₦airaland Forum

Although I don't hold brief for Wizkid however, his present attitude towards Banky W could be as a result of the kind of boss Banky W was to him while their business partnership lasted. Any boss of the manipulative ethical leanings never ever have long standing loyalist, especially among the herds of his former proteges/mentees.

Manipulators lose credibility, diplomats gain it.

The worst thing that can happen to any man (person) who has achieved self-realization is marrying someone who hasn't achieved same feat. Meanwhile, as much as self-realization almost has nothing to do with age yet, it's nearly impossible to find a lady who achieves it before the age of 25. So, I partially agree with the OP.

Worksunlimited:
Hmm.. Which scenario did?

I'm not going to be the one to put asunder between the OP and his sheeple. He deserved a reward. LOL.

Worksunlimited:
I sincerely believe op's telling the truth...

As regards the bat been in his house.. Well, met quite a few baseball fans.. Once had a neighbour that drove around with a baseball bat in the backseat of his car, for protection against Street squabbles and ish..

Believe you me, it's not about the bat, in fact that's the least of the scenarios that betrayed him.

This is an above average fiction - there's always room for improvement - I wish you success in your future endeavors in this regard in particular and other areas in general.

@OP

Stop yapping. She refuted the rumour since past two days.

@OP

Stop yapping. She refuted the rumour since past two days.

My compatriots and their ITK. SMH. I don't see any evil in her action - so long as she didn't sell right of her product identity to Davido in the cause of their transaction. In outsourcing/contracting business, a general contractor (her in this case) has the right to flag her identity/end product identity after selling/subletting the technical service/product to a sub-contractor (davido in this case). The only thing she doesn't have right for is cashing on it unless the agreement says otherwise.

One who doesn't believe in something will surely fall for anything - both of them took to gamble. The success of their union will largely depend if they're of the same ethical leanings. I wish them HML in advance.

Popularity doesn't win elections rather influence does. And the good thing is that a single influential person cannot defeat united contemporaries of approximate influence apiece. PMB and his foot soldiers should be guarded properly. I hold no brief for Atiku though.

The most important attributes any sane and sound lady (person) must posses are ingenuousness, contentment and conscientiousness. Without these attributes in place any other attribute - no matter how great - means balderdash.

Chris Uba! He's part of the forces that made Obiano's second term reelection a success - he supported him remotely in other to spite Peter Obi. And truly, Peter Obi isn't a sagacious politician, but a good technocrat he's.

@OP

You're in a relationship with a very honest, outspoken and smart girl. What she pointed out is your inability to maintain balance between tolerance and pretense - stop being servile towards her. Embrace conscientiousness and eschew unconscientiousness. While the former will make you to always act spontaneously the latter will always make you to act premeditatedly/prejudicially. The truth is that behind every unconscientious person is a hypocrite personified - people of this leanings can always be counted for their servility but the least to expect from them in the long run/when the chips are down is loyalty. There's a thin line between a good guy who's nice attitude and a servile guy who exhibits nice attitudes. She simply needs a good guy and her action showed that she's the cognitive ability to know one when she sees one. However, she's not longing for a bad guy as many contributors above on this thread have erroneously asserted.

Every altruistic, honest, sane and sound person from both genders always long to be in a relationship with a good but no non-sense partner. What they don't long for as a partner is neither a servile nor a bad person.

Dimples129:
I got that sense from his write up... The way he talks down his nose like he's better than her. So full of himself, typical Arsenal fan

The connotations of his message says it all. However, I don't follow you jibe arsenal fans -
the club is champions league designate-winner come 2019.

@OP

Although I don't hold brief for the said girl, but I must tell you that you're obviously the major cause of the problem in the relationship. You're simply conceited as the connotations of your submission suggested. Work on yourself.

He's just validated my postulation that culture isn't the way the dead did their things/lived their lives rather its how the living choose to do their things/live their lives.

cstr1000:
Actually his brashness and unconvientionalism brought the discourse to the fore and gave it an aura of national emergency.
If you think I am wrong, let somebody take up the mantle of restructuring and let us see if we will get anything.
The people that are angry with him are doing so because he did not include their ethnic group in the whole thing

The so-called Ibadan declaration- what is the outcome now?
It is easy to criticise someone. Try out doing him is now a problem.

