₦airaland Forum

Why has KAG taken off since the ridiculous fallacy of her claim that quantum vacuums approximate to "nothing" was EXPOSED? ? ?

Some people just pretend cheap scientific psuedo knowledge, are spoon fed and do not think for themselves!

Pastor AIO:
Statement: There are no [/b]squares between the numbers 10 and 15

I am certain that this negative statement can be proved mathematically.

You have taken me completely out of context.

Here is what i said -

This analogy simply is directed at showing up the flaw in insisting that the [size=16pt][b]non-existence of something that has not been observed, or cannot be observed, [/size] must be proved by the skeptic. A grasp of the "absence of evidence" theorem will suggest that this is an absolute impossibility: and also an incongruity -  the atheists will never attempt to prove the non-existence of God, as such can never be done, nor does it make sense to ask them to come up with the evidence for a negative assertion.

Please note the bolded and thus apply it in context; to wit - we are talking about a negative assertion regarding something that HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED.

10 - 15 HAS BEEN OBSERVED.

KAG:
Oh, it has occurred to me that ancient writers could only describe things in the way they perceived them - although not to the degree you imply. However, that is part of the problem: as several of things described from their perspectives have, with continued discoveries, been shown wrong and falsified. The earth is not stationary, the gods don't reside just beyond the sky or on mountain tops, nor are humans the products of a magic cow.

It is quite convenient for you to point out these – NONE of which is advanced within a prophetic book such as the Bible.

- Whereas you fail to take cognisance of the fact that that book that I refer to did state with perfect scientific accuracy, centuries before science did so that –

1. The Earth is a Sphere

2. The Earth “hangs upon nothing”

Both quite engaging if you consider that current thinking at the time of the Prophets Job and Isaiah who inscribed these words was that (1) The Earth was flat and (2) The Earth had physical support in the form of giant animas or other such puerile imaginations.

I am NOT a Christian, and the Bible is NOT my creed, but it is nothing but intellectual dishonesty to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Now in order not to lose direction, and for the purpose of tying this point up with the issue that brought it up: I positively state to you that whatever element was the source of the insights of the prophets who made these statements is NOT an element that you can “falsify”.

There is no doubt that if you, KAG had been alive in those times, like everyone else you would have believed the Earth to be flat and anchored on something heavy. This is more likely given your obvious and lamentably slavish adherence to “current thinking.”

Those prophets would have been millions of light years ahead of you.

It amuses me that you always imagine that current suppositions cannot be wrong. And yet in another breath you speak of being “imaginative.”

Lol.

Simply claiming I can't a god with as vague a quality as "an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists" isn't saying much because it's so unclear a descriptor that it could refer to something inanimate.

No, that is NOT the only quality of the ultimate deity, and I have to warn you to be careful of your use of the reference to “animation”, because animation cannot be the same thing in a physical context as it would be in a spiritual – and God is said to be SPIRIT.

Prior to this post I had only made two posts. Yes, I can't state absolutely that all gods are dead;

Thanks for the concession.

This emphatically shows that YOU CANNOT deny the possible existence of God/ gods.

what I can claim, though, is that gods when presented by their adherents can be falsified.

You cannot even falsify IFA, and you dare mouth off on this.

I positively challenge you to falsify IFA. Go ahead, I’ll meet you there.

You will be astonished at the extent of your ignorance on these matters.

The former statement is not quite correct. Yes, I was pointing out how badly you were using maths and how bad your logic was proving,

You were the one who made the ludicrous equation 0 = 1, not me.

The only sense in which this could be rationalized is the obvious: to wit that zero is not really zero, and thus that your imaginary Alice-in-wonder-land “vacuum” never existed.

but I was making a positive assertion in that the universe may have arisen from a vacuum.

You are a native witch doctor, and a poor excuse for a scientific or rational mind.

This equates to stating that the universe arose suddenly, pointlessly, magically OUT OF NOTHING, and without any intelligent or purposeful direction.

I submit that a person with such lame propositions does not deserve further response on the subject.

Second, I'll wager that I have a better understanding of "nothingness" than you do.

Your understanding of “nothingness” is exactly that – NOTHING.

You have demonstrated a pathetic understanding of that word. I do not know what drives your tragic misapprehension, but let me summarize this for you: by its very definition, nothingness does not exist – it is nothing – and accordingly it is nonexistent.

It is therefore inconceivable for any thing to “arise from nothing” as you postulate. For the simple reason that there is no such thing as “nothing.”

I hope you can wrap your head around that.

Finally, yes, virtual particles are observed within this universe (although, may not be limited to our universe), but short of the probability due to the uncertainty principle, there can be a vacuum in the universe. Hek even humans have created vacuums on earth, whih is in the universe.

I demand of you that you define for me the vacuum that you refer to and show me how it equates nothingness.

Here is what Wiki defines a vacuum as –

In everyday usage, vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is [size=16pt]much less than atmospheric pressure[/size].[1] The word comes from the Latin term for "empty". Even putting aside the complexities of the quantum vacuum, [size=16pt]the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice.[/size] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space", and [size=16pt]use the term partial vacuum to refer to real vacuum.[/size] The Latin term in vacuo is also used to describe an object as being in [size=16pt]what would otherwise be a vacuum.[/size]

Please note the bolded words – THESE EMPHATICALLY PROVE THAT A PERFECT VACUUM DOES NOT EXIST, AND THUS THAT THE VACUUMS YOU REFER TO DO NOT EQUATE NOTHINGNESS!

I wonder what gives you the audacity to make such preposterous assumptions and yet claim a “better understanding” of the word “nothingness”

I trust you will be honest and gracious enough to ADMIT that your understanding was flawed, and that vacuums DO NOT equate nothingness.

I quote the following from Wikipedia –

“Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy.[4] In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum”

And I positively assert to you that the foregoing again shows emphatically that a “vacuum” as herewith described, DOES NOT equate the same thing as “nothingness.” There are myriad elements at interplay here, and this could not be the case in a “nothing.”

Secondly, you have already agreed with me that the space within which such particles have been observed is within this universe. Nobody has observed anything outside this universe, so madam – kindly leave that for the time when such happens. Fact is we have NO IDEA what exists outside this universe so quit the baseless conjecture.

