₦airaland Forum

justkunmi:
@almost anagram for jealous
today is the tomorrow you said yesterday.   . .so waiting for your review

Lol . . . it is only 10am for some of us jor. And some of us had to spend a good chunk of the am digging our cars out of 2 feet of snow in sub-zero weather while you sit in tropical 90's with ocean breeze typing your review      and then some of us spent another hour commuting what typically takes 10mins, while fighting mothernature, blizzard conditions with barely 20-feet visibility and other clueless drivers who still don't understand that they will get stuck on the road with small cars that cannot handle the snow covered roads . . . okay, I'm done venting. For now  

---

Meanwhile, I like the discussion going on now. You guys have really broken it down to the ground.
Sweetguy, Vesc is right on point in his last post . . . the cave, the woman, the prisoner etc etc . . . are all hallucinations and hallucinations don't make sense most of the time . . . so imagine trying to make sense of the hallucinations of someone else lol.

@topic,
Shutter Island was a let-down for me mostly because I went in with very high expectations. Hmm . . . not to sound like smarty-pants but I honestly figured out he was the one who was crazy about halfway through the movie and so the rest of the flick was just waiting to see how he went nuts. Almost every scene seemed set up like a dream, like a hallucination so much so the logical conclusion was that Caprio was the loon.

One problem (or praise?) with SI (as JK/Lalaboi pointed out) is that parts of it are open to interpretation. You may 'understand/not understand' it if you choose/don't choose to draw conclusions about certain scenes. What does it matter self? the guy is crazy. He killed his wife because she killed their children. And he hallucinated his way to an alternate reality that shielded him from what he'd done/suffered. That's all we needed to know jor. On the last scene I also think he was 'cured' but chose to pretend he was still crazy because he didn't want to live with the reality. The spaced-out, curious, 'seeking' look that seemed to have been in his eyes the whole movie appeared gone, resolved. But that's just my impression. Overall, the delivery by the cast was spectacular. I cannot fault the cinematography either. The visuals were 'bone-marrow' (with props to Sweetguy) shattering lol. There was plenty to appeal to the visual and auditory senses.

. . . ^all that being said. I didn't really enjoy Shutter Island. I expected a delicious psuedo-thriller complete with detectiv-ish-like drama. Instead we got someone elses' hallucinations. If I need hallucinations to watch I can watch my own, I have plenty. Okay I'm being difficult - every movie is someone elses' hallucinations . . . but I didn't enjoy this particular one. Besides, this kind of plot that ends up revealing the protagonist is really the antagonist (hello 6th Sense, The Others etc) is nothing new.
Still, I rate Shutter Island 82.54321%. I somehow feel it is better than what I feel it is . . . my hallucination perhaps.

Na wa oh . . . so nobody watched the Pro Bowl? not that I would blame you

The NFC laid a spanking on the AFC . . . don't believe the yeye scoreline at the end. That had to be one of the most lopsided games ever.

Where is Rikkyjen . . . Peyton wasn't looking too sharp at all at all yday. See as young Matt Ryan was looking like the hofer, outshining the staples. Na wetin dey happen for indy these days ehn?

Lol, JK leave sweetguy jor and stop rubbing on my shine, lemme enjoy the appreciation now sweetguy, I appreciate the 'thank you' jare  you are very welcome.
signed,
   'almost anagram for jealous' 

---

@topic, me self I will post my own review tomorrow . . . lets just say I wonder if Vesc will have to keep quiet for me too 

Current NBA standings as of Jan 30, 2011:

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=344420.msg7621400#msg7621400 date=1296226209]Aww stop it!! You wan dey wind me ni. Yeah there are a few exceptional girls out there. Y'all are the last of a dying breed.
Haha dont start! me i still be youngin ooh! Legal ke? I need 4-5 more years before settling down i am not sure any woman my age range (her included) is willing to wait that long[/quote]No wait is too long for a man after ones own heart  infact don't think of it as waiting, but rather you'll be 'growing' up together until both sides are ready.

