₦airaland Forum

xendra:
how can one person make sooo much sense is this really from a naija guy??

Hahaha. I'm a bona fide Nigerian - one with burning desire to become a better citizen. Meanwhile, believe you me that Eve truly ate the fruit. Lol.

It's obvious that he was quoted out of context. I mean, I don't see a sagacious politician making such an arrogant and undiplomatic pronouncement.

@OP

By the time you realized that the saying "one who comes into equity must come with a clean hands" remains potent, then, you'll see reason to make amend and choose your words wisely.

Only a virtuous woman deserves the best from his sane and sound man.

You haven't met a rich lady (person) whose self-esteem is rooted in weak self sufficiency. When you meet one, you'll understand that abundance doesn't cure uncontentment and self-centeredness. And, of course, the last thing to expect from someone with these attributes is beneficence.

Ifeanyi Ubah has financial resource but lack political sagacity. He'll continue to lose elections until he masters the art.

superhumanist:
You have been reading too many pompous fairy-tales. You have never experienced the "aristocracy" you are talking about. I say this because all wealthy and successful people understand that appearance and showmanship are sometimes even more important than reality.

Virtue will not give you the knowledge to understand rich people's jokes. When people who have travelled around the world are talking, will virtue give you any clue to contribute to the discussion when you have not even left the shores of Nigeria?

Small-minded people like you and your ilk and sarcasm are inseparable - to your type, by virtue of being in the same place with someone automatically makes you his equal. Lol. Yes, I'm an egalitarian, yet, egalitarianism doesn't mean absence of segregation.

Well, this discussion isn't about my person and the stratum I belong to. . . You don't know me from Adam. Peace out.

superhumanist:
You are wrong.

Virtue or virtuousness will not buy you class.

When I say "class", I mean the life-experience that a privileged life gives

Lol. Obviously you aren't writing based on experience. For one, by virtue of being virtuous, a woman in this class automatically possess the attributes that'll endear her to her aristocratic companion and his family/relations/associates.

By the way, a true aristocrat doesn't live life to impress others, but he's always conscientious. Superficiality isn't part of aristocracy.

Balderdash. I guess you only hold brief for small-minded people not aristocrats.

A virtuous woman who dates/marries an aristocrat can never experience such.

@ OP

Believe you me that you don't know whom a "dominant co-worker" is. What you described there is a "domineering co-worker." How to handle domineering co-worker is by being both an efficient colleague and a libertarian.

Unlike a domineering person, a self-effacing co-worker that dominates a work place is a bliss to have. While the latter dominates through intelligence, meekness, humility and tolerance (and in most cases beneficence) and is highly respected by all and sundry who're sane and sound, the former constitutes nuisance with his arrogance, rudeness, conceitedness and self-centeredness (if he's lucky to be truly intelligent, his colleagues will always fear him but never respect him).

The choice to be happy is an individual decision - no person owes such as a duty to another. What's literally obligatory from a sane and sound husband (person) is to be conscientious towards his wife (others) at all times.

Wonderful! USD140,000 is now NGN144,000,000. Lol.

@OP

Your number 5 caught my attention. Obviously you, just like many other people, have an erroneous understanding about the literal meaning of the saying "behind every successful man, there's a woman." Believe you me that it doesn't automatically has to do with a man on mission to accumulate/cause of accumulating riches.

Meanwhile, other points you mentioned reeked of attitudes of a servile person. Unfortunately the last thing to expect from a servile person in the long run - after emancipation from poverty/actualization of independence - is loyalty. A servile person is hypocrisy personified. Your number 2 for example; you ought to know that fixation doesn't mean caring.

However, financial poverty isn't the worst form of poverty out there. Small-mindedness - ethically and mentally poor people - is.

An ethically and mentally sound man (person) who's financially poor today, may become financially emancipated within a twinkle of an eye. This fact is the very reason why I do pick offense wherever I see small-minded people postulate that every floating wealth or sudden wealth has an evil beneath it.