Since you accept –

1. That the space within which such particles have been observed is this universe

2. The universe is NOT Nothing, but is something

3. Then incontestably, such particles could never be construed as arising from nothing – regardless of whether or not we are able to observe the element from which they arise.

I can this conclude that you are irretrievably drunk on what seems to be the zenith of your knowledge and experience – virtual particles. There is nothing in what you have said to connote that you have the slightest apprehension of what they are in fact.

Now please do not display any hasty eagerness to prove your supposed knowledge by reverting inundating me with information I have already seen on Wikipedia – just answer me these questions –

1. What is nothingness?

2. What is a vacuum, in the terms you refer to?

3. How does such a vacuum (imbued with the interplay observed) equate nothingness?

I for my part, restate to you that (x) nothingness by its definition does not exist and (y) It is therefore inconceivable for anything to emerge from nothingness (which is non-existent).

The definition given of a vacuum above shows a number of things –

1. That it has gaseous pressure – only much lower than normally observed atmospheric pressure.

2. the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice

These show that your vacuum is not “nothing” and that no perfect vacuum has ever been observed. (in line with my submission that there is no such thing as nothingness).

Thus your use of this to claim that virtual particles are things that arise out of nothing is tragically flawed: worse – it has shown that you have NO understanding of what a vacuum is since you ignorantly attempted to equate it to nothingness which is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.
Alice in wonderland.

I laugh.

KAG:
I disagree that I (and anyone in general) cannot falsify the existence of gods. For instance, one can begin to falsify the existence of a god whose major characteristic involves transporting, with a chariot, the sun from its depths when one discovers or points out how "sun rise" works.

It perhaps has not occurred to you that ancient writers could only express what they perceived according to the limitations of their own knowledge.

If a prophet saw a vision wherein airplanes and helicopters were bombing a city, he would describe such as flying scorpions breathing fire upon the earth. This does not mean he has not seen something real: however the limitations of his understanding will lead him to deliver an inchoate description.

At all events that is beside the point. For I do not seek to argue about the existence of Sango or Amadioha, Ishtar, Aphrodite or Venus. I seek to state to you clearly that you can never debunk in any intelligible terms the existence of an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists – and which is what the rational-theist refers to as GOD.

In terms of “gods” also – unless you claim omniscience you CANNOT state with any degree of certainty what exists or does not exist – and you acknowledged that in your penultimate post.

What's bizzare about my choie of words?

“Falsify.” As though something which is true can be rendered false. No biggie though. I understand your context.

Not quite. I'll quote verbatim what I wrote:

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.' [Emphasis not in original]

I hope you get the point now. If you don't I don't mind explaining further.

Please do explain further. My deduction is that you are saying that the representational mathematics above is wrong, and as such cannot stand. Namely that you were merely trying to show up a flaw, and not make a positive assertion in itself.

None of this controverts the fact that you repeatedly stated that the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum. That certainly equates to the emergence of something from nothing. I again submit that that is worse than voodoo.

What is being discovered is that something can "pop into existence from nothing. For the past few years I've given a good example of that: virtual particles. Quantum physics has been showing that many of the things we, as intuitive humans, consider sacrosanct are in fact different from what was expected.

This is absolutely inconceivable and illogical.

You do not have a grasp of what “nothingness” refers to.

The virtual particles you refer to are observed within this universe, no?

The universe is not “nothing.” It is a “something.”

Accordingly it is nonsensical to speak about anything within it as having emerged from nothing – given that the vector space within which the subject is observed is already a “something”.

I hope you see this clearly.

Additionally I need to point out the fact that the failure of human technology to detect something does not mean that it does not exist. Indeed, human technology is deficient and still developing, as you well know. Accordingly the failure of human technology to detect what element such particles “pop” out of, does not suggest that the element does not exist.

For if you truly understand the word “nothingness” you would never be so reckless as to assert that anything may magical “pop” out of nothingness.

For a person with such scientific affinity, you display a reckless love of voodoo and black magic.

pro01:
I realise that you cannot be convinced to change your opinions, neither can the combined fury of the Milky Way and the planets cause me to change mine.

I can be convinced to change my opinion if you present a cogent argument. That is the hallmark of reason.

If YOU cannot be convinced BY ANYTHING, then I verily state to you that this is the hallmark of aversion to reason.

How do you prove to the courts that this mass action was directly ordered/planned/sanctioned by Mr. Ibori

This is manifestly dishonest. Again, I do not know what moral code you subscribe to, but I strongly suggest to you that there is no moral code that would endorse your propagation of deliberate lies in a bid to prove a reckless, immoral, incongruous, unethical, guttural, recidivist, antediluvian, bizarre and absolutely irresponsible point.

Being a lawyer, you know you would fall flat against Ibori’s defence counsel in this regard. I wouldn’t belabour this argument any further. But my contention remains that the battalions of military/paramilitary operatives and weaponry deployed in trying to arrest him was uncalled for, heavy-handed, unwieldy, irrational and irresponsible – considering that the allegation against him bothers on a non-violent crime. This is very simple.

I am at a loss. I presume you did not read my post at all.

Can you cite to me what law exactly ties the mode of arrest to the violence/ non-violence of a crime? Is it not rather the seriousness of the crime - be it violent or non-violent, that is consisdered?

I positively assert to you that there is NO such law – and accordingly you are feeding your audience with a repugnant falsehood. Is it not rather the case that the mode of resistance of arrest determines what force is deployed?

The fact of the matter is that force is lawful once a person resists arrest.

In everything you have said, you cannot refute this simple truth.

So quit the chit-chat son.

the Italian mobsters you mentioned, by virtue of their heinous activities, were a direct threat to the peace, security and well-being of the state and the citizens thereof.

Ibori’s liaisons with illegally armed militants is not a similar threat “to the peace, security and well-being of the state? ? ? ? ? ?”

I laugh. I just laugh.

It seems to me you do not understand the dynamics of power. No responsible sovereign would entertain an immune overlord of such powers within its jurisdiction. There simply cannot be two captains on one ship. Bow down.

The US government and the whole US society KNEW that the mobsters committed murders, gun-running, drug-dealing, and all other offences imaginable but they just could not lay hands on concrete PROOF.

Close your eyes, take a deep breath, count to ten, open your eyes and read your statement above again.

Shocking you do not realize how directly applicable it is to the Nigerian context. We ALL know that Ibori and co are bastardized thieves. What’s missing is the proof.