Of course why i no go hustle you! When it was an afterthought! Which penance u pay? I am camera shy ooh no joke ask Moonie. You can celebrate it i would be there in the spirit

Lol . . . you have left us no choice but to proceed without you . . . but how can you have parry without celebrant? can you have smoke without fire?   I paid my penance now . . . I gave all una cake. U no remember? 

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=344420.msg7642092#msg7642092 date=1296506078]Great game by the Celts last night though it doesnt change the fact that the Lakers are still Champs Chumps[/quote]Korreckted 

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/01/30/durant-bosh-is-fake-tough-guy/?ls=iref:nbahpt2

Hehehe Durant disses Bosh

[quote author=eku_bear link=topic=344420.msg7642171#msg7642171 date=1296506864]Bosh better not miss the all-star team
And F durant, he is a punk.[/quote]ROTFLOL . . . why now ekubear?  Durant is the future of the NBA and honestly, I was THRILLED to see him make this comment  . He's so quiet, showing this side of his character is great for the game! And yes oh, I agree with Durant and I've been saying it for eons now - BOSH IS A FAKE TOUGH-GUY OVERRATED!!! 

Ekubear nor vex jare 

And finally the Cleveland Cavs have lost 20 straight!! I cant believe those guys would still get paid this year! Jesoul,Chiogo,Moonstone,Chic2pimp and I would not lose 20 games straight

Mehn . . . I bowed my head and said a little prayer for Cleveland last night. This is shameful, thoroughly shameful.

^&^You're both very welcome .

You're welcome sweerie . And oh . . . how to quote someone on the first page. I'm not sure if there's a quicker way, but this is how I do it.

- I want to quote the very first comment/post on this thread, here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-505782.0.html#msg6666695

-Click on jesoul's profile

-Click on "show the last posts of this person". This pulls up all my posts on different threads - but organized by date so its easy. I scroll down/go the next page etc and find the post from August 30, 2010.

-Under each post I (and every poster) has made is a link that says "quote". Click it and it will insert that quote and bring you back to this thread/open up a compose post page.

Here it is -

JeSoul:
So Manmustwac and I discussed and decided it'd be a good idea to have a thread where you can communicate freely with us. A few posters have remarked to me in the past that it'd be nice to have a way to reach us easily so here it is.

If you have any complaints/comments you'd like to keep private, feel free to use the "Report To Moderator" button to the right.
Happy posting.

Goodluck! lets us know if you have any issues.

nuella2:
Hello mukina, pls how do i quote a post line by line, if i dont want to quote the whole post. Then how do i quote someone on the first page, if for example the thread is up to six pages, cos when i click reply its only the last page that shows. What do i do?

Hey Nuella, its quite easy. Let me walk you through it . . .


-when you click "reply" on a thread, the 'compose' screen (where you edit text, format etc) comes up.

-below the text-box, are all the posts that came/come before yours. At the upper right hand corner of each post there is a link that says "insert quote". This inserts all of the entire post into your text-box.

-Now, to quote line by line, you simply edit the inserted quote in your text-box and frame each line with quotation format. In short it should look like this:

---

[quot.e] *Line you want to quote* [/quot.e] (minus the periods in the quote).

---

. . .  and if you take out the periods in the 'quot.e' above, it will look like this:

*Line you want to quote*

Also note that when you click insert post (i clicked your last post here), you'll get a code like this:

---

[quot.e author=nuella2 link=topic=505782.msg7637678#msg7637678 date=1296460336] Hello mukina, pls how do i quote a post line by line, if i dont want to quote the whole post. Then how do i quote someone on the first page, if for example the thread is up to six pages, cos when i click reply its only the last page that shows. What do i do?
[/quot.e]

---

Simply copy the first part I bolded - this - [quot.e author=nuella2 link=topic=505782.msg7637678#msg7637678 date=1296460336] and paste if you want to quote line by line including the original person's ID. So it will look like this:

---

1 - [quot.e author=nuella2 link=topic=505782.msg7637678#msg7637678 date=1296460336][/i]Hello mukina, pls how do i quote a post line by line, if i dont want to quote the whole post. [i][/quot.e]