A responsible lady who's not fortunate to have an already established man is better off sticking with a man with prospects (temporary financially poor but ethically and mentally sane and sound) than putting up with a stark poverty-stricken man who's equally mentally and ethically poor. That being said, there's no advantage a poor man - irrespective of the type of poverty - has over a contemporary sane and sound man with sustainable riches. So a responsible lucky lady is better off with the latter. . . I hold no brief for small-minded men with riches.

On the other hand, for all I care and understand, behind every successful man with sustainable riches is a man that has an understanding of something valuable (legal or illegal), one who's equally industrious and honest (honest at least towards his associates). Honesty will always remain the best policy in business. Honesty, though, doesn't mean absence of diplomacy, just as diplomacy doesn't mean lies.

The misconception by many - small-minded people, the financially poor among them - that being in a state of poverty equates to righteousness while being rich or wealthy automatically equates to unrighteousness.

Once more, I say that immortality is more prevalent among the poor than among the rich and wealthy.

Every opportunist for instance is a fraudster.

Unfortunately, the poor aren't fighting for emancipation from poverty and liberation from the perceived subjugation from the rich to better the society, but to oppress those they're better off than.

The problem has little to do with financial segregation and disparities so to say, but it has everything to do with poor ethical leanings of the majority. For one, corruption is more prevalent among the downtrodden than the rich. However, I hold no brief for the corrupt elite.

Greediness. Genuine love never drains instead it renews. Therefore, any relationship you're into that requires acceding, either directly or indirectly, to the conditions listed herein means that the recipient doesn't have genuine love for you, and should be discarded with alacrity. I don't see love of any kind, where there's no altruism, sincerity and beneficence to mention but a few mandatory attributes that must be present to give credence and validate someone's genuine love towards you.

Healthy relationship isn't negotiable.

Yes, absence of subjugation - organized religion remains an object of subjugation - which is obviously not present in his presentation, will make his church different from others. Kudos to him.

However, if he truly wants someone like me to take him serious, let him also pronounce his church "funds available towards project" instead of "project/budget against unavailable funds." The latter is present in his submission, albeit unpronounded. As long as this latter clause remains in his agenda, I unapologetically say that he's about to run a transactional (selfish) organization, instead of an unselfish one, through which he'll enrich himself.

bigdoo:
I listened to Rev Father Mbaka saying on TV when PMB was ill in London that 'He heard a cry in Aso Rock'. He predicted that Buhari would not make it and would not recover from his illness. Even that prophesy was false. I am beginning to have my doubts about Rev Mbaka's prophesies.

Don't mind the guy. I have known him and his abracadabra for too long.

@OP

You've no shame at all! Only small-minded people like you go to places where they're tolerated. Noble people only go to places where they're celebrated. The girl isn't to be blamed at all because she's obviously not the pretentious type, you won't say she hid her relationship with the Malaysian based guy - citing your submission - which is her preference from you.

Yes, the emotion of love is the strongest of all emotions and this is the reason it's important for one to lay his/her principles before talk about looking and choosing a companion either for dating/marriage, so that in the event someone you fell in love with doesn't possess at least 70% of the important attributes that can complement yours, you use his/her negative attitudes to neutralize the love emotional attachment towards her and automatically untangle yourself from her emotional grip and move on with your life.

Now, go and set your emotional firewall password with goodness and learn to always give same without being servile - and withdraw it from anyone that fails to sustain it with goodness too, but not necessarily in equal measures - and in so doing you will say bye bye to toxic relationship and heartbreak.

Love - and other attributes of goodness - isn't a sign of weakness but strength, however, unprincipled people like you and your ilk always make it to seems so through actions and inactions like this.

Healthy relationship isn't negotiable.

anthonanik:
Then where is Chimaroke now?
What is left of him?
Say what u know

Shut up! Now vamoose and direct your further mentions to your wretched father and lunatic mother.

Mere coincidence. The last time I checked, none of Mbaka's curses on Chimaroke Nnamani manifested. Also, his pronoucement against union bank didn't manifest. Story plenty.