Now a process has begun to address that and adduce the proof.

And YOU: Pro01 – DARE to complain on the grounds that –

1. Other people have not been arrested

2. The President has a grouse against him

These are comical and laughable kindergarten excuses son.

If you want to ‘prosecute’ IBB simply because you want him to step down his presidential ambition to pave the way for your own smooth sail to the presidential seat, my questions are: why should I be impressed with that? Why should any discerning Nigerian celebrate that?

We should celebrate that because we know that the man deserves to be in Jail.

It is of no concern to us that the person bringing him to justice does so out of spite. That is the law of Karma in action.

You are living in a fool’s paradise if you imagine that all actions against corrupt persons worldwide are initiated for altruistic reasons.

I wonder what part of the elephant of you guys are touching, maybe the anus.

Frankly, your views on this matter are smelly, disgusting and as the majority can confirm, reprehensible, immoral and debasing in the extreme. So if anybody is touching the anus of an elephant here, I would suggest that you are that person: and that you actually dwell right there – deep inside the anus, for your views, your morality and your integrity bear a striking resemblance to faeces.

Any country nitwit can immediately see a glaring missing link: HOW does the official corruption directly ensure premature death of hundreds of thousands?

I will not even bother to respond in detail to this.

This is an emphatic joke: and shows you up as an unrepentant liar and hypocrite.

I only need to produce YOUR OWN QUOTE, where you stated very clearly that you are aware that corruption leads to the death of many people. Here is the quote –

pro01:
I acknowledge the plight of the beleaguered masses that, as you have said, have died and continue to die from the lethal effects of corruption.

Having made the foregoing statement, it beggars belief that you would have the nerve to revert to me demanding proof of the fact that corruption leads to deaths.

This is disgusting – not only because you had already acknowledged this fact, but primarily because it is self-evident that stolen state resources deny critical sectors such as health which thereby cause the loss of lives.

Being that you are blessed with ‘Deep Sight’ I know that you must have seen the “(In Nigeria)” somewhere there, and in any case we are talking about a Nigerian politician charged with offences allegedly committed in Nigeria, so EXTANT Nigerian laws must apply. If corruption is punishable by death in Asia and the Far East, how does that “singularly floor my argument”?

Son, it floors your argument because you asserted that corruption is not as serious as terrorism or murder. I have shown you that in several parts of the world, it is punished with the death penalty – which shows clearly that many people perceive it to be just as reprehensible as the worst crimes. It is pathetic that you would narrow such a jurisprudential issue to Nigeria alone. Since when did our jurisprudence become the benchmark for that which is desirable? ? ? Is it not true that we have a lot to learn from foreigners? And considering the level of corruption in Nigeria, is such not apposite in the circumstances? ? ?

At all events, I needn’t dwell on this because you have already shot yourself in the foot with this admission – You said –

pro01:
Be that as it may, I actually support the death penalty for corruption in Nigeria

And this emphatically shows that YOU recognise that the standards adopted by the far-east nations regarding corruption are desirable in Nigeria!

Why then would you contradict yourself by insisting that only current Nigerian standards should be considered in a discussion of this nature? ? ?

You are violently confused.

At the risk of being accused of playing the Devil’s Advocate, I have to again insist that you cannot PROVE that Ibori “resisted arrest (by) deploying hundreds of illegally armed men”. Do you have the contract documents wherein Ibori hired the so-called armed men in exchange for monetary compensation or whatever?

1. You have already acceded that you are playing the Devil’s advocate. This statement destroys your case as its direct implication is that you are aware that the reverse is the case – but only seek to indulge in pedantic tomfoolery.

2. Your principal was declared wanted. What is a citizen required to do under law when decalred wanted? ? ? You try to argue law without having the least apprehension of what the rule of law connotes. Is it lawful for citizens to resist arrest?

3. You missed the fact that I had anticipated you. I stated clearly that the youths in question were committing an offence by bearing illegal arms and preventing the arrest of a suspect. That alone warrants the deployment of force, contrary to what you said.

4. The failure of the suspect to produce himself as lawfully required contains a heavy inference regarding his involvement in the illegal actions taken to avoid his arrest.

5. At all events, you quite simply know that you are parading a pedantic LIE.

I can hazard a guess as to the answer all of them (including Ibori) would give you regarding why they disobeyed The State and escaped justice: POLITICAL PERSECUTION! Who are you to regard one as justified and the other as not? Who are you to make such a subjective judgment?

I am nobody to make such a “subjective judgement” – and that is exactly why the process initiated will ensure that the courts – and not me – will make an objective judgement.

Do you seek to stop the courts?

Son, you are bordering on incoherence.

Against this premise, is it not logical to deduct that the biggest thief of the lot would be the one with access to the biggest funds? If you negate this reasoning then I’ll be left aghast as to how you passed philosophy 101.

This is frankly absurd.

By your analogy –

1. The Governor of Edo State cannot steal more funds than the Governor of Bayelsa State.

2. The personality and inclination of the individuals is totally irrelevant

3. Most damningly – Delta State is the State with the most respurces and Federal Allocations in Nigeria. So even if we go by your own crude analogy, then it follows that he is at least the Governor who has stolen the most – since no other governor has access to as much funds as he did.

Grow up.

As a prelude, I need to remind you that the basis of declaring someone a ‘thief’ is either that he has been caught in the act (in the context of ordinary, everyday life), or that he has been CONVICTED by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Ha ha. By this pedestrian reasoning IBB never stole a penny – since he has not been convicted. Joker.

You already pointed out in the American-Mobsters example that it is possible for the state and the public to be aware that someone is a criminal even when the proof is yet to be adduced.

At all events your point remains mis-footed as the process commenced (which you are condemning) seeks to bring the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction.

This is the basis upon with I will gleefully prove to you that, contrary to your earnest and rabid posturing, Ibori IS NOT the biggest ‘thief’ in Nigeria. Consider this: Ibori is charged with converting N44b worth of Oceanic bank shares to the use of a private company in which he allegedly has substantial interest.

That is a charge which is subsequent to the main body of 177 charges against him initially brought before the Federal High Court which is currently on appeal.

So quit the chit-chat.

Sagamite:
If that was the only achievement you could allocate to IBB, it would have been wiser not to have mentioned it, as a govenrment needs to do far more than that.

Mentioning it might mislead some to think he was good to an extent, when in reality a vast majority of society started collapsing due to his corrupt rule.

