₦airaland Forum

Odidigboigbo:
Hahahaha. I remember years back in Uni, When one girl brought her entire roomate, four of them for a first date with my roommate.
The girl was ordering every every, whenever my roommate tried to touched her, she will remind him of the presence of her friends.
That was how he changed his mind and abandoned them there. Last last, I learnt that the owner of the place seized their phones, necklace, watches and other valuables before he allowed them to go and bring his money. After some few months, she saw me and pleaded with me to tell my friend to forgive her, saying she was deceived by one of them to come and chop my roommate mugu.

I just couldnt sit there n face someone n do something like that. Some girls have no shame . To take a person for a fool in front of their face and not even feel bad bout it

Afromentalist:
Leave that talk baba.

I have been to Montréal many times and I know the place quite well. (I do speak french too by the way, along with german and spanish).

When 2 people go for a date, should there be a default, each person is held liable for his own bill (from the restaurant's perspective). Of course if one person wants to pay the bills, he is free to do so. But should that arrangement not be effective, each person is liable for his own consumption. Make person no dey deceive you

Dude, you do not invite someone for a dinner and refuse to pay. It is not normal. It is shameful. If you do that in Montréal, nobody will call you smart guy. You might have been to Montréal but obviously, you are definitely not a Québécois. If a Québécois invites you for lunch, he or she will cook for you. If he invites you to lunch, he or she will pay the bills. Whoever issues an invitation functions in the role of a host, and generally whoever does the hosting does the paying. It has nothing to do with gender. This is different from hanging out. It's a treat. That's why you hear statements like "if you do this for me, I'll invite you to lunch". This means, "I'll take you out to lunch", and if you take someone out on a date, you pay. That's not the same as suggesting a restaurant to friend or a colleague where you both could hang out.

In my first post, I made it clear it's always a good idea to go with one's debit or credit card cause of uncertainties. But that does not normalize the host refusing to pay after lunch. Contrary to what y'all are saying, the guy was not "smart". He did something shameful. And that has always been the grand point. This your argument would have made sense if you had not mentioned Montréal (or even France) because the French word "inviter" in Montréal is an automatic acceptance of paying. Seeing how you're likely to say anything just to win an argument, I doubt you've ever been to Montréal. But I'm not the one to call anyone a lier.

WoundedLamb:
Dude, you do not invite someone for a dinner and refuse to pay. It is not normal. It is shameful. If you do that in Montréal, nobody will call you smart guy. You might have been to Montréal but obviously, you are definitely not a Québécois. If a Québécois invites you for lunch, he or she will cook for you. If he invites you to lunch, he or she will pay the bills. Whoever issues an invitation functions in the role of a host, and generally whoever does the hosting does the paying. It has nothing to do with gender. This is different from hanging out. It's a treat. That's why you hear statements like "if you do this for me, I'll invite you to lunch". This means, "I'll take you out to lunch", and if you take someone out on a date, you pay. That's not the same as suggesting a restaurant to friend or a colleague where you both could hang out.

In my first post, I made it clear it's always a good idea to go with one's debit or credit card cause of uncertainties. But that does not normalize the host refusing to pay after lunch. Contrary to what y'all are saying, the guy was not "smart". He did something shameful. And that has always been the grand point. This your argument would have made sense if you had not mentioned Montréal (or even France) because the French word "inviter" in Montréal is an automatic acceptance of paying. Seeing how you're likely to say anything just to win an argument, I doubt you've ever been to Montréal. But I'm not the one to call anyone a lier.

You are missing the point dude.

First off (with respect to your disguised ad hominems) I have never claimed to be a Québécois or a Canadian for that matter. I am German (citizenship) and I speak French, German English and Spanish either as a native speaker or fluently (thanks to travelling parents). If you want to verify that it is very easy to do, a simple call, and we will have that confirmed. What is it about Montréal for you to think you are the only one in this forum that has ever been there?

Second, you are talking about etiquette, while we are discussing street smartness.

Yes, if you invite someone the bills may be on you, and that was never the bone of contention. The issue here is, the guy may have invited ONE girl , and the other girls ganged to rip him off in their usual Nigerian way. At this point there is no etiquette any longer, the ladies tried to exploit him, and he had to outsmart them thereby teaching them a lesson.

Since you read French, would you mind reading this piece from a Montreal based coach that clearly suggest that each party may have to pay its own bill, or is she not Québécoise enough for you?

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/03/10/qui-doit-payer-la-facture-au-restaurant

@Woundedlamb,

Find here attached a number of additional articles from Québec to further buttress my point (mostly in French).

From a survey done in Québec: 38% of women think the bills must be split, while 25% think only the man should pay.

Source: https://www.lesaffaires.com/mes-finances/consommation/cette-embarrassante-facture-qui-gache-votre-premiere-date/600546

Quebec: Don't be afraid to suggest that each person pays his bill

Source: https://www.reseaucontact.com/blogue/payer-lors-premier-rendez/

Afromentalist:
You are missing the point dude.

First off (with respect to your disguised ad hominems) I have never claimed to be a Québécois or a Canadian for that matter. I am German (citizenship) and I speak French, German English and Spanish either as a native speaker or fluently (thanks to travelling parents). If you want to verify that it is very easy to do, a simple call, and we will have that confirmed. What is it about Montréal for you to think you are the only one in this forum that has ever been there?

Second, you are talking about etiquette, while we are discussing street smartness.

Yes, if you invite someone the bills may be on you, and that was never the bone of contention. The issue here is, the guy may have invited ONE girl , and the other girls ganged to rip him off in their usual Nigerian way. At this point there is no etiquette any longer, the ladies tried to exploit him, and he had to outsmart them thereby teaching them a lesson.

