₦airaland Forum

pocohantas:
I hate suspense

Lol. Don't worry, I can never wittingly undermine the queen. I'll do the needful fairly soon, just like I promised the other time, and at the rightful place too.

pocohantas:
Lol. The one that was like me, how exactly was she?

Actually, she isn't our compatriot. Anyway, I'll tell you later.

bukatyne:
Bros, what happened?

Lol. Me been dey answer person wey ask question, I come dey tell am say, if no be say you don marry, say I for come marry you and some others same day.

pandv:
hmmm. can you marry someone like any of your favourite ex?

Yes. They been exes do not make them bad, especially when you are talking about favorite exes. I separated from one because of distance/relocation, it was purely a relationship of convenience anyway, so marriage wasn't part of the arrangement. While the other one, as good as she's, she isn't the one nature says I'll spend the rest of my life with, and it started as a relationship of convenience too.

I have two of them, one was like Pocohantas and the other was like Bukatyne.

Yes. Whatever good I cannot do for a wife, I cannot do it for any other human being - so long as the meaning of a wife remains what I understand it to be.

generationz:
Hmm alright then.

I believe you prefer authenticity to group harmony right?

Yes. Group harmony, and its ilks in any sphere of life, will always breed uniformity and uniformity breeds superficiality and, of course, superficiality is the backbone of any vice.

Actually, I hardly read books about psychology.

generationz:
Ugh , I know that already

I'm talking about Myers Briggs type

Or haven't you ever taken the test or studied the system?

What I don't believe in, I can't establish - I don't believe in MBTI.

generationz:
Whats your personality type?

Calm

generationz:
Hehehehe
I know what you are talking about with all this your big grammar


I saw it too .


Tonto isn't innocent and isn't a saint , Churchill just outsmarted her while hiding under his calm persona.
It was like they both had a grand plan based on their ethical leanings , she had falling in love and she never expected he had a bigger plan to use and dump her.

Her grievance is , even if a man should use and dump her not him ( whom she claims she picked from the gutter)

I truely understand the babe. She has a good heart even though she is also an hypocrite.

Churchill on the other hand is a narcissist who didn't plan all the way to the end. He under esteem aged tonto .



Lordko, do you know anything about MBTI?

Yes. However, I have always had my reservation about it. Everything about it is more articulate than competent.

generationz:
What about Churchill ?

Why do you think they weren't good for each other

Btw you are very correct about the calm , feeble minded ladies. Unfortunately very few Nigerian men know this. They tend to have the best "wife material skills" and attract so many men because they don't seem to have wahala ,When they are actually joggling five different boyfriends.

Actually, neither of them adhered to the axiom "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands." The only difference between them is that while one possesses calm physical persona, the other one possesses boisterous physical persona. On a general note, they're of the same ethical leanings - with psychological projection and hypocritically disingenuousness as their major hallmarks.

pocohantas:
How would you do that?

Firstly, she's a headstrong woman of the controversial stock - she's neither a strong-minded woman nor a headstrong woman of the maverick stock - so/yet, as bad as she seems, she's still better than a calm and feeble-minded woman of the egoistic ethical leanings. Only the former mentioned (strong-minded and maverick) can best her in good deeds, all things being equal.

I arrived at the above using her EMI and P:

- Her emotional quotient is negative, it's above normal (she has strong emotion). . . Yet, it's going to be very useful in making the best out of her.

- Her moral quotient is average. This isn't a problem, she'll volitionally and automatically attain a healthy moral quotient with the steps below.

- Her intelligence quotient (not her practical intelligence quotient which is irrelevant in this case) is average. As much as she's a domineering person, she isn't conceited, which is a plus in her case.

- Her personality type is boisterousness - a normal human being has either a boisterous personality or a calm one. Notionally one's physical persona matters, but realistically it doesn't. . . There are boisterous people who're libertarians and conscientious. Unfortunately, most people do judge her mainly based on her boisterous physical persona and negative emotion without putting into consideration her non-PIQ which isn't on the negative side.