What you just did, amounted to emphasising how Hitler was just so wonderful to his dogs and showed he had a heart.

My friend who i quoted in the OP also told me that one of the most major highways in Munich was built by Hitler. I guess we should be congratulating Hitler for that!

^^^ KAG - I positively assert that you cannot "falsify" the existence of GOD or gods, (in this i am at odds with your bizzarre choice of words).

You mad esuch a horrid statement sometime ago to the effect that the commencement of the universe equates 0 = 1.

That means that nothingness = something.

That is worse than magic.

If we accept that "something" cannot be produced by "nothing", then we necessarily accept that "something" (of whatever description) always existed, and "nothingness" perforce, and by its very description - does not exist.

What was that "something" that always existed? Aha.

SapeleGuy:
Before the Ibori regime, infant mortality was running at 102 deaths per 1000 births today it is down to 48 deaths per 1000 births, most of the country is still in the 90s - Lagos by the way is 85 deaths per 1000 births.

Can you provide your source?

Lamentably there is nothing within the post above substantive enough to merit a response.

You have not even scrtached the surface of the arguments i made: you have merely made vacant rebuttals.

This is at variance with the usual quality of your ripostes.

^^^ I believe you did not read my earlier submission on this -

1. The Third - Mainland Bridge Project predated the Babagida Administration though that administration completed its second half only.

2. Completing roads is the responsibility of every government.

3. If a Government therefore completes one road and through massive corruption and irresponsibility ensures the destruction, mutilation and non-maintenance of 100 OTHER ROADS, that government CANNOT claim an acheivement in the Road-Infrastructure sector AT ALL, as it now has a negative balance on that score. The best that can be said for such a government is that it completely failed with respect to infrastructure.

4. As Sagamite said - this line of reasoning will eventually lead us to congratulate the Yaradua Administration on the fact that road cleaners swept ONE road while he was president.

5. The legacy of corruption that IBB left Nigeria is incomparable. That legacy has ensured the siphoning of billions of dollars over the years allocated to road infrastructure. Summarily, the IBB regime is indeed the massive catalyst of the system that today ensures a dilapidated road infrastructure in Nigeria and consequently it is absolutely incongruous to single out ONE road and attempt to impose such as an "acheivement" in any terms.

imhotep:
Atheism is a religion that believes in the non-existence of God.

This is wholly false.

Religion centres around both belief and worship of supposedly transcendent entities or powers.

The atheist denies such, and does not engage in such.

Accordingly there is absolutely no rational basis for the claim that atheism is a religion.

Unless of course, the person making such a statement is oblivious of the definition of the word “religion”

Because atheists cannot disprove the existence of God, they have to rely on faith to believe His non-existence.

The atheist does not have an obligation to disprove the existence of God.

In the words of Betrand Russel – “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

This analogy simply is directed at showing up the flaw in insisting that the non-existence of something that has not been observed, or cannot be observed, must be proved by the skeptic. A grasp of the "absence of evidence" theorem will suggest that this is an absolute impossibility: and also an incongruity - the atheists will never attempt to prove the non-existence of God, as such can never be done, nor does it make sense to ask them to come up with the evidence for a negative assertion.

It's quite simply a contradiction in terms.

In this perhaps i am somewhat tainted by my legal background as the term "burden of proof" has a distinct legal connotation.

In a sentence, the principle states - "He who asserts must prove".

However it is worth noting that this refers to a positive assertion as opposed to a negative assertion. In other words if i were to make the positive statement: "Michael Jackson is standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest" - the burden of proving that would rest on me, and not on the person who makes the negative assertion - "Michael Jackson is not standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest."

It is for this reason that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who are making the positive statement - "He did it" and not with the defence who are making the negative statement - "He did not do it."

Faith, afterall, is the substance if things NOT SEEN.

Yes, which is why the religionist has faith.

God is NOT seen and the atheist claims that there is NO SUBSTANCE to belief in God, and as such it is illogical to attribute faith to the atheist – since he denies any such “substance.”

Atheism is a belief-system that has the qualities of a religion.

This is an absolute lie and I put you to the strictest proof thereof.

You make the horrid mistake that many have made – equating the existence of BELIEF to a religion.

I ask you – is a belief in Santa Claus a religion?

Is a belief that Mount Everest does not exist a religion?

Why then should a belief that an unobservable God does not exist, amount to a religion?

Your assertion is tragically mis-footed.

If there is nothing after death, then each indivudual existence ends in nothingness, thus = zero (0).

If all things = zero as an end result, the pre-death equation accordingly sums up to zero.

Within a zero equation, there cannot exist anything - not to speak of a concept of good and evil.

No degree of violence or evil will be significant, since everything will culminate in zero.

Meaningfulness must thus inherently avoid the zero factor.

Conclusively, if death leads to nothingness, or zero, morality is moot, exaggerated, purposeless and irrelevant.

This does not mean I do not appreciate goodness for goodness sake and nothing else; I am rather trying to show that a death that results in a state of nothingness is inconceivable.

Big B1:
It is obvious that IBB is my man, this shall remain so till the end of time.
And the last time I checked, it is absolutely acceptable and very ok to pick whoever you want out of all the political candidates; so, why are you folks crying for?
Instead of you to clearly address why IBB should not be our next president, majority of you are here busy sweating big b1.

If you are smart, you'll immediately realize that I have just given you a priceless gift, it is now up to you to come on down to Abuja to address whatever issues you have against IBB.
Please let us treat this forum as an information center. You'll gain nothing "absolutely nothing" by wasting your time bashing or attacking big b1;
Cos big b1 doesn't compromise.

IBB 2011!!!!!!!

Please can you coherently explain to me why a man who ANNULED the express mandate of the electorate, should seek a mandate from same electorate?

Does such a man have any regard for the said electorate?

You are deluded, and worse, a compulsive political masochist, with drastic lack of self esteem - for only such a lack of self esteem could make you invite the man who r.aped your wife for a second round humping her.

pro01:
@ Deep Sight

Since you have somewhat disproved my earlier conviction that you belong to that misfortunate 'confederacy' that employs only vulgar methods to espouse their opinions, and having giving a hint that you are a member of the higher order, I will endure the inconvenience of repeating my main points again - in response to your post. I do this, however, with the presumption that you are intelligent enough to realise the following:

Please do not patronise me.