You missed the point. Yes, he adopted unconventional tactics, but he wasn't maverick, he was simply controversial - he would have become victorious assuming that he was maverick. A maverick person knows where and when to apply diplomacy.

Also, as much as he was brash, of which I didn't expect him to be timorous, yet, he wasn't diplomatic - a touch of diplomacy in his actions and inactions would have given him a sustainable power to either achieve his longing or become a part of the deciding powers within the existing system. Remember, he who laughs last, laughs best. And manipulators lose credibility, diplomats gain it.

Nnamdi Kanu was simply megalomaniac and mentally slow. Only his feeble-minded followers failed to see through his small-mindedness while his abracadabra lasted. He rubbished a genuine cause through his parochial and conceited actions and inactions.

Personally, it only takes someone who's ethically compatible with me to be my friend/lover/partner, therefore, I see no reason why I shouldn't allow such - I've done it before and will continue to do so, so long as there's enough space for each other's privacy, like a guestroom in the house for such a visiting friend to sleep in.

If you don't command my trust I've no business to assume you a friend and, as such, can't accord you the privilege of a friend - for me friendship (not friendliness) begets a partner or lover. As a matter of fact, I never had any reason to have more than two people as friends at any point in my life, I don't attract frenemies to myself. But, of course, I've always had uncountable number of people I'm friendly with and multitude of associates.

I revere the word friend and anyone I considered as one.

She's not materialistic per se instead she's opportunistic, unfortunately the last thing to expect from an opportunist is loyalty.

COOL10:
. It's presently the path I'm on but it's not an easy path to stay on. Sometimes when they're ranting and I'm my usual self(quiet and unphased),I feel like I need to say some things to them and on the rare occasions I do,I get into that deep regretful hole again. When I wanna walk away I think it might be insulting but that's even better. They even pick on my words. They're free to say whatever but when I do they say I don't have self control. It's a seemingly endless cycle. They just get to me sometimes. Today was crazy.

Like I said earlier on, creating an emotional and physical distance with them will do the magic for you. Meanwhile, you need to become more tolerant and try to eschew conceit.

On the issue of admission, you need to tell yourself the truth that "it's not the early morning bird that catches the day." - this doesn't mean that one shouldn't be gritty, no, it only means that one should always endeavor to put his best effort in whatever he does but still allow nature to take its full cause. More so, remember that if wishes were horses beggars would ride - so, try to master the act of surrender tactics. If the supposed main course of study you long for doesn't come through this time around, consider to go for another course. For one, what you need to succeed in life is thorough education not academics (school) - this doesn't negate the importance of schooling though.

Create your own life path and encrypt it, that's the main secret of happiness.

@OP

No matter the situation of things around you stay strong for your family, if not for anything, at least for the sake of your late father. Actually, the negative attitudes your female family members have so far meted out against you have nothing to do with gender per se, but they have everything to do with people of small-mindednes - small-mindedness knows no gender.

Consider to create an emotional and physical distance with them. . . You neither need to alienate them from your life nor become mean or evil towards them, no. Just adopt a conscientious and unorthodox lifestyle, doing this will simply make you a no nonsense guy and happiness will be yours.

One clear difference between small-minded people and noble people is that the former always try to conquer the world without conquering self thereby loving self and hating the world, while the latter always strive to conquer self but not the world and loves the world but without hating self.

I say go the way of the noble and no nonsense people.

OP isn't only chauvinistic, he's also an articulate incompetent. SMH.

For all I know and care, a true leader is one who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way. Therefore, a man as the first between equals in a marriage should endeavor to live an exemplary life at all times, while the wife emulates him. This is the only way a woman can have peace in the union - I only hold brief for virtuous women.

Unhealthy marriage is a no marriage - therefore there can't be any atom of peace in one for someone to savour. And a healthy marriage is one where both parties are happy individually and collectively. Unfortunately, peace/happiness and unfaithfulness/disingenuousness can never exist together literally.

Maybe he'll have to rewrite the subject of his article and term it "how a woman who loves suffering and smiling can stay in a marriage with an irresponsible man."