2 - [quot.e author=nuella2 link=topic=505782.msg7637678#msg7637678 date=1296460336][/i]Then how do i quote someone on the first page, if for example the thread is up to six pages, cos when i click reply its only the last page that shows.[i][/quot.e]

3 - [quot.e author=nuella2 link=topic=505782.msg7637678#msg7637678 date=1296460336] What do i do? [/quot.e]

---

  and if I take out the periods in the 'quot.e' it will look like this:

nuella2:
Hello mukina, pls how do i quote a post line by line, if i dont want to quote the whole post.

nuella2:
Then how do i quote someone on the first page, if for example the thread is up to six pages, cos when i click reply its only the last page that shows.

nuella2:
What do i do?

Azibalua:
Dearest mod
Pls I think the details in Lovekings 'i want to be the antichrist' is gory presently and such should not be allowed on this forum, it should move out
It is of great concern presently
You can't say you have not seen it

Thanks for bringing it to our attention Azibalua. Its been cleaned.

e36991:
@^^^

Aah dont you just love moderators for doing a thankless task

Your post was hijacked and some succeeding posts were littered with pictures one wouldn't want ones mother to see

so the moderators stepped up to the task . . .

They removed, quarantined and/or disinfected the post and it's threads before returning it back to the forum squeaky clean and spot-less

Ahh number-boy you have come now bad-mouthing the NIV . . . don't make me start with you again oh

justkunmi:
@JeSoul
How's a movie to be reviewed chosen again? by votes or by someone choosing?
watever it is. . . pls lets choose a movie.

We can keep the current system I think.
  Lets go with Sweetguy's choice of Shutter Island.


Vieira it will be your turn to pick a movie after that, then back to V3 . . . etc

HAHA TB40, nice videos "mama said knock you OUT!"

chic2pimp:
@ Jesoul
Make una Fedex groupies continue dey console una selves you hia . Abeg make you remind me of the scoreline again, I don forget am?

Why won't we console ourselves? we're drowning in trophies, rankings and prize money up to our eyeballs

^Medjai, this is what he does best
https://www.momontherocks.com/nadal.jpg

  this sight alone, is what turns me off. What kind of self-respecting person consistently wears tight enough pants that he has to pull out wedgies from his behind on international tv? ewwwwwwwww. Na dat same hand e go take shake the competitor. Nasty!

manny4life:
First lady or not, how does that concern me? She is a human being and subject to criticism, just like every leader and their wives. If you cannot deal with the fact they I am critiquing her, well sorry. I’m not an expert, but I sure know how to read well, at least through the toast master club in college and even at my organization, we have classes, I have improved way better than my peers. Everyone is entiltled to their opinions, I would not refuse anyone of theirs, get used to the fact that people at some point in time has to improve. There is something called standards and expectations, and when those two are not achieved to a minimum, I don't know what to say again.

If the beef is that the first lady needs to improve her public speaking skills - then that is a more than valid point.

However the prevailing sentiment on this thread is stating that she is illiterate or doesn't comprehend the words she is saying or that she needs to go back to primary school or that she is an embarrasment to the country . . .

all because she couldn't deliver a speech in a fluid manner?    

I clicked on the youtube link expecting to hear something disastrous. I just finished the video and I'm scratching my head.

Yes she spoke slow and was not fluid in the delivery of the speech . . . but for crying out loud, this is not a big deal as you can understand everything she's saying perfectly. Yes, she can certainly use some improvment but seriously, this is not a big deal at all. There are plenty of world leaders that are not very good in speech delivery - it doesn't necessarily reflect negatively on their intellect.

The beef against the first lady on this thread is wholly and completely illegitimate.

mrmayor:
@Jasoul,
I agree with the first bolded.


Science is not conflict with the bible because some Scientist choose to be but because its in conflict with Evidence Available. Classic example is we know that 46 Chromosomes required to produce a baby vs Virgin Birth.

MrMayor, see as you just remix my name for there lol.

I still maintain the story of the virgin is completely irrelevant to a scientist. It is not his job or concern to prove/disprove religious beliefs. Yes, current knowledge tells us you need both sides to produce a child - its a reproductive law and I believe it. I also believe there is a God who created these laws, and can at will choose to sidestep or break them - aka miracles.