I do not come to this forum to be recognised as a member of any “higher order” – which order you have arrogated to yourself and this appears to inform the exasperating and comical fashion in which you presumptuously allot yourself the role of Einstein, whereat we, humble lot, remain dunces.

1. I am entitled to my opinions; opinions which, in my own enlightened judgment are profound and deeper than the surface. You don’t have to agree with my views.

This is the first time on this forum I have come across a fellow refer to himself as possessing “enlightened judgment.” And I have come across a great deal of megalomaniacs. But none so far-gone as to adorn himself with such narcissistic praise as you do. But no matter.

2. Consequent on the above, you may choose to agree with me that I do not have any ties whatsoever with Ibori and have never been a beneficiary of whatever funds he is purported to have acquired.

I hope so.

1. I never asked for the process (of arrest) to be halted! I questioned the methods/heavy-handedness/unprecedented resources deployed for his case, as well as the obvious selectivity . . . in other words what made his PARTICULAR case so special!

You have questioned the following –

1. “the methods/heavy-handedness/unprecedented resources deployed for his case”

2. “the obvious selectivity”

With respect to No. 1 above, I set forth this contention to you –

***  If a man is validly suspected of significant official corruption

*** That man engages the authorities in a display of force and thereby aggressively resists arrest

*** Such a man cannot be heard to complain regarding the degree of force deployed to effect his arrest.

I positively challenge you to dispute the foregoing. In this, I state unequivocally that it is a most lame, most intransigent, and most untenable position for such a man to refer to any other persons who may be equally deserving of arrest as grounds for his reprehensible defiance of state authority.

Sir, I happen to be a legal practitioner and I can tell you that in terms of the sub-text of legal enforcement, there is no greater offence than the act of deploying force of arms against the sovereignty of the state: this is exactly what your principal did in resisting (by force of arms), the order of arrest of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

I can therefore surmise that in addition to his acts of official corruption, your principal is also potentially guilty of Treason. This fact alone sufficiently unhinges your claims regarding the gravity of his offence – as there is no offence which may be said to be graver than the offence of Treason.

Let me point out that even if you dare to make the comical claim that the armed youths were not there at his behest, this is moot as it does not change the fact that the youths were committing an offence by preventing the state from effecting an arrest. Thus VIOLENT AND criminal means were deployed to protect him, he accepted such protection by refusing to yield to the authorities and subsequently escaped. That makes him at the very least an accessory to the treasonable actions in Oghara.

Aside this, lie to your self in your conscience that you do not know that those guys were sponsored by Ibori. Just Lie.

Now in addition to the foregoing, I am astonished that the following obvious fact entirely missed your narcissistic highness – namely –

THAT THE FAILURE OF THE AUTHOURITIES TO EFFECT IBORI’S ARREST ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ILLEGAL DEPLOYMENT OF ARMED YOUTHS TO DEFEND HIM IN ITSELF ABSOLUTELY SEALS THE POINT THAT THE FORCE DEPLOYED WAS ONLY APT AND NECESSARY!

Because –

 1. Such force would not be necessary if Ibori was not surrounded by a large contingent of persons bearing illegal arms.

 2. The fact that the forces deployed could not surmount his defences shows that the forces deployed, contrary to your surmise, WERE NOT EVEN SUFFICIENT![/b]

I may therefore conclude that –

1. You’re are oblivious to the seriousness of the act of armed resistance to state authority: [u]you accordingly advance a case for both treason and anarchy

2. Your assertion regarding the level of the force deployed irrevocably falls apart once we consider the twin facts that –

a. There was a mob of illegally armed militants guarding him, AND –

b. The forces deployed yet proved insufficient to overcome his illegal guard

2. The motives behind the process are of the greatest consequence imaginable! The motive for arresting and prosecuting a suspect should STRICTLY be to bring him to justice for his crime(s). Any other motive behind this makes the process a sham, and more importantly, UNSUSTAINABLE and INEFFECTIVE.

This is false.

The State may have a personal grouse against a known criminal, such as the United States Government did in the seventies against several Italian mobsters. I hope you are aware that after the government was unable to pin murder charges on some of these guys they had to effect their arrest on trumped-up charges of tax evasion. That society has remained much safer and saner as a consequence.

At all events that is a crude analogy. The finer point is and remains the question of the guilt of the person being hounded.

If that person is indeed guilty of the crimes levelled against him, it is of no consequence legally and morally speaking that the charges are only being brought because he fancies the President’s mistress.

To ram home this point, I DEMAND of you that you answer me in clear and straight terms the following question –

1. The Federal Government recently indicated that it is considering opening an investigation regarding official corruption against Ibrahim Babangida.

2. It is eminently possible that the motivation for opening such an inquiry is to castrate Babangida’s presidential ambitions and thereby maintain the current government in power beyond 2011.

Now tell me – would you object to the move to prosecute Babangida? Is it not true that such a prosecution will be in line with the aspirations of Nigerians, the collective conscience of this nation, all known morals and ethics, and I dare, say, the will of God?

And this remains the case regardless of the fact that the prosecution could be politically motivated!

Answer me on this – will you object to the move to prosecute Babangida?

This firmly proves the point we have laboured to make across this thread – namely the simple wisdom that if a person is actually guilty of a crime, it is neither here nor there that the charge is raised  because such a person fancies the president’s wife, or that there are other persons guilty of such.

The best you can do is to applaud that person’s arrest whilst also calling for the arrest of others.

By the way, IBB is now being examined. So your fundamental premise that others are not being examined falls apart. Let me ask you this again –

If you were to produce a list of all the corrupt politicians in Nigeria, and the current government prosecutes them all on account of personal vendetta and slams them all in jail – would you scream blue murder – or kneel in thanks to God that through a twist of fate, these barbaric goons have met their just reward?

EVERY CAUGHT/IDENTIFIED criminal MUST be prosecuted using same standards designated for particular crimes.

Frankly, this is humanly impossible. You expect an utopia.