No, life isn't all about money - it can only be so for small-minded people. Success is more pleasurable than money, therefore, it's better to be success conscious than to be money conscious. . . Being success conscious doesn't mean that one won't amass wealth, no.

Being success conscious means ambition powered by grit, while being money conscious means greed powered by insatiableness. While those in the former lane lives life on principle thereby impacting lives of others positively, those on the latter lane lives life on expediency thereby destroying lives of others.

hkidola00:
nice nice..so wot do u intend I should do

According to you, your girlfriend has been faithful to you all the while - which means that she's a conscientious person (so long as she's no opportunistic trait) - so just expunge yourself of any negative thought and allow her to enjoy her liberty to the maximum. The importance of being conscientious and having a partner alike can never be overemphasized. A conscientious person always live life on principle rather than expediency, so a situation like this won't cause her to misbehave or betray you.

You've no genuine reason to be too hard on yourself, so don't make yourself a fool. The last time I checked, it's not a crime for someone to accept a gift. The fact that the soldier admired her and bought her the gift doesn't automatically mean that he can force her to be his girlfriend - assuming that he didn't gift her the gift altruistically. Liberty is a right from the above not a privilege mortals give to each other.

DarkRebel69:
Oh, it's not about shame. What is shame? It's about the fact that your words have not the slightest effect on me.
I know I'm neither a ''bumkin" or a "bumpkin", so why should I get offended? LOL

Be a man of your word; you've already said "BYE", so bum off already and stop bothering me, "Mr. Bumkin". Hehe.

Next time choose your battle wisely. Lack of insight is a big disease - and no amount of schooling (academic) can cure it, only thoroughly acquired and continuous self-education can. Truly, arguing/dialogging with an articulate incompetent is akin to fighting with a pig; "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

Only an insightful person can extrapolate. And one who can extrapolate will not find it difficult to agree with me that there's a tiny but very important difference between the noun words SUBMISSIVENESS and SUBMISSION - submissiveness is the euphemism of submission on this subject. Just as there's a tiny but important difference between the words; NEED and WANT, GREEDINESS AND COVETOUSNESS, DEMAND AND REQUEST. Even sentences like "I love you" and "I am in love with you" have their tiny but important differences.

I even went to the extent of using Wikidiff to substantiate my claim, yet, some articulate incompetents are still adamant to learn - not surprised, because boisterousness is their thing, they don't like to lose honorably like responsible people do. LOL.: According to http://wikidiff.com/submission/submissiveness: As nouns the difference between submission and submissiveness is that submission is the act of submitting while submissiveness is the state or quality of being submissive. . . Which simply means that while the latter is an act of volition the former is an act of order/force.


A typical example of a bumkin is one that said:

- "Bumkin" has to do with ships. It's not a derogatory term" then after been defeated with fact that bumpkin means "an awkward, unsophisticated person; a yokel," came back within few minutes to further embarrass himself by concurring to my proven fact but without accepting his mental slowness.

- One who doesn't know that the word "indicator" as an active word doesn't mean the same thing as a passive word "appear" - especially in the context I used it, thus, maliciously misquoting me where I stated clearly and directly that most intelligent and confident people I know always appear self-effacing. And of course, it's also only a bumkin that won't understand that a negative word/action doesn't automatically mean an evil word/action - just as the lobby of a house doesn't mean insanity on the part of the architect that created it.

This is my final bye to you bumkin. LOL.

DarkRebel69:
What is this simpletön doing? LOL

[...]

–Bumpkin: "Unsophisticated person"

–Bumkin: "A short outrigger projecting from the side of the aft part of a square-rigged sailing ship"


You called me a "bumkin" when instead you meant to say "bumpkin". I corrected you, and now you're posting something that doesn't even make any sense. Hehehe.

Yeah, it's for the best that you've said "BYE". You're obviously pretentious and your level of understanding is piss-poor. So yes, BYE!

I quote you "Besides, "bumkin" has to do with ships. It's not a derogatory term, which I assume you think it is."

Truly, you don't have shame.

DarkRebel69:
There's no need to get salty. Just admit that you were talking a boatload of crap.

Besides, "bumkin" has to do with ships. It's not a derogatory term, which I assume you think it is. If you meant it as an abuse then you should have said "bumpkin". LOL



Empty barrels make the loudest noises.