We have seen so many occurences, medical and otherwise that science has not being able to explain. Now this doesn't mean it was a miracle or not - we don't know. However, I personally choose to believe in miracles and the supernatural . . . while the scientist can simply go ahead and file it under his x-files of "unexplained so far".

Now where he would be completely out of line would be to declare to me that my belief that it is a miracle is dead wrong - how does he know this?!! Did he perform some kind of super-experiment? where is his 'peer-reviewed' research paper that proves it wasn't a miracle? We all don't know, so he has no basis or standing to declare a belief wrong.

Cheerios.

Hi Homer,
if you don't mind, I will skip some bits of your last post for the sake of clarity.

Neither can the pastor nor the pope claim their revelation is superior.

"Pastors" and "popes" are merely titles we humans have bestowed on ourselves - it is by no means an indication of a superior spiritual intellect.

We come across people, and their ideas, opinions on religion. Naija pastors will tell you pay your tithe and you will be rich - if that doesn't happen, then you know their opinion is wrong. Others might tell you love your neighbor and you will feel a satisfaction in your soul that this is God's work - and if you do, then their opinion was right.

Then I guess I should also mention that the tools should be properly used.

Logical reasoning is not necessarily what is confirmed by the heart. This is why the study of logical fallacies that easily fool the heart is studied. To avoid such errors in reasoning.

We know from experiments that personal experience does not often provide good evidence. Some of the obvious refutations include illusions and hallucinations

Ok. But the skepticism is not just directed to unanswered questions but also to answered questions and to new information that may affect previously held beliefs and concepts.

It becomes other people's business if practicing your religion in some ways causes or worsens harm.

I dug a pit . . . and we both fell into it.
  My whole point has been religion is NOT science and trying to treat it like science, subject it to the same standards as science is like jumping out of a plane with a parachute that won't open. Its failed before you even begin.

---

  I really like some points that Daylae has made . . .

It is fitting to have say that science is a quest for knowledge,however,you should also know that science involves a way of knowing,it is not the only source of knowledge

This echoes the point I tried to make earlier . . . that Science and Religion both address drastically different aspects of the human experience. They are two different kinds of knowledge . . . unless proponents want to declare that science is the only way by which we can acquire knowledge on all aspects of the human experience.

sweetguy10:
Heeheehehe na for dream you fear am abi

justkunmi:
300 Review summary

Great movie. Great acting. Jawdropping graphics. . .
See this movie if you havent!

Average review : 95%
Next . . .

Hehe . . . na reality now 
_{. . . though it seems rather high for the scores that were given. Someone do the small math, I want to be purposely lazy on this one}

^Haven't seen any of the above 

V3
Vescucci
JK
Kobi
Obinna
Kay
Jesoul

Here's the old list, and I was the last to pick a movie. But Vieira & Sweetguy are not on . . .

Vieira or Sweetguy would you like to pick a movie for review next?

^ah krayo sir, you're more than welcome. Na me suppose tank u sha . . . u have challenged those of us faithers in this section and we tank u plenty plenty.

Krayola:
haha ok

We can never prove that Mary was not a virgin. Fine. DO you at least agree that based on the evidence we have Mary was not the only virgin to have had a child? That Jesus' birth, while out of the ordinary, was far from unique, and that  his alleged deeds were also quite commonplace in the ancient world? That is if we assume that ancient religious stories record history accurately.

Haha! Oga, I have zero problem agreeing with the current evidence we have today - on whatever issue it may be. So if the historical community doesn't think anything unique or special about the story of Jesus, that is fine with me. Honestly. And that is because it has absolutely zero impact on how I choose to live my life.

Oga, me I am not afraid of scientific discovery or entertaining all kinds of theories or performing a litmus test of my beliefs - to me, it is good, because it will either help break away beliefs that are shallow - or strenghten that which is true.

Krayola:
IMO many religionists do not dismiss just the main sciences. . .but other academic disciplines that provide evidence against religious claims.