You are absolutely correct. I, as Mazi Pro01, do not regard corruption to be as grave as mass murder and terrorism (in other words, I’d rather dine with the ghost of Mobutu Sese Seko than that of Adolf Hitler; and the USA would release all the fraudsters in its prisons if that will guarantee them Osama Bin Laden’s Head, for instance). No crime is worse than premeditated killing of innocent people. Having clarified that, I must point out that my opinion is of little consequence. What is of absolute consequence is the opinion of the law. And you may wish to learn that the opinion of the law (in Nigeria) happens to coincide with my opinion, which is that money laundering is not as grave an offence as murder. That is why the former is bail-able and the latter not; that is why the maximum sentence for the former is less than ten years (concurrently, in the event of multiple count charges) and the latter death sentence. You may also be willing to note that the extent of force for arrests, and punishments the law stipulates for money laundering offences (which is the charge against Ibori) is manifestly clear

I would expect you to adopt a deeper and more circumspect approach to the inference you have made above.

I am not going to dwell on this just now, as I am tired, and will shortly take a nap, but I will simply give you a chance to revert to me and revise your misguided view on this point: if you do not, I will address this in detail.

Nevertheless let me just leave this poser for you –

Man X – murders one (1) Citizen and is sentenced to death.

Man Y – Engages in official corruption for eight years, and in the process ensures a dilapidated society that ensures the premature death of hundreds of thousands of citizens.

I do not know what moral code you subscribe to,  but any rational person can see that Man Y above has done far more harm to society than Man X.

Now when you cite the provisions of the law to me regarding the punishment due for murder as against the punishment due for official corruption, I will have you know that this is only a question of context and clime. For there are serious nations that recognise exactly how serious official corruption is, and punish it with the maximum penalty – DEATH.

IN MANY COUNTRIES OF ASIA AND THE FAR EAST, CORRUPTION IS PUNISHABLE BY THE DEATH PENALY

CAN YOU TELL ME WHY THIS IS THE CASE?[/b]

This singularly floors your argument.

The law does not allow the use maximum force (i.e. deadly firearms possibly leading to death of the suspect) in non-violent crimes such as money laundering.

The law in every country of the world ABSOLUTELY permits the use of violent force for the arrest of persons who violently resist arrest when sought for a felony.

This is an incontestable fact.

It is also an incontestable fact that Ibori resisted arrest deploying hundreds of illegally armed men.

If that were not the case, why did he remain surrounded by them and refuse to yield to the authorities? At the very least that makes him an accessory to their offence, aside from the fact that unless we are to lie to ourselves, it is obvious that they were on his payroll.

That is treason, illegal possession of arms, incitement against the state, resisting arrest, obstruction of justice. . . do not even ask me to draft the charge sheet because the number of counts will equate the age of Methuselah.

I positively assert to you that in every country of the world, these offences justify the deployment of violent force under the law.

Contradict that if you can.

The cowardly masses have been pushed to the wall, rather than fight back like the proverbial longsuffering goat, they break the wall and run even farther.

This being true still does not invalidate anything said above.

With due respect, this is a laughable point of view. If a you say, the present system of politics will evolve to such a point where “in pursuit of personal interest, governments will have cause to unearth the corrupt deeds of this or that politician”, and therefore that “EVERY politician will realize that it is politically dangerous to have skeletons in his cupboard.”, does it not occur to you that an umpteen number of politicians would also evolve their game to be sure that they are always on the same page with any government in power (AGIP)?

That is what Ibori tried to do by supporting the lame-duck Yaradua presidency. It rebounded on him forcefully. End of the day, everybody can see that the only safe path is the avoidance of skeletons. Lest your shallow and politically-motivated enemies “get you!”

Can anyone PROVE that Ibori personally authorised/mobilised the militant youths to defend him against arrest?

Is this a joke?

What is a citizen required to do when declared wanted? Remain cooped up in his house surrounded by a hoard of armed militants and subsequently disappear overseas?

I will only respond to statements that are worth responding to.

Again I have to poke holes - not necessarily in the quality of your thinking, but in the depth of your thinking. I shouldn’t bother to reply this, but I will – just for the mere sake of philosophy. I am not omniscient as you rightly pointed out, and I do not know the exact amount of money any public officer has stolen, But I DO know that what can be stolen is always directly proportional to what is there to be stolen. And so it takes no Albert Einstein to know that Delta state under Ibori did not have as much resources as Nigeria under OBJ (for instance).

This is irrelevant unless and until you can prove exactly how much OBJ stole.

Your statement contains a lamentable presumption that the sum of funds available to be stolen is equal to the sum of funds stolen.

I do not make any such hasty and utterly unfounded generalization. I do not claim omniscience. You stated that Ibori is not the biggest thief in Nigeria. Prove it.

Your averment that others had a bigger pot at their disposal is comical as an attempt at proof. Since when did availability equal theft?

I insist that you are misguided in the extreme.

While you dwell on the foregoing, let me make a few comments on your opening post.

You stated –

I'm repulsed by the unwieldy deployment of maximum state force to effect Ibori's arrest! After storming his hometown with a combined team of Army, Airforce, Police, SSS, and EFCC to arrest him dead or alive, the government further unleashed the INTERPOL on the accused. What for? Did he commit mass murder or terrorism?

- Thus suggesting very clearly that you do not regard official corruption to be as grave as “mass murder or terrorism.”

- I need to ram the point forcefully home that official corruption kills a great many more people than terrorists or serial killers are capable of in their entire lives.

- Every neglected road which spawns fatal accidents, the thousands of needless deaths at ill-equipped hospitals, the numerous fire-incidents resulting from the use of alternative power on account of a dilapidated power infrastructure – all of these are clear and direct results of official corruption and I am aghast that you do not realize that such corruption therefore leads very directly to the untimely death of an unquantifiable number of people

- I am thus eminently offended, nay outraged, on behalf of the millions of souls who have been victims of this systemic abuse, that you regard such as being less grave than murder, and worse – that you denounce the application of state force to effect the arrest of a person resisting arrest regarding charges of such murderous official corruption.

If 'money laundering' is now such a heinous crime (or in fact, accustation), then: Why hasn't Erastus Akingbola been arrested in London where he is hiding? Why hasn't Peter Odili been hounded with the armed forces? What of the Haliburton crooks? What of OBJ, Andy Uba, IBB, etc. etc. etc. Indeed, El-Rufai and Ribadu were declared wanted by EFCC and Code of Conduct Bureau for almost three years on allegations of corruption. Pray: Why did our useless government not unleash the Interpol on them while they hid in the US and UK as fugitives. In Ibori's case now they are using NATO, INTERPOL, CIA, KGB, MOSSAD, &M16 to track him down dead or alive. Why the double-standards

I certainly hope that you realize, as you have already been told on this thread, that the apt thing to do is to rally around for the arrest and prosecution of all the others who you have mentioned AS WELL.

