoretical basis for an energy balance is the first law of thermodynamics according to which energy cannot be created or destroyed, only modified in form. Energy sources or wave of energy are therefore inputs and outputs of the system under observation.

Have a look at this picture -

Darkness, not evil. They're two different things. He created darkness and light. We get darkness when the moon comes between our planet and the sun. Outer space is full of dark, empty void. It is also full of light. And He made it all.

That's a great write up you have up there and it really touched a chord within me.

Nevertheless I still can't shake off my discomfort at the overly physical perception that you tend to associate with darkness. I think that darkness in the context of this discussion is not something to be related to the seeming physical darkness that one may observe in parts of the physical universe.

Hi Cryptic.

Those are all very natural things. They simply lie outside our knowledge and this is why we term them "supernatural" - because we have no understanding of how they happen. Healing is possible in many ways. It is possible for you to heal a person by projecting positive thoughtwaves through vibrations that move in ethereal space. This again, is perfectly natural. However a person who is not schooled in such things will term them "magic", "miracles" or "supernatural."

So things do happen that are beyond our knowledge. This is however no reason to suppose that men turn into frogs or that people get pregnant from thin air. We are able to discern the natural processes of certain things. One such natural process is copulation, conception, pregnancy and birth. Telling me that a woman became pregnant without copulation is just as ludicruous as telling me that a woman gave birth without being pregnant. It is a natural process, and that process is willed by God, and God is perfect and unchanging.

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=482084.msg6437008#msg6437008 date=1279886541]But how did this Black parents, White Blond concern Mary and Jesus.
Were Jesus' parents Black and he's White? The analogy makes no sense and i dunno why anyone would bring stuffs like that here. . . .[/quote]I am surprised that you missed the connection. You must have been so mad at what I was writing that you failed to take it in.

Here's the connection i tried to draw.

Mary was pregnant. Rather than accept the obvious - namely that there had been intercourse prior to that, people explained it as an act of the Holy Ghost.

Ditto with this case. Our Naija lady got pregnant, delivered a baby with strong white as well as black features. Rather than face the obvious and accede that she may very likely have copulated with a caucasian, we are hearing about genetic throw backs, mutations, et all. Not that such phenomena are unknown to science, but its just interesting how in both cases people reach way above the immediate and most likely explanation: namely s.ex - and arrive at more esoteric possibilities on account of the same desire not to accept a very likely element of s.exual activity.

cryptic:
All said mr, all of this composition of yours amounts to nothing tangible. You say you worship God and do not believe in Christ, then why worship God?

God is available to all of humanity, irrespective of race or creed.

There are hundreds of millions of people who know nothing of Jesus of Nazareth. You might be surprised to learn that many of them actually are more "christ-like" than many supposed christians.

I wanna ask you a question. Do you read the bible ?

Cover to cover, all the time. Its a great book.

Do you believe in its contents ?

It is a book of great spiritual insight, worthwhile history, and much wisdom. However in the course of the centuries many mistranslations, misconceptions, innaccuracies, and deliberate alterations have crept into it. Like everything with a human imprint, it is not perfect.

That said, do you believe in spirituality ?

Everything is spiritual. Existence would be dead matter, without the spirit.

Have you seen magicians perform magic?

There is no such thing as magic. There is only manipulation of the laws of nature to acheive desired results. If those laws are unknown to you, the manipulatuon would appear "magical" to you.

Are you aware that some places on this earth are haunted by ghosts? Why is it then impossible for God, the creator of this earth, to twist the natural flow of things to fulfill his word and purpose for man ?

I want you to reflect carefully on this statement. Do you not see the ineluctable contradiction. Nature is spawned by God. Nature is, in fact, the will and manifestation of God. Why then wpould God "twist" the natural order of things? Recall that God is unchangeable, perfect from all eternity. As such God does not "twist' the natural order of things because that order is willed by God. It is inconceiveable to talk of God acting against his own will.

^^^ Thanks Sauron.

It is hugely satisfying for me that in all of your continuously abusive responses, you have yet to address the simple poser that was raised.

I do wonder what your perception of the divine is. Anything that is illogical must perforce be divine?

There is a Yoruba myth regarding a chicken and some sand being lowered on a rope to the earth, landing at Ile Ife, and creating the world. I suppose you might defend the veracity of that legend by stating that it is divine: and as such, cannot be understood. That would not be very useful son.

Likewise it is not very useful to defend an ancient semitic myth with the same lame excuse. Frankly, everyone can use that excuse. Hindus use the exact same excuse to defend their worhip and veneration of cows. Its a divine matter, so we can't question it. I wonder what you make of that.