They embrace archaeology when it supports the slightest biblical detail and dismiss the tonnes of archaeological evidence that cast doubt on biblical claims.

They dismiss scholars from the humanities, historians and anthropologists and so on, and what they tell us, based on tedious pain-staking research, about ancient cultures, how they lived, and evolved; and embrace claims made by unknown ancient writers as authoritative on these historical (not necessarily theological)  claims.

They dismiss obvious similarities between their beliefs and previously existing beliefs that share similar and in many cases identical theological details (e.g.  Virgin births or other miraculous births where common to ancient myths and were just symbolic way of saying "this is special child destined for greatness". Xtian: No. Those are fake. . Mary's own was real!! I saw it in a dream. The evidence you have was planted by the devil  Ok. Low blow. .  No vex ). Now, we can never prove that Mary was not a virgin, but how do we ignore/dismiss all the other pre-Christian virgin birth stories?

Your beef about people of faith dismissing any scientific ideas or discoveries that may contradict their beliefs - while embracing any that may agree with them - is totally and completely legitimate and seconded.

I repeat to you what I said to Homer: why does any 'scientist' need to "prove" that Mary was or was not a virgin? What relevance does this have to the scientific world? Is science supposed to be in the business of scouring over religious texts in the hopes to dismiss beliefs as 'irrational'?

This highly regarded 'knowledge' is far beyond the reach, talkless of grasp, of science, of all of us. So much we all don't know. Champions of 'reasoning' tell us we should "keep an open mind". But I see no better example of a slammed-closed-shut mind, than one that dismisses the possibility of a God existing. An oxymoron if I ever saw one

EDIT: While religionists are guilty of the crimess you listed, the antagonists are not exculpated themselves. Many scientists choose to cosmetically enhance their findings, formulate theories from them, and then present as 'evidence' as they brandish it as if on a jihad against religion - instead of simply presenting it for what it is. Errbody is guilty jare  .

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it is not just science that popular religion is in "conflict" with, but knowledge as we know it.

hehe . . . reverse this and it is still true to a good extent  :
I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it is not just religion that popular science is in "conflict" with, but knowledge as we know it.

daylae:
Let's not forget the fact that we have scientists who believe the is a God hehind the perfect theory of creation,so also we have christians who seek the knowledge of science.

True. And I am one of such people  

thehomer:
Ok. And when they do infringe on other peoples rights?

If TB Joshua is doing his thing on tv, he's not infringing on anyone's rights. If the suicide bomber wants to jihad his way to paradise by taking others lives, that is infringement. If Catholic doctrine forbids the use of condoms and the faithfuls decide to follow it, there is no infringement going on. If northern states want to impose their sharia law on the entire country of diverse religions - that is infringement. Live and let live.

I don't get what science has to do with my post.

I meant what I've been saying all along - 'science' or you under the insistence of scientific standards, should not be concerned with what religious beliefs people choose to hold.

It's not irrelevant to one who is also an educator. In which case, the religious opinion may make it difficult for the educator to pass the message across.

This is mixing issues Homer. You're now crossing over into the world of academics - but still . . . an educators job is to educate - not convert. However steeped the students mind might be in their beliefs (and whether these beliefs are wrong or right) - its not his job to change their minds, his job is to simple teach and the students will decide for themselves.

Yes I agree. But the main point I'm making is that when it comes to religious issues, scientists have as much import as religious people.

Good. And in the realm of religion all opinions are equal because they are opinions! A scientist cannot claim his perspective on God is superior or carries more weight than joe the plumber simply because he happens to have a phD in molecular biology.

I mean tools like logical reasoning, reliance on good evidence, healthy skepticism etc.

Believe it or not, for many of us of faith, our faith is based on these very same 'tools' - its just that the application of these tools, and the issue on which they are applied - are different from what science knows.

For instance. I believe in God. Why? Because I have had experiences and something in my heart and spirit that cannot be measured and quantified testifies with a sure certainty that I unfortunately cannot prove to you, that God is indeed real. Do circumstances cause me to waver in faith sometimes? yes. Are there many unanswered questions? hell yes. But in spite of the chinks in the structure, the foundation remains sure - and hence I continue to believe.