The link to the website that you posted said absolutely nothing about a "tiny difference" (as you opined) between "submission" and "submissiveness". (I just wanted to get that out of the way before you think you have posted a valid link).

For the sake of you and your kind who have insufferably tiny IQs, I will try to explain as simply as I can, in the wild hope that you would eventually see how all what you've been doing is firing blanks (even though I'd have a better chance of persuading a volcano to not erupt than in making you see that you've been talking gibberish).

Now you say "submission" is different from "submissiveness", so let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the two terms:

1) Submission: "the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person."

2) Submissiveness: "the quality of being submissive."

3) Submissive: "ready to conform to the authority or will of others; meekly obedient or passive."

In the foregoing, we can see that submission is defined as the act of accepting or yielding to the authority of another person. Submissiveness is also said to be the quality of being submissive. And to be submissive was also defined as being ready or willing to yield/conform to authority (which is basically the same thing as “submission”).

Like I said, your IQ is tiny. I'm not even trying to curse you or something; I'm just stating a fact. If you cannot see that the two words are literally the same thing, then I have no business exchanging words with you. You're just too dumb.




You used "intelligent and confident" in your post, and I used "intelligence and self-confidence". Anyone with a remotely discriminating mind would have known that I only paraphrased your words, not alter them.

Stop embarassing yourself in public and do your research. Self-effacement is rarely a good quality.




Whatever, charlatan. Once again, it's "bumpkin", not "bumkin". LOL.

LOL. Learn you said no, be effacing you said no too.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/boomkin
boomkin
Also found in: Wikipedia.
bump·kin 1 (bŭmp′kĭn, bŭm′-)
n.
An awkward, unsophisticated person; a yokel.


BYE.

DarkRebel69:
Mister, this is some boatload of crap. I understand the need to appear smart, but sincerely this is codswallop.

There is no "tiny distinction'' between "submissiveness" and "submission". "Submissive" is only the adjectival form of the word "submission". Basically, these are different iterations of a word that are all saying the same thing.

Also, in your other post you said something about "self-effacement" being an indicator of self-confidence and intelligence. Now that's just an incredibly ignorant statement. Self-effacement is often seen in a negative light. How can someone who "effaces/diminishes" himself have any self-esteem and/or self-confidence?

Do you even understand the meaning of the words you use, or do just throw them around?

Look at this bumkin. Lol. Kindly look for your small-minded mates elsewhere because I don't join issue with people like you and your ilks. But before I leave you to your stupidity, take it from me that "As nouns the difference between submission and submissiveness is that submission is the act of submitting while submissiveness is the state or quality of being submissive." . . . Ref: http://wikidiff.com/submission/submissiveness. Now, it will only take an insightful mind to extrapolate the tiny but important distinction between the two, refer to my post you quoted. Submissiveness is the euphemism of submission on this subject.

I quote you "Also, in your other post you said something about "self-effacement" being an indicator of self-confidence and intelligence. Now that's just an incredibly ignorant statement. Self-effacement is often seen in a negative light." LOL. You're obviously mentally deranged, because a sane and sound mind in your stead wouldn't have intentionally misquote me just to appear learned. I said that the most intelligent and confident people I know always choose to appear self-effacing - outwardly and diplomatically - I don't remember stating that it's an INDICATOR (as you maliciously ascribed to me) of intelligence and confidence; else I wouldn't have stated the following in one of my previous posts herein "In Igbo parlance we do say "an alpha male dog that fall on the ground for its equal isn't because of fear" - this is an example of what effacement is all about."

Once more, only bumkins and articulate incompetents like you are always boisterous and arrogant. . . you didn't disappoint me of course.

Personally, I have no monopoly of knowledge but then, neither you, your wretched father nor your lunatic mother can ever match me.

Now, vamoose and look for your small-minded mates elsewhere. Bumkin.

Proudgorgeousga:
Now you are being condescending. I have already admitted that I misunderstood the word you used that is why I made the the comment about "being invisible" in relationship. so much for being the advocate of "self-effacing ".

Wow! So you don't recognize either humor or banter when you see one. Don't be too hard on yourself.