The importance of self- realization can never be overemphasized. As a man, don't marry a woman as partner when what you need is a wife. The distinction between a woman who's to act as a partner in marriage and that of a woman who's to act as wife is too large.

And as a woman that's ambitious, don't accept a marriage proposal from a man that simply needs an industrious woman for a wife, in case he mistakenly proposed to you without understanding what he needs in the long run. The distinction between an industrious woman (person) and an ambitious one is too large.

The importance of euphemism both in theory and practical on these things shouldn't be undermined.

This estranged couple, their problem was beyond ethical and financial disparities.

@OP

Poor delivery of a good message from you. Lol. What's true is that love emotion is the most powerful of all emotions. And to achieve greater success in life as a man, you need to transmute your love emotion towards ambition with a portion of it dedicated to the special woman in your life. Failure to do this and to follow your erroneous delivery always leads to destruction.

MissWrite:
The women who stop loving their husbands when they get broke, are the ones who loved them for their money in the first place.

Let's not pretend that we don't know that a lot of men present their money as their only selling point (in their interaction with women). Even on this forum, guys talk about how unnecessary it is for a guy to build his character, his body, or skills, if he's got money. (Because they think that's the only thing women care about). And you know what they say: if you don't use it, you lose it. If they don't hone their other qualities that could make them attractive and useful to women, they reduce themselves to cash-cows of their own volition. And naturally, there will be women who need cash-cows, but those cows are only useful for cash.

Everyone cares about money; we all need it. Some people know how to get it, and some people don't. The next best thing (if you can't get it) is getting someone who knows how to get money. And for a long time, women have been relegated into the "next best" situation. Women married men for financial security. Love wasn't even a factor. But when love was expected, it was naturally equated with the desirability of a man. And his desirability was measured by his wealth. So that still equates love with money, in the eyes of a lot of women in Africa.

In those days, if a man's success was his wealth; a woman's success was a wealthy husband. And in this part of the world, we care a lot about what people think of us. Our motivation to be successful is greatly influenced by our neighbors and "enemies". We don't want our enemies to laugh at us. We don't want the devil to win in our lives. So we don't want the shame of poverty or a poor husband; it is not our portion. So even when a person isn't naturally mean, there is a lot of social pressure to reject the things that aren't prosperous, which tend to leave people wondering whether our "God" is alive.


However, the guy should persevere. It's not the end of the world.

Quite articulate. Kudos! However, articulacy is literally useless without competence - competence is the salt of every message and absence of it means presence of low IQ. Brilliance isn't enough.

I don't see the rational behind the following parochial nay erroneous postulations: "on this forum, guys talk about how unnecessary it is for a guy to build his character, his body, or skills, if he's got money." and "Women married men for financial security. Love wasn't even a factor."

Citing the first assertion in quote, you needn't to be told that generalization is a vice because it's a sign of mental parochialism and of course like I stated above, parochialism is a sign of low IQ - articulacy without competence is a manifestation of brilliance, with competence you have intelligence (even competence without articulacy equals to intelligence). Also, it's a vice for one to use personal standard as a yardstick on conventional matters, I mean, I have seen a conscientious lady that turned down marriage proposal from a beast of a man that's a multi-billionaire, therefore, the latter assertion in quote holds no water, it reeks of parochialism too.

I hold nothing against your person. And, of course, I don't do this on a normal day. Peace out.

Personally, I'm most afraid of commitment - actually whatever cause I believe in I always give my all, but if conscripted, coerced or tricked into it then, I can pull out even at the 11th hour. Only personal conviction and principle can make me dedicated to a cause. . . . To be a non-conformist in a world where almost everyone else is a conformist isn't really funny, but its sure fulfilling.

Meanwhile, the two most absurd things I've heard on this forum are:

- From small-minded men: According to them "rich men don't marry/like to marry intelligent women."

- From some ladies who're still ethically blind and whose earnings (legally or illegally) could barely take care of their basic needs, laying claim of being an "independent woman." Lol. A fully financial emancipated woman who's not achieved ethical emancipation has no right to lay claim of independence, least of one that hasn't achieved full emancipation in any area of life. A woman can be independent without financial emancipation (good thing is that they always have a financial means, directly or indirectly, irrespective of quantity) but not the other way round. Only an ethically emancipated woman can lay claim of independence.