'Logical reasoning' - what my heart confirms
'Good evidence' - my experiences
'Healthy skepticism' - my occasional doubts and struggles and unanswered questions.

Now where we would all be at fault, would be to assume that any of the above I have just described is supposed to be the business of anybody other than me. Religion, faith is meant to be a personal thing, a private walk - one that is not subject to be judged by the standards of others - much less others using a scale that is totally unrelated to the issue being measured - which is what 'science' attempts to do with 'religion' and vice versa.

thehomer:
Yes but we generally hold scientific facts to a higher standard.

And my dear Homer, religion is not meant to be 'held to any standard' other than that of each person's personal persuations. As long as the practice of one's religion does not infringe on another human's rights, its their business what standards they deem appropriate unto themselves.

^This is another case of 'science' attempting to stick its nose in places it does not belong.

I suspect this is a form of the non-overlapping magesteria claim. I consider this to be false. e.g consider the origin of humans. One religion and its text claims humans were moulded from soil, another claims he was made from a clot but science says he evolved. Which of these is correct?

And I would maintain that to a scientist - it is irrelevant! Because his/her business is not to prove/disprove religious claims or beliefs but rather to independently and objectively analyze the physical evidence - not religious persuations. Sticking the nose again

---

thehomer:
Why should scientists not make such statements? Do they not have opinions to express? I think they are as qualified as anyone to make such statements. Why should only religious people be able to say whatever they want about God? Humans have opinions and many humans like to express said opinions. Besides, opinions of religious people on this matter is no more valid than that of scientists on this same issue.

A scientist can definitely express his opinion on matters other than science. However, he ceases to be a 'scientist' when he is commenting on matters outside of the scientific scope - of which religion is. I may be an analytical chemist, but I don't hold any authority when I step outside my lab and into the mechanic's shop insisting that my theoretical or systematic approach must somehow apply to how he chooses to change the oil in the car. He is the expert in his field and I am not. Apples and mangoes dude. Apples and mangoes.

Yes I agree that they definitely shoot themselves in the foot on such matters except in some cases where they may actually have the required knowledge in the field. In such a case, I think they should try to be honest in what the express.

On that I am with you. We could all use more honesty from all sides of the issues.

Science as a field does focus on what can be determined using a certain set of tools.

Can you please explain what you mean here? thanks.

thehomer:
Religious faith is unscientific. This is a fact.

Unscientific: Not adhering to the principles of science
You can re-write that quote. "Scientific faith/reasoning is unreligious" and it would make just about the same amount of sense.

Dude, religion has nothing to do with science - and vice versa. They both address drastically different aspects of the human experience. The sooner champions of 'scientific reasoning' (and religious supremacy) bring themselves to this fact, the sooner this superficial, imagined conflict can blow away.

daylae:
However,i think some of the conflict has developed because of false or unprovable assertions originating from both sides.

Gbam left right and center.

Honestly, I don't think our aim should be trying to 'reconcile science with religion'. In my understanding, Science is simply the quest for knowledge. Its aim is to understand the physical world all around us through observation and experimentation. Religion is also a kind of quest for knowledge -spiritual knowledge, a journey to understand the heart and soul and deeper purpose of life. And trying to apply one quest in the place of the other is what leads to the 'conflict' we see all around us.

In my opinion, a true scientist has no business or concern for that matter making declarative claims like "God doesn't exist. God didn't create the world". What experiments did he carry out to prove this? Is the business of science supposed to be commenting on the business of the intangible? the spiritual? Can you try to examine ice cores deep in the artic circle by using a crystal ball that was made in aba? Can you examine the moral inclinations of a mans heart using a telescope? The disconnect to me is that sharp.

And likewise, people of faith shoot themselves in the foot when they try to comment on scientific matters that they have no obvious clues about. If current carbon dating techniques puts the earth at billions of years, so be it. That is what we know right now and it may or may not change with technological advancements. How does this necessarily reflect negatively on your faith? whether the earth is 6000 yrs or 6billion, the bottom line to a believer should be that faith tells you God made the world - the atomic specifics of how He did so to me are irrelevant - leave that to the scientists!