Citing the above facts, any man who must go to her for a long-term serious relationship or marriage must be one who has sincere interest in her; and must possess/acquire libertarian, resourceful (not necessarily wealthy), calm (but not feeble-minded) and selfless attributes.

Her types never like to lose either honorably or dishonorably, yet, they can volitionally give up any bad attribute they possess to retain a man or woman that offers them goodness with neither servility nor evil. They can really reciprocate goodness, all things being equal.

In summary, as much as a man can't count on her faithfulness (I don't mean in its formalness) when the chips are down - faithfulness is the hallmark of a strong-minded wo/man - one can count on her loyalty if things remain unchanged. Whereas calm and feeble-minded people of the egoistic leanings have neither loyalty nor faithfulness to offer anyone - their dispositional servitude shouldn't be mistaken for neither of the two.

olaBC007:
It's like u know what the public don't know, abeg tell us

No. Doing so will amount to character assassination, I am not out for such. Once more, neither she nor Churchill is evil, however, two people that mutually share their kind of ethical leanings aren't supposed to marry each other.

olaBC007:
Oshey... Minister for best getter

Believe you me. I understand what happened between her and Churchill, so her rants and actions as unsavory as they're, are somehow justifiable depending one's perspective. This doesn't mean that she's a saint, no - no one is - she's her own imperfections.

To get the best out of someone like Tonto isn't that too hard. She's not the devil personification most people thought she's.

bukatyne:
Emotional blackmail?

Lol. Yes - emotional entrapment - she's penchant for subjugation. If the OP fails to take a "carrot and stick" approach in relating with her from now onward, two things will happen which will mar their union in the long run:

- If he starts to give her kid glove treatment, which she yearns, she'll perpetually subjugate him without meting out domineering actions toward him - the worst form of subjugation.

- However, if he takes a hard stance and start ignoring her outright all the time, he'll wittingly or unwittingly breed a heartless woman.

He needs to take to conscientiousness.

[quote author=bukatyne post=78890742][/quote]Healthy living advisor extraordinaire.

Kudos.

My liberty.

@OP

I don't like to be an agent of bad news and I don't think you'll like to hear the bitter truth about what your wife's attitude portends, she's penchant for ...

Fadedvoices2:
You’re finally getting wise .

The only problem I have with you is that your perceptions about things change everyday , if this same topic is brought up two months time you’ll have something stupid to say.

Stop trying so hard to quantify something beyond the capacity of your little brain. My life philosophy has been the same all through my existence, both online and offline. . . it's all about altruism and conscientiousness for me.

You're like the people in support of the man's mother's shenanigans, because to you it's always about self and self-interest. A typical validation seeker.

In fact, whenever a psychological projection and hypocritically disingenuous entity like you try to pick on me, I laugh so hard. You can only succeed in perpetrating your shenanigans towards people who aren't discerning, not on someone like me.

By the way, when you quote me, like you did now and have always done, it's not hate. But if I quote you, like I did the other time (the first time I ever quoted you first), it'll be about me hating you. Lol. Kindly stop being petty.

Have a lovely day.

That's goading at its peak. Well, only a feeble-minded or pretentious lady will submit to her (the man's mother) action and shenanigans. . . no sane person treats a short-term visitor (guest) like a long-term one. She should avoid having anything serious to do with such family of small-minded people.

The lady acted conscientiously.

Embrace and pet your wife, her unsavoury outburst notwithstanding. She simply acted on impulse of stress/frustration. After making peace with her, you can then calmly register your displeasure towards her tactless reaction and implore her to refrain from doing such next time. . . she could have easily turned down your request instead of rattling you with tactless reaction.

Citing your submission, on a general note, both of you're responsible, despite your financial limitations at the moment. Keep on putting in your best.

MariaLavina:
Biggest life lesson?

Hmmmm Life is what you make it to be

Elegant lady, the poet.