Dress warm.

I tend to get better quality in terms of ripostes on the Religion Board of this forum.

cryptic:
On what grounds are you making this claim? Were u there when mary did the hoopla?

This is quite interesting. Let's have a look.

A woman gets pregnant. Two persons have different views as to how that happened.

Person 1: Has the view that, as is consistent with human reproductive experience, the woman had gotten pregnant from s.exual intercourse.

Person 2: Has the view that an intangible spiritual entity magically made her pregnant without intercourse.

Which view is more consistent with reason, human experience and common sense? ? ? ?

And some how I am the one being deleuded? Well, your choice, son.

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=482084.msg6436116#msg6436116 date=1279877193]Only a complete retard with spermflakes in his brain cavity would write something like this.
How old are you? Are you mentally-handicapped? Were you born brain dead?
I need to know these answers before i know what to do to your state of mind. . . .[/quote]On no account would you receive from me that which you give: namely knee jerk insults arising from a void.

There is a well studied psychological phenomenon amongst human beings and this is it; when a human being is unable to address a glaring (and painful) internal inconsistency in his beliefs, he is most likely to convulsively explode. That explosion has appeared in the form of your insults - I take no offence in the least; I merely recognise that which is obvious: namely that you are deeply pained by the absurdity that emerges as your conviction: It is simply and civilly pointed out to you that it is not very likely that a woman would get pregnant without intercourse - and you have made exactly no logical rebuttal of that reasonable proposition. What you have done is simply evince the truth; namely that you have no answer to that obvious illogicality which happens to be your conviction. In this you are sadly supported by a group of people who have not proffered any reasonable rebuttal in that regard.

Accordingly I see no reason as yet to retract the very simple proposition that I laid before you; namely that people to not get pregnant by spiritual or magical means; but by s.exual intercourse or artificial insemination - which was not available two thousand years ago.

It is hardly my cup of tea that you subscribe to ancient semitic myths which would certainly sound ludicruous to you if they were tales of your own ancestors.

He wouldn't stand in a bus-stop and spew the same crap about Jesus but he's using his anonymity on the internet to blaspheme.
I dunno why people get erections by abusing the God millions of people serve whole-heartedly.

This is where I have a problem. And further this is what I mean by thoughtless knee-jerk reactions. You have stated –

1. That I have blasphemed.

2. That I have “abused’ God.

I am aghast at these conclusions. From where did you get the notion that questioning the likelihood of a pregnancy arising without s.exual intercourse, amounts to blasphemy? We are well past the age of reason, dear friend. If we are entitled to question such things as men turning into frogs, surely we are entitled to question an ancient story which tells us that a woman conceived a baby out of thin air.

Now I would urge you to be more perceptive. At time of that supposed event, the punishment for s.exual activity outside wedlock was death by stoning. What do you suppose a young female who is pregnant outside of wedlock would do? Admit that she has had s.ex? Or blame it on the Holy Ghost?

You riddle me with laughter. You do have miles to walk yet, son.

Again let us look at the second part of your statement. You stated that I have abused God! That is a grand presumption sir, for I did no such thing.

I drew out an analogy showing that it is unlikely that a woman may be pregnant without any form of natural conception. How does that amount to abusing God? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I do not know what your perception of the transcendental almighty God is: but I can assure you that I believe in God and worship God. My perception of God however, does not involve such things as miraculous pregnancies or rituals of any sort. I urge you not to make any presumptions in this regard.

Dress warm.

^^^ The easiest way to control genetics is having s.ex.

No?

cryptic:
No disrespect intended. But comparing this event with that of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in such a provocatively joking manner is outright blasphemy. It's okay if you don't believe in him and what he stands and will infinitely stand for. I am not a fanatic(You'd probably think that of me, I assume) but as matured individuals I believe we should be able to curb our utterances.

Come on. Isn't it obvious Mary did the hoopla? ? ? ? ?

tpiah:
no need to get defensive and insultive unless you're a lunatic.

i made my points very civilly and if you feel you're too big to post photos to prove what you're alleging, then kindly buzz off and stop wasting people's time.

you say there are biracial people with one pure black parent and one 100% white parent, who are born with naturally blonde hair. If you're not ready to provide evidence of that, then keep quiet.

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you think eye color isnt an indicator of albinism.

or maybe you just like deceiving yourself.

Is the picture of the baby being discussed not one such example already - if we assume the obvious, that is.

Had a pal called Harry while growing up. Blackest mother ever, white father. He's perfectly blonde.

