₦airaland Forum

Politeness isn't a sign of timidity instead its a sign of dignity. SMH for the OP and his ilks.

JohnspeakU:
First, I'll need you to reread the entire writeup and do a comparison of what you just wrote. Thanks

According to you "You will be amazed at the number of Uneducated successful business men and women compared to the huge number of educated men and women who are struggling to build a little business like selling doughnuts or cake or event decoration."

Citing the above quote alone, you've an erroneous understanding of what education is. One who's uneducated in his chosen business cannot succeed in same, therefore, an uneducated person can never be successful. Understanding/competency is the hallmark of knowledge. Next time when you see someone who's succeeding in his line of business, take it to mean that such a person is educated, at least in his line of business - whether he's lingually fluent and articulate or not is irrelevant. Schooling/formal education at best confers one who acquired it well with articulacy, lingual fluency and information, but it hardly confers thorough knowledge which is the main thing. So, my point is that absence of articulacy and lingual fluency, and limited information doesn't make someone uneducated - competency/understanding is the hallmark of knowledge and that's what being educated means.

Once more, I say to you that education is different from schooling and this you failed to understand as evident in your article. This is not to take away anything from you though because no one person has monopoly of knowledge, we live to learn everyday.

Teacher don't teach me nonsense. Foremost, you failed to understand that education is different from schooling thereby erroneously concluding that a well-schooled person is automatically more educated than a less schooled person. I'll like to know the yardstick you used in arriving at such an abysmal conclusion.

Well, the most educated in any endeavour always outperform the less educated. Sustainable success remains the standard measure of intelligence in any cause of life. Well-schooled people at best have more information (not necessarily knowledge) about their course of study than an educated but less-schooled person. But they don't automatically have more knowledge than them in any other endeavour.

The reason why self and continuous educated people (people in this class comprises of both formally and informally educated) normally achieve greater successes than those who're only well-schooled is because the latter is conceit personification - they know everything but understand nothing.

Intelligence will always remain superior to brilliance, just as knowledge will always remain superior to information.

90 percent of people who're poor are so because they're conceited.

The country simply needs a thoroughly educated person as its leader, so whether such a person is well-schooled or not is irrelevant. Atiku is thoroughly educated. I will always choose a thoroughly educated man over a well-schooled man that isn't thoroughly educated, any day any time, especially in a situation whereby the former seems to be of the diplomatic ethical leanings.

amprat:
we are just 6, including him and mum, besides he is one of thos3 people who flaunt money in your face and tells the ones still in university to go and hustle, that he has reached a stage where he can use 50k for just refreshments, the last time he travelled to Dubai he made sure everyone knew including his mother and told her he should have taken her there but he just didn't.

In that case, he's obviously compassionless, self-centered and selfish.

I always find it irritatingly appalling when an adult failed to accept and assume responsibility of his actions and inactions.

You bought a phone and lose it, instead of to blame yourself for your carelessness here you're and apportioned blame on God. Then, you got scammed in the cause of procuring another one, instead of to blame yourself over your failure to carry out your due diligence before making the purchase, here you're also and apportioned blame on the same God.

Kindly stop disappointing yourself.

@OP

Foremost, I don't hold brief for selfish and self-centered people - like the character you presented - however, you need to be certain that you or others are not erroneously quantifying his financial worth out of covetousness and self-centeredness. More so, if the family is one with large number of dependent siblings together with parents, and where there's no centralized bank account where each individual volitionally donates money for the general cause of all and where some may obtain favour from the accused without notifying others, he (the accused) may really be overreaching his limit without everyone of you knowing.

To lead/be in a well-placed position is never an easy task, especially when those to lead/help possess one or all of the following negative attitudes; narcissism, self-centeredness, covetousness or conceitedness.

@OP

I wager the advice is for an opportunistic man who meets with an opportunistic lady, because in such an instance both have no genuine intentions/feelings towards each other, but individually they pretend to do. Well, mind games are only for small-minded people.

An altruistic man who's mentally strong wouldn't have to waste up to a month before deciphering that he's dealing with an opportunistic lady and discard her with alacrity - however, when dealing with a lady who's equally altruistic, he can spend on her for months if not years with or without sex. Sex shouldn't be a deciding factor in a healthy relationship. As beneficent as altruists are, yet, they still know quickly when dealing with an opportunist and don't waste time in discarding the lowlife.

Thoughtless and opportunistic people everywhere you go. SMH. It's obvious that these her siblings negative attitudes prompted her solitary lifestyle which unfortunately made it possible for her gateman to kill her so easily.

She's a poor - mentally - law graduate. . . Right doesn't mean absence/negation of law.

Although OP's submissions are in order - ethically - yet, there's no singular conventional standard path of pursuing success. So, the best thing always is for any person that wishes to be successful to create his own life path and encrypt it.

Knowledge - intelligence - can never be a curse. However, conceit is a curse; the article simply narrated some acts of conceitedness.

CR7 deserved it. It's not how far but how well - a case of quantity vs quality. Last season's cumulative satistics of their individual brilliances in valuable matches, which of course led to their respective clubs trophies or lack of it thereof, showed that he got the quality while Messi got the quantity.

Dboyz:
Which fairness. .when migrants are causing trouble... 4 instance sum 1 came to ur house u accommodate d person. ..all of a sudden him dey claim ur house. ...I think u are one of the shameless FULaNIS in the SOUTH.

You're a typical slow-witted person, I don't join issue with your type.

Direct your further mentions to your wretched father and lunatic mother.

Absence of fairness for all and sundry is an invite for calamity.