It is rather appalling that you would question the non-arrest of these persons, and lo and behold – when one of their ilk – Ibori – is arrested, you scream blue murder?

That is eminently contradictory and suggests firmly to me that you do not have the least apprehension regarding the issue that you so cavalierly set forth.

I can smell a whiff of personal vendatta in Ibori's case.

Let me put you out of your misery. There is more than a whiff of personal vendetta involved. There is a whole ship-load of it.

Question is – SO WHAT?

Does it miss you that it most likely is the case that ALMOST EVERY politician in this country is corrupt?

Now the government consists of Politicians.

Thus going by your reasoning, there WILL NEVER be a government that possesses the moral authority to effect such actions.

It is rather the case that in pursuit of personal interest, governments will have cause to unearth the corrupt deeds of this or that politician.

And I positively assert to you that such IS HEALTHY for the polity as the direct implication will be that EVERY politician will realize that it is politically dangerous to have skeletons in his cupboard.

You need to summarize your case  - if you DO NOT mean to suggest that a government must arrest all known criminals before the next criminal can be arrested, then kindly close shop and quit the chit-chat son.

Why kill an ant with a sledge-hammer?

What gives you the audacity to assert that Ibori’s actions or the quantum of corruption levelled against him is in anyway comparable to a metaphorical ant? What audit or process of inquiry have you conducted in this regard?

Contrarily, exactly such a process is about to commence and you find yourself opening a thread with the title – “In defence of Ibori. . .”.

I state to you that that title alone is philosophically mis-footed, an assault to the conscience and sensibilities of an entire nation and an embarrassment of your perception of integrity.

On what basis should you seek to “defend” him?

He is not the biggest thief in Nigeria.

This statement implies either one of two things –

1. You are omniscient OR

2. You know the exact amount of funds he has stolen, and also know a person who has stolen more.

Given that you are not omniscient, the only logical possibility is No. 2.

Can you tell us why you have not ratted out that other person whose personal finances you know so intimately, as to be aware that he is both a thief, and a bigger one than Ibori? ? ? ?

pro01:
Very interesting indeed, bros. "Monkeyleg" must be the name of the courts of omniscient jurisdiction that convicted Ibori and his wife of being "born thieves". Perhaps you would be kind enough to show us the court papers that prove the 'fact' of their being "found guilty". The only thing I can think of is that they were probably found guilty in pepper-soup high court, confirmed guilty in ishiewu/asun appeal court, and condemned finally at the beer parlour supreme court. These your stories remind me of several others we have heard over the years: IBB and M.A are homosexual lovers; Abacha had a hand in the plane crash that killed Ibrahim, his first son; The Swiss wristwatch company, SWATCH, is owned by IBB; Mariam Abacha declared that no matter how much looted funds the government seizes from them, the family would never be as ‘poor’ as Dangote. . . and other such marketplace tales. It is interesting to also enrich my beer parlour gist-bag with news that Mr. & Mrs. Ibori have “been stealing from birth” (wonder what they stole straight out the womb, a bite of their mommies’ unmentionables?), and that they relied on stolen building materials to complete their luxurious London home. LMAO!

Some of these tales (including yours) may be true, just as they might very well be idle fabrications. But the fact is that they are all apocryphal and lack any degree of veracity as at now. To that extent, with due respect, it is ludicrous for anyone to use such tales by moonlight to buttress arguments that intend (or pretend) to be sensible.

- - - -> Which is exactly why a judicial process commencing with an arrest and preferment of formal charges is the proper process via which the wheat might be sifted from the chaff.

This is the process that has just begun.

I positively DEMAND of you that you state to me -

1. Why such a process should be halted

2. Whether the motives behind such a process are of any consequence whatsoever

3. Whether it is apposite to lament such a process for the particular reason that a similar process has not been commenced against EVERY KNOWN criminal.

Revert.

Big B1:
He'll discuss the importance of his return.

A return to perfect what? More murder, annulments, corruption, etc? ? ?

Are you for real?

No doubt you will soon shamefully be opening a Youths Earnextly Ask for Babangida Campaign!

With comments such as yours, is there any doubt as to why Nigeria remains such a jack-a.ssed country? ? ? ? ?

He'll address the baseless speculation that he disrespected the Nigerian new generation.

As a matter of fact, it is not a rumour, but a well-documented statement captured on the Hausa Service of the BBC.

IF you do not know the difference between such facts and rumours, it is no wonder you are similarly lost as to the "acheivements" of his dastardly and bankrupt regime.

He'll also discuss why Nigeria can not move forward after over 10 yrs since he left Aso Rock.

Again, you are not even aware that its been 17 years since your principal left power, and not 10 years.

I would advise him to hire a more astute representative than you are turning out to be.

Please be so good as to refund to him the sums he has remitted to you for this assignment, as you are handling it most poorly.

Finally, he'll identify our problems and clearly present solutions to each and every problem we are facing in this country.

Just like he did from 1985 - 1993? ? ? ? ?

What are you smoking? ? ? ? ?

Fhemmmy:
Show me the effect of OBJ's borrowing

I would be the last to defend the primitive farmer, but it is on record that his administration dealt with the nagging problem of Nigeria's $30 Billion external debt.

He was able to do this because there was a surge in global oil prices on account of the war in Iraq, amongst other factors.

There was a similar war in Iraq about 1990. That also triggered a rise in Oil prices globally. At that time IBB was the Nigerian Sovereign.

Strangely, rather than eliminate the debt with the excess, he got us further and more deeply indebted.

What does that say?

chidichris:
. . . an attorney general assasinted without trace and u fight corruption.
we are total jokes and habitual criminals hence what ibori did is typical nigerian and that is just it.

What would you thus recommend?

A halt to the processes initiated against Ibori?

If you are NOT recommending that: then please BE STILL.

pro01:
I see you're a certified member of the incorrigible 'confederacy of dunces'. Throwing words about in a disjointed, inelegant, and out of context manner does not excuse your paucity of intellect. You have the democratic right either agree or disagree with my well considered views, but embarking on needless name-calling is symptomatic of a deeper mental disease - for which I'll strongly advice you seek treatment.