^^^ From where did you arrive at this grand conclusion? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Do you know something that nobody else does?

Siena:
I'm aware it's his first post.

I'm referring to the fact he could be more original - rather than echoing what more than 20 other people have already said, on the same thread.

Well let me just ask you this. I think we all understand that there are a multitude of different possible explanations as to how this might have happened. One of the many possibilities is also a possibility of infidelity. Is there any particular reason that you would preclude that possibility?

^^^ Improbable, given that that's his first post on this forum.

Idehn:
Hello everyone, I hope all who read this are doing as well as possible and if not, may thing improve. I have been reading many of the new and old post in the religion section of Nairaland on debates between atheist,theist, and deist. What struck me as unusual is that not once throughout the threads I have read, has anyone asked for a definition of what God IS much less given one. Obviously the sentence "What is God" will mean very different things to very many people. How can anyone have a reasoned discussion about God without first establishing what God is? For example, it would not make sense to ask a Chinese peasant to evaluate the truth or falsity of the the statement a vuvuzela exist if he has no idea what vuvuzela is. So what I want to do in this thread is ask for a positive definition of what God is.

For those who are curious, I consider myself an ignostic on the matter of god. I believe it is pointless to make inquiries about God with out first having a positive definition as it would be like the vuvuzela example I gave above. Anything said about the vuvuzela by the peasant or god by me would be out of pure ignorance of what I am talking about and thus meaningless. Along to those lines, definitions given must be logically coherent as it is simply impossible for me to knowingly make logical evaluations about illogical concepts. One example of answers I have heard to this question, is that god is supernatural or transcendent(not necessarily the same) but is also a being capable of human emotion, altering the material world and has taken the form of material objects several times culminating in Jesus. God cannot be both transcendent and supernatural (exist outside the material and natural world) and at the same time be material and part of the natural world. You cannot use terms that are derived to from the natural and material, to define that which is intrinsically NOT natural and NOT material. Otherwise how would one distinguish the two. Furthermore, what does it mean to exist when your transcendent and supernatural? How can one tell the difference between non existence and existence within a supernatural and/or transcendent framework whatever that may be?

So I would like to get a discussion going of what God IS going. Post what you think god is or critique(kindly please) what others think about it. If you don't think god can be defined, talk about it. Especially if you adhere to a religion such as Christianity. Also if you choose to reference scripture, please explain how you interpret the scripture as it can be helpful in preventing misunderstandings. I look forward to the replies (if any). Thanks

GOD IS -

1. The unity of all infinite reality

2. The uncaused cause of all existence

3. The centrifugal and centripetal core-essence of intangible eternity

4. The flash of lightening glimpsed by the gypsies cuddled in a passion-steamed cave.

Funny.

Something similar happend about two thousand years ago.

A lil Jewish maiden was pregnant. . . though her husband had not slept with her. . .

Needless to say the most logical explanation was given and accepted. . . namely that the Holy Ghost had done the hoopla on her. . . it was a miracle!

So its not surprising now. . . when a nubian maiden in the UK has today delivered a "white" baby. . . of course as humanity has always done. . . the most logical answer is being given and accepted again. . .its a miracle. . .

Some day there would be an end to miracles.

No doubt the Holy Ghost who did the hoopla on Mary must have resided between some wanton fella's legs. . .

Just as all the genetic miracles that have produced this latest. . . must reside between the limbs of some blond highway man. . .

In all of this no one spares a thought for that man. . . the one called the Holy Ghost two thousand years ago, and the one called a Mutation now. . .

Smile.

Life is beautiful.

I will reproduce a post i set to Viaro some time back on the point that Love is all that is required. If there was agreement on that we would not have bedevilled the point so extensively.

Here it is -

And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God in Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -

Portraying a Samaritan in positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus' audience.[1] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are turned upside down.[1]

Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1.   “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2.   “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –

According to the Jewish version of events, when the Judean exile ended in 538 BCE and the exiles began returning home from Babylon, they found their former homeland populated by other people who claimed the land as their own and Jerusalem, their former glorious capital, in ruins.

And –

Jewish tradition maintains a different origin for the Samaritans. The Talmud accounts for a people called "Cuthim" on a number of occasions, mentioning their arrival by the hands of the Assyrians.

Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity -  certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

nuclearboy:
DeepSight is sworn to get his pound of flesh from the Vinclear Gang for some perceived insult(s) and truth be damned; but not MyJoe so I wonder.

You must imagine me to be a three year old. However we came to that sorry pass, I repent.