Ignorant about what and lazy in what? Someone that's ignorant about football may be knowledgeable about investment. So also someone that's lazy in cooking may be active in the other room.

Ignorance isn't the same thing as mental retardation/slow-wittedness, just as laziness isn't the same thing as dormancy.

Congrats to CR7 and fans.

Long story cut short, don't be an intentional source of agony to your spouse. However, in the event that your best isn't enough to your spouse - that means you have a frienemy as a spouse - the needful thing to do is separation/divorcement. Say no to living with a frienemy.

The postulation can only hold true if such a woman either disingenuously extort or outrightly bargained for such money from her man before getting down with him. However, in a situation whereby a man is beneficent and spent volitionally and altruistically on his woman before getting down with her, I don't see how such happenstance will equate the woman to a prostitute.

Correct talk. Success not money brings inner happiness. Yes, being success conscious is very different from being money conscious and the paths towards achieving both are equally different. However, being success conscious doesn't mean that one won't amass riches, no, instead it means that you'll see the need of creating your own life path and encrypting it, thereby run your race at your own pace without being covetous, discontent, envious or superficial, which are the negative vices that brings in unhappiness even when in abundance.

Those who're success conscious lives life on principle thereby eliminating all the vices that brings in unhappiness even in abundance, while those who're money conscious lives life on expediency thereby acquiring along with riches the vices that creates unhappiness.

Belafonte:
Your argument in your first paragraph is sophistical, especially with the part in bold. If a transaction and a contract mean the same thing then that mean the same thing and each factor affecting one affects the other. To claim otherwise is to be fraudulently semantic. If the crux of a transactional relationship is materialism, them the crux of a contractual relationship is also materialism, because of the simple reason that they both mean the same thing. Hence, I could extrapolate using your logic that the crux of a transactional relationship , especially in the area of a healthy romantic relationship are immaterialism.
Also, when you begin to qualify love with such adjectives as unconditional and selfless, you get a sense that there are, in fact, different versions of love. Unfortunately, when dealing with others possessing unconditional and selfless love may very well be injurious, and it is only wise to protect oneself from being used and taken for granted.

The idea of a process is to maximise efficiency. Thus, if a better, superior process is discovered the hitherto leading process is jettisoned for the better. When, however, the old process is faulty and is still forced upon the elements of a process it is, for all intents and purposes, a scam.

It can only take an insightful person - not an academic person that lack insight - to know that there's a very thin but big difference/distinction between the adjective words transactional and contractual. Once more, I say to you that contractual is the euphemism of transactional on this subject. Actually, I don't always like to engage any academic person that lacks insight (articulate incompetent) in dialogue, especially in a forum like this.

Peace out.

May thunder fire the said man. He's not only domineering but also both disingenuous and opportunistic. The lady shouldn't think twice before dumping his sorry ass. Submissiveness doesn't mean slavery.

Belafonte:
Yeah, right.


Is there anything that people don't get scammed with?


A contract is a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price. How is that different from a transaction, bros?

"Fixed price." Well, the crux of all transactional agreements are materialism, while the crux of contractual agreements, especially in the area of a healthy romantic relationship, are immaterialism - betrothed. This is akin to unconditional vs selflessness love. . . contractual is the euphemism of transactional on this subject.

Meanwhile, a process is different from an end - especially good end. A process has no value of its own, only its end/result always determine its value. This is about your scam question.

Love isn't a scam. However, it's one potent mechanism disingenuous people easily use to scam others who're either unsuspecting or outright gullible.

Also, relationship isn't transactional, at best it's contractual, and a healthy one of it is beneficial - contractual is the euphemism of transactional on this subject.

Importance and approval of prudence doesn't justify absence of kindliness in particular and compassion in general.

@OP

Both you and your said friend are fools - anyway, it's a conventional fact that bird of a feather flock together. So long as the lady acted conscientiously (religion and sin are irrelevant here), she did no evil. . . The shame is on you and your friend. Most meaningful/real things of this world doesn't cost a lot materially. Genuine affection never drains instead it renews.

ofai:
Igbo are republican in nature. Its a well known fact.

"Truly" is an active word in my question. Notionally yes we're, literally we aren't. I've my facts. Actually, popular/age long held opinion doesn't automatically equal to fact.

Similarity is different from exactness.

Bye.

Yes, there's still true love. However, OP, the truth is that someone like you may not find it, unless you change your ethical leanings. The axiom that says "one who comes into equity must come with clean hands" remains potent. . . You can't give what you don't have, or expect to have that which you have but can't give.

imhotep:
That's right
Marginalize a section of the country, loot 99% of the national treasury, then begin to lecture the marginalized peoples about ethics

I catch your drift . . .

Marginalization! Marginalization!! Marginalization!!! Lol.

Well, I'm a bona fide Igbo man and a stakeholder in the polity too. So forget about this talk OK.

imhotep:
Direct your ethical leanings to those who loot the country's money with reckless abandon.

Kindly vamoose and look for your small-minded mates elsewhere. Obviously you don't know the meaning of "ethical leanings." Herein you're currently exhibiting one of the negative attitudes that's the bane of the tribe's political backwardness.

imhotep:
Ethical leanings abi

Myopia a big disease. LOL. That poster you pasted there doesn't depict my "ethical leanings" assertion.

Believe you me, the the Igbo's precolonial political system is not the cause of its political backwardness in the current united Nigeria political system - the people's ethical leanings is the cause. Just a change of ethical leanings by at least 50% of the established political and business class will reshape for good the cause of the tribe.

Are Igbo's truly republican in nature as notionally assumed by many? My personal answer is NO.