Science should focus on what science can ascertain and quit commenting on matters far beyond its scope and reach - and likewise to religion.

chic2pimp:
Chei I don laff so te water dey comot my eye . Nah wetin I dey go call am from now on be dat .

Yes oh, na TB40 from now on 

chiogo:
Ehh, school is a lil hectic jare, hope you're doing fine. Umm, I'll rather be the DJ and spin the hot tracks, I know what 40-boy likes

Ha! sure you can be the DJ jare. I know you got skills on the 1-2s. Please talk to 40-dude, we demand a birthday party!

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=344420.msg7610714#msg7610714 date=1296092410]good to see there are still women out there that appreciate us. its your kind that bring the best out of we dudes[/quote]Amen bro . And it is guys like you that make it so worth it. Honestly, love and honor a woman and there is nothing she will not do for you . About to clock 7yrs with my oga . . . 7 fantastic yrs. Come self . . . you've been 'lounging in Moonstone's *cough cough* for a long time now. Time never reach make una make am legal? 

yes low-key on the day itself! haha e! ke you wan dey wind me? i am camera shy jare

you wey no tell us when u wan go marry i thought it would be nice to dish out some payback lol

Ahn ahn now lol, you still dey hustle me for that side? lol. I don pay my penance now. Camera shy is not allowed here. We are your sisters, and we demand to celebrate your birthday party or else 

^ Dayo, Chic2pimp don tell me before say some screws are a bit loose up there? na true the guy talk?  

@topic,
Nadal's playing style is what will make him not last in the game. Too much wear and tear. No finess. No cheap and easy points, too much gra gra . . . think of Dwayne Wade in the NBA, same thing. Wild playing style = injury ridden career = early exit. While legends like Sampras and Federer know how to pace themselves and get the most out of their bodies. Nadal will retire before Fedex, mark me words.

chic2pimp:
^^^^^He who Laughs Last, Laughs best

Indeed my brother. And we FedEx fans are laughing with our 16 trophies and best-in-tennis-history record. Siddon with capris-wearer, wedgie remover dey celebrate 5 frenchies on clay while the other is a master of all

My thoughts exactly. Most especially Serene Serena(_{not forgetting her booty too. Lawd have mercy} )

Abeg commot your eye for that side jor lol. See how drab and boring women's tennis is now. No fire, no controvery, no rivalries, no notin.

mabell:
Some 5mins ago
To you precisely
For God to touch your heart and for you to have a supernatural and divine encounter with angels
Amen

Thank you Mabell, I appreciate that . Can you please share what the biblical basis (scriptures) is for christians to 'send angels on errands'? Joagbaje please feel free to respond to. Thanks.

Oga freshdude, this topic has been debated here countless times. Please check out this thread and the google link below for many other threads. Godbless.

Is It Really Sinful To Take Alcohol?  
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-319288.0.html#msg4481678

http://www.google.com.ng/cse?cx=partner-pub-6465801557104924%3Abko28ysgdng&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=alcohol+sin&siteurl=www.nairaland.com%2Fnigeria%2Ftopic-319288.0.html

Ah FedEx wetin happen now dagg. This was yours for the taking, you come mess up like that.

Anyways . . . Joker has made a statement that he is more than a joker. Maybe he can actually go all the way and snag the trophy. I must confess though, its kinda cool not the see the usual suspects back in the finals. One reason I prefer mens tennis . . . so much more interesting.

They should just go ahead and give Clijsters the trophy. I hope the world now appreciates what Venus and Serena bring/brought to the game.

chic2pimp:
You evil Woman

Just call me prophetess jesoul

dayokanu:
Yebariba sanboribobo.

Where are all the Nadal fans. Straight sets? I laff in Kirikiri.

When was the last time Fedex lost a Grand slam game in straight sets

For your listening pleasure all Nadal fans.

[flash=500,400]http://www.youtube.com/watch=/v/AgpQNENsmo4[/flash]

Shakara don end o , Nadal don get Belle shakara don end o,

LOL . . . now chic2pimp, Dayo is the one that is truly evil for that post above