@DeepSight:

Is it love that compels helps your labor in misintepreting everything "opponents" write to your own advantage? Is it love that makes everyone who does not toe your line your "opponent"? And is it that love that makes you insist I am not saying what I have said even after I clarify it?

The emotion you exhibit here is winning at all costs. Sorry, but that is lust! When you get the point, light will come in

At least three persons expressed surprise at that post of yours. Your assumptions therefore regarding my prejudice are therefore entirely out of place. It should rather be obvious to you that you have not come across that way to the generality of people previously.

In the post in question you stated that Love is essentially all, or the main truth that there is (Lord, I hope I will not be accused of quoting you wrong). If the suggestion contained in that post is to be taken, this would suggest that such further details as the sacrificial death, the divinity of Christ, et all, are all secondary and not as important or significant as the simplicity of loving one another. Now you know very well that that simple truth of loving one another (as being all that is required) has been my ministry on this forum: and if it emerges, as suggested within your first post, that that is also the sum of your own views, then it would emerge that we are and have always been on the same page and in full agreement: this would also render it eminently strange that we have ever had any disagreement regarding this matter.

Wouldn’t it?

nuclearboy:
The true Religion is LOVE. With that, you're linked to God and Man. Another name for Love is Truth.

Do my eyes deceive me? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

We emus liburnica!

Romeo4real:
Its a shame this thread petered out. I was really looking forward to hashing out this issue with Deep Sight and Jagunlabi!

Do you really mean that you still have the nerve to defend your scandalous and utterly reprehensible misogynistic statements? ? ?

Intrguing how generations of fanatics have evolved from such. . . conviction derived from deciet.

[retracted]

Max, I am at odds that you appear to cede some level of credence to these very personal experiences (which are experienced only by the individuals asserting so) but are eager to dismiss very personal experiences of extra terrestial interaction (UFOs) which are also experienced only by the individuals asserting so). Why the bias? Is the one any more incredible than the other? Mind you, I personally believe in both.

_{Why do you type in blue? ? ?}

^^^ Great points, Big B1, but I don't agree that he should have taken the steps you recommended above. You will not find Barack Obama, David Cameron, or even Jacob Zuma personally administering sports in such a manner. Rather there are bodies that are set up for those functions. If the bodies are not functioning the best he should do is kick start a process which will ensure that the processes laid down are applied towards deploying positive change within those agencies.

He surely should not go the the extent of interrogating individual players. No president should be involved at such a micro-level.

For me it was a most ill considered knee jerk reaction.

1. How do you improve your football by NOT participating at competitive levels? Regular participation is key to improvement and as such it is ridiculous for him to talk about improvement of football by NOT playing football. What sense does that make?

2. It was childish. It's pretty much like a child beaten at a game crying "i'm not playing again. . ." . . .very childish

3. There were many nations with even worse performances than ours. . .Italy finished LAST in a group with slovenia, new zealand, etc. . .if every nation with a poor performance decides to sulk off for two years - what international football would be left? ? ?

4. It solves absolutely nothing. The solutions to our problems lie largely in poor administration. Fix the administration, simple. Don't ban your self from playing the beautiful game? What does that solve?

5. It amounts to giving up. Nobody overcomes a challenge by opting out.

6. It unfairly punishes other categories of the game (age-grade/ womens football, etc) for a crime committed by the Senior Male Category only.

7. It amounts to irresponsible defiance of the global football authourities. We cannot sit back and say: who the hell is FIFA. FIFA is an association that we are a member of and we voluntarily signed up to its rules. In those rules playing a spoiler by opting out of competitions just because we lose is not accepted: under the rules of the association (which we are party to) such actions have sanctions - for the exact reason that they have the potential to ruin the game if other members also acted like that.

With these few points of mine, i hope i have been able to confuse you, and not convince you - that GJ's action was a knee jerk childish response that was both laughable and utterly unpresidential.

Nigeria is the ONLY country in the worldcup that has such things as "presidential task force on 2010 world cup" getting in the way of the FA. . .(the supersport pundits had a big laugh at that). . . this cavalier intrusion into the game must stop. . .perhaps if we let processes take the lead, as opposed to whimsical decisions, things would be better off. . .remember Abacha did the same thing in 2006 and what did it do for our football? ? ?

Now the clown has reversed himself. . . just looks liek he didn't think it through at all . .

DS

^^^ Bah! I recant entirely! please make una lef me na?

Tudor, why cant you leave me to my theoretical insanities? ? ? You should be able to know by now when i'm high . . .