One thing you can never take away from them - true flirtatious ladies - is that they're the most faithful breed of ladies to put up with. They always have high EQ and MQ.

Unfortunately, you lump them together with corporate runs women. . . Yes most of the attributes you enumerated points to the traits of all corporate runs women.

mrvitalis:
I'm very pleased with my people for making sure bishop chikwere was not disgraced

I told people once the Pope knows the real story this matter would be resolved

We're are the people that said mbaise didn't agree on a bishop

All we said was chose from the list our last bishop dropped before he died like it is done everywhere

You can never impose leadership on an mbaise man that's a fact.... Call us all the bad names because you were feed with half story

My people stood for the truth and I'm proud (tho I'm not religious)

Unless a sitting bishop has a prerogative to make a provisional list of his successor then, I don't see the logic and sincerity in your stand.

Mistrust without fact - suspicion - is a sign of mental parochialism. And of course, mental parochialism is the major hallmark of low IQ.

Actually, compassion isn't a sign of weakness (it takes a compassionate person to forgive) - so, forgiveness isn't a sign of weakness but that of strength. However, condonement of a moral or emotional vice is a sure sign of weakness, therefore, accepting him/her back may not mean that you're being compassionate towards him rather it may mean that you're condoning his moral vice - except he cheated once and likely the last and did so under a circumstance beyond his personal control, accepting him back isn't an option.

Believe you me that moral vices, as malleable as they can be, are incurable.

Personally, I'd rather put up with a lady with psychological vice like conceitedness, rather than to put up with one with either emotional vice like irrationality or a moral vice like disingenuousness. . . yes, it takes an irrational or disingenuous person to cheat not just once and under circumstance beyond personal control but continually.

The importance of giving isn't in dispute. However, giving to the wrong place/person with the wrong mindset/under wrong term is the problem.

For one, I know that obedience is better than sacrifice hence more glorifying. Therefore, I don't see the rationale behind the mandation of given constantly to an already affluent person/organization that has no immediate need - but want - while neglecting the actual needy persons/organizations who may or may not share same beliefsystem/tribe/race with one.

Also, the best of giving is that done altruistically. The very moment one's given has either pronounced or unpronounced hidden intentions of gaining something in return, it automatically becomes a transactional or selfish act rather than a beneficent one. . . There can never be anything "cheerful" about a selfish or transactional given - don't forget that God loves a cheerful giver.

Conformism is an unpronounced evil and the cause of all these moral and social ills. It breeds uniformity and uniformity breeds superficiality and/or irrationality. And, of course, superficiality and irrationality are the backbones of moral and social ills.

Asiwaju ought to understand that Oyegun is a master tactician in politics and has always enjoyed the confidence of the elite and aristocratic associates in any group he finds himself, even though he usually lacks the mass followership of the masses - but then who the latter group help in the long run.

If I were to be Asiwaju, I'd make some indirect compromise at this juncture without undignifying myself and team up with Oyegun to achieve a strong united front. And this will result to a win-win situation for both parties.

In a situation like this, those who refuses to give honorably always lose dishonorably. All the same, I know that he'll have his way in this particular game because the main cabals at the presidency are solidly behind him. I'm sorry for Oyegun.

opad:
Wow, great wisdom. Are you Olakunke Soriyan ni? �

I'm glad we think alike. Meanwhile, to your question no.

greiboy:
is she a virgin?

What are the grounds of denying him?

If she is a virgin with high moral standards about marriages and sex issues, then I believe she might have a point

However, If she isn't a virgin, then she is a hypocrite because she must have slept with other man before, but for some odd reason(s) refusing to sleep with a man that she fixed traditional wedding with.

It may also look like the lady is hiding something about her sex life from her future partner, which is bad considering they have chosen to spend the rest of their lifes together.

I think the lady needs to give more information, instead of trying to paint her future husband in a bad light

You're quite rational. More grease to your elbow.