Sincerely, at this stage of our democracy in particular and nationhood in general, we need libertarians in power in all the arms of government. Liberals (PDP) have tried their best, unfortunately their best wasn't good enough - dispositional caringness of liberals never stop them from being self-centered, disingenuous and greedy. And the conservatives (APC) are obviously trying their best, as the incumbent government in power, unfortunately their best so far haven't been good enough too - dispositional sanctimony of conservatives never stop them from being selfish, hypocritical and greedy.

Libertarians hold the key to our progress. With mentally sound libertarians in power, irrelevant of the leaders tribe and religion, the country will experience sustainable rapid growth in all areas - dispositional domination (not domineeringness) of libertarians is embedded in altruism and conscientiousness. So we stand to gain a lot from having people of the libertarian ideological leaning in power.

Meanwhile, federal system of government has done us more harm than good. Confederation is the way to go - let's forget about oneness and pursue unity. The latter is very feasible. In fact, with our diversity, federal system of government (oneness) ought not to be put into consideration in any way - individual liberty (autonomous) doesn't automatically mean absence of unity, just as attachment (nonautonomous) doesn't automatically mean presence of oneness.

I've learnt that my age-long personal philosophy of living life at the periphery of conventionalism, and doing so altruistically and conscientiously, is potent.

Avoid living on the offensive side of life - expediency - instead strive to always live on the defensive side of life - altruism - and always balance your defensive life with a strong midfield material - conscientiousness.

Actually, living on the offensive side of life is always fast rewarding and pleasurable, while it lasted, but the end is always catastrophic, 99% of the time.

Meanwhile, living on the defensive side of life alone without a strong midfield material isn't encourageable - because of the cruelness of people of the offensive leaning who make up more than 95% of the world population - unless you are dealing with either a fellow of the defensive leaning or one of the defensive leaning with a strong midfield material. In fact, if possible, avoid having anything to do with anyone of the offensive leaning at all cost, because one of the offensive leaning is personification of the word "damage".

Living on the midfield side of life - balancing altruism with conscientiousness - is the surest way of living.

Well, my POV as someone who haven't been heartbroken before is that, the best way, or only way, to avoid heartbreak - it's better to avoid it than experiencing it and learning how to handle it - is by conquering oneself first and by extension mastering the art of giving one's best without losing anything/having a feel of losing anything in the end. This entails being altruistic and conscientious - giving genuine love (goodness) without indulging nonsense/petty attitudes from your partner. Only the used and/or an entitled (one with an entitlement mentality who didn't succeed in subjugating his/her target perpetually) do experience heartbreak, where death of a partner of good standing isn't the cause of the separation or breakup.

Meanwhile, it's absurd to hear anyone says that love (human love) doesn't exist. Every sane person loves unconditionally, however, unconditionality of love/loving doesn't negate conditionality of falling in love and staying in love, and once the conditions are mutually based on immaterial things (good attributes, not just good attitudes), oneness and its benefits are assured.

Only death of one's partner of good standing ought to cause him/her heartbreak.

Guest007:
Where are you? Have you received the venue details because the date is today

Belated happy birthday.

Martinez39:
Overwhelming ignorance on your part. You need to use your vocabulary accurately, you are trying too hard. You just proved my point that Nigerians, many of them, have a poor understanding of what freedom of speech is all about. No one, under freedom of speech, is obliged to conform to what you think is the acceptable standard of speech and reasoning.

Absolute rubbish. A very unrelated point and an irrational conclusion.

Bumpkin.. . not even your lunatic parents can pick on me, now direct your further mentions to them.

@OP

Kindly stop misinforming the general public; freedom of speech and expression only confer one right to say anything on principle, however, they don't encourage expediency in any guise. Liberty doesn't negate decorum - and liberalism without conscientiousness is akin to sheep without a shepherd.

Your postulation is akin to that of people who do automatically mistake insensitive/tactless/controversial people for truthful people, or useless people for informal bad boys/girls.

AntiBrutus:
You wanna come around?

I will definitely come. However, I don't know how soon, due to certain circumstances beyond my immediate control - Que sera, sera.