I am not certain that you are at grips with the term "name-calling."

For this is what I posted -

Deep Sight:
@ Pro01 -

You are severely, tragically, regrettably, horrifyingly, astonishingly, appallingly misguided.

Six qualifiers describing the extent to which i believe you are misguided. You will be at pains to see any "name-calling" in there.

For my free right of self expression, and my perception that you are misguided, you by contrast, have called me a dunce, and stated that I am mentally ill.

You might thus want to review your understanding of the term "name-calling" especially since you have asserted that it shows "paucity of intellect" and "is symptomatic of a deeper mental diesease."

^^^ Let us take for granted the concept of sin.

How can you conceive a NATURAL URGE evidently prompted by NATURAL HORMONES and bearing NATURAL FUNCTIONS as being a "sin."

What is your concept of "sin?"

What crass stupidity.

A human being will be subjected to eternal torment for yielding to the perfectly natural urges of his natural body ? ? ? ? ?

RoadStar:
Imagine Lagos without 3rd mainland bridge
No useful project of that size has been added to this country by subsequent administration.

1. The Third - Mainland Bridge Project predated the Babagida Administration though that administration completed its second half only.

2. Completing roads is the responsibility of every government.

3. If a Government therefore completes one road and through massive corruption and irresponsibility ensures the destruction, mutilation and non-maintenance of 100 OTHER ROADS, that government CANNOT claim an acheivement in the Road-Infrastructure sector AT ALL, as it now has a negative balance on that score. The best that can be said for such a government is that it completely failed with respect to infrastructure.

4. As Sagamite said - this line of reasoning will eventually lead us to congratulate the Yaradua Administration on the fact that road cleaners swept ONE road while he was president.

5. The legacy of corruption that IBB left Nigeria is incomparable. That legacy has ensured the siphoning of billions of dollars over the years allocated to road infrastructure. Summarily, the IBB regime is indeed the massive catalyst of the system that today ensures a dilapidated road infrastructure in Nigeria and consequently it is absolutely incongruous to single out ONE road and attempt to impose such as an "acheivement" in any terms.

@ Pro01 -

You are severely, tragically, regrettably, horrifyingly, astonishingly, appallingly misguided.

What is of deep concern, is that in your tragic misconceptions and incoherent arguments you comically presume yourself to be "analytical" in the least.

Son, you are lost in the woods.

A friend of mine and I have been involved in a heated debate concerning the subject of the acheivements of Babangida's administration (1985 - 1993).

He asserts to me as follows -

"And I wish you would stop being guided by passion alone. I dont like IBB anymore than you do, but the man's administration achieved a lot. That fact does not change even if the motive was personal enrichment of himself, family, friends and cronies.

Better life for Rural women worked more than you care to think. Ask women in Kogi, Imo, Niger states. I am anticipating your response - "Mariam made billions on every ten thousand she gave "that may be so, But it still brought succour to the woman in the hinterland whose existence was hitherto unknown.

I wont vote for Babaginda (or any of his spurn), but please try and appreciate that one truth does not annihilate another truth,  "

Now i emphatically disagree with him. I am of the firm persuasion that the IBB Regime acheived exactly NOTHING in Nigeria, and that that administration virtually destroyed this country and incapacitated its structures in a manner so comprehensive that we can barely grasp the extent thereof.

I would like your views on the simple question -

- - - "Did IBB's administration record any significant acheivements for Nigeria?"

Howdi Alethiea. . .

I guess you are right. . .perhaps they will reach a common understanding on the subject.

I will be glad to read the thread and see how i may be enlightened - although I am of the firm view that it is not an important subject - given that both and indeed, all parties agree that that which is cardinal is charity at all times to all people, especially those in need.

I thus cannot imagine of what relevance to our consciousness of charity the story of an ancient nomad and his peculiar practices is.

This nomad reportedly dined with angels and on one spectacular occassion was about to murder his own son on the promptings of his deity. I have no doubt that the nomad had a remarkable life, but I am at pains as to how his peculiar practices could be of any relevance to a modern man's perception of that which lies at the heart of this matter - the inner prompting to give generously both to our fellow man and to the service of God.

Now, totally off-point, I have this sickening feeling that you have a double I.D.

OMG, I never thought i'd see this day.

Conflict of views within VINCLEAR?

chakula:
@nuclearboy,
i thanks Allah Almighty with a little knowledge i have, and also to me english is not my mother tongue that is why iam not proud of it and also i will communicate with it any how, because day is coming that i will be able to write and speak the language orderly. thanks for your observation.

This is a humble, simple, honest and beautiful response.

God will surely get you there.

nuclearboy:
[1] Abuzola was young and full of verve. Chakula is in his thirties and full of poo
[2] Abuzola was/is very well liked on NL. Chakula is like a boil in the wrong place or like a bad smell
[3] Abuzola presented his case fairly lucidly. Chakula's english has to be read to be believed. Here's an example "Muslim Proud with their Religion because they were worshiped one God, not unlike the compused ones with many god." from https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=442722.msg6025885#msg6025885. Another favorite of mine is "I pray to Allah Almighty to granted jannatul firdausi to him(umar musa y.) and to all muslim that were died, and also to us which we are waiting for our time ameen." which comes from https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=443344.msg6018206#msg6018206.
[4] Abuzola quoted the Quran freely. Chakula quotes "visions of virgins" (whatever that means) but makes no sense
[5] I would like to see Abuzola back here (at least for the comic effect) Chakula should please leave NL if not go claim his fake virgins
[6] Abuzola seemed to have gone to some form of higher educational institution. Chakula must have spent the first 30 years of his life with an illiterate alfa in the sahara desert

Any other differences, people?

Coming from you, this post is a huge disappointment and altogether regrettable.

The more so as you have not cited what particular act from the said Chakula you might find offensive, beyond his grammatical challenge: which is no offense, and not something to be mocked.

You finally are able to articulate something on your thoughts regarding God, well I'll be back to discuss in detail.

harakiri:
Hmmm This is indeed food for thought. The bolded part above makes a lot of sense plus some radicalism on the part of the citizens crying for blood wouldn't go amiss.The shelling of the battle of Bastilles over a century ago by French women who killed all the nobles over an increase in flour taxes comes to mind.What do you think?

Absolutely. But the trouble is Nigerians are far too docile in revolutionary terms.

As you said, we should keep up the pressure.