Since you read French, would you mind reading this piece from a Montreal based coach that clearly suggest that each party may have to pay its own bill, or is she not Québécoise enough for you?

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/03/10/qui-doit-payer-la-facture-au-restaurant

You create your own bone of contention when you feel like. I really don't care about the languages you speak but don't just say "in the western world... " or anything like that. I have not just been to Montréal, I was born in Montréal and you're not in any position to teach me the culture here. I wouldn't argue with you about Germany but no, I need no opinion survey to tell me about the culture I live.

Like I said, you don't change the goalpost half-way when you feel overwhelmed. I said it from the very first post you quoted that "if the guy invited them...", then he's not smart but wicked for refusing to pay. This has always been my point. That was the very first statement in my first post and you can't now pretend as if you didn't see it, neither can you accuse me of missing the point because in each of my responses to you, I always ensure I buttress that. Meanwhile, which part of the OP indicated the guy invited one lady and she came with her friends? Where did you get this detail from? Please, point me to that. That will help.

This is not a discussion of who pays the restaurant bills between the man and the woman (I can see that's what the links you shared are discussing). We split bills when people eat out. This is a question who pays the bill between the inviter and the invitee when you invite someone for/to dinner. It has nothing to do with gender and it's different from going to a pub with friends. As for the links you sent sharing opinions, opinions have never reflected reality. People have thier opinions on how things should be (in Nigeria, some people think women should inherit thier father's properties just as men do), but you have to live here to know what the culture is. Sir, when you invite someone for dinner, you are the host. Even the link you shared stated this as the prevalent mindset. And that's exactly what the English expression means. If for any reason you can't pay, you MUST mention it ahead of time. It's even embarrassing having this discussion with you cause even a kid here knows this.

WoundedLamb:
You create your own bone of contention when you feel like. I really don't care about the languages you speak but don't just say "in the western world... " or anything like that. I have not just been to Montréal, I was born in Montréal and you're not in any position to teach me the culture here. I wouldn't argue with you about Germany but no, I need no opinion survey to tell me about the culture I live.

lol.

You are the one that first cast doubts on my person, and now you are the first to cry foul. You implied I have never been to Montréal (what's the big deal in visiting Quebec ?) and that I may not even speak French (lmaoo) and now you want to pretend I just mentioned this to show off? Lol. You are not the mayor of Montréal bro, we have been there and done that.

Nobody is teaching you any culture, and the western world is not limited to Quebec. I have given you links and facts about the very people in Québec, including a story of a lady that was invited to a restaurant only to find out at the end of the day that the bills must be split. Like I said, you do not own Québec, not are you a mayor there nor shi shi. In fact, I will even be in Toronto this August, and if you want I may come to Montreal just to see if and how you run the city in the palm of your hands.

We are dealing here with a street smart guy who outsmarted slay leeches that intended to f+ck him up. He taught them a very good lesson and they will not forget it. That's all there is to know about this story. If you are a simp that believes it is okay if those hoes deal with men, good for you. You may as well contact that hotel and pay the bill to free the hoes.

Afromentalist:
lol.

You are the one that first cast doubts on my person, and now you are the first to cry foul. You implied I have never been to Montréal (what's the big deal in visiting Quebec ?) and that I may not even speak French (lmaoo) and now you want to pretend I just mentioned this to show off? Lol. You are not the mayor of Montréal bro, we have been there and done that.

Nobody is teaching you any culture, and the western world is not limited to Quebec. I have given you links and facts about the very people in Québec, including a story of a lady that was invited to a restaurant only to find out at the end of the day that the bills must be split. Like I said, you do not own Québec, not are you a mayor there nor shi shi. In fact, I will even be in Toronto this August, and if you want I may come to Montreal just to see if and how you run the city in the palm of your hands.

We are dealing here with a street smart guy who outsmarted slay leeches that intended to f+ck him up. He taught them a very good lesson and they will not forget it. That's all there is to know about this story. If you are a simp that believes it is okay if those hoes deal with men, good for you. You may as well contact that hotel and pay the bill to free the hoes.

You mentioned in the western/civilized world, and I said I live in the so-called western world and it is not true. That was a sweeping statement and you should only talk about where you live. So if there's anyone here who should limit thier references to thier location, it is you cause you brought the western world into this discussion.

You didn't bring any fact, sir. The links you shared are mostly about gender dichotomy and who pays between male and female. Splitting the bills is the norm when people hang out or eat out regardless of gender. However, "let's go and eat at... " is very different from "I'd like to invite you to dinner at ....". Be you a man or a woman, when you invite someone over for/to lunch/dinner, you either cook or pay. This has always been the norm. It is not even worth writing about. This argument is funny cause even if you check the meaning of the expression "invite someone to dinner", you'd see you're making a mess of the expression with your argument.

I'm ignoring all your insinuations cause that's an effort to deviate from the subject and I'm not the type to chase shadows or engage in petty talks. I said that if the guy invited them, then running away after they're done eating is not being smart but shameful. If you do this here, nobody will call you smart. Even in your Germany, I'm sure that would be seen as shameful as well. If you do not intend to pay, say it ahead of time. That's the ideal thing to do.

In case you missed my question, I'm still waiting for you to show me the part that states he only invited one person and she came with her friends. This is a detail that changes everything. Point me to it, please. If you cooked up that part just to support your argument, then there's no telling how much more you've cooked up in this entire conversation, and I'm probably wasting my time.

WoundedLamb:
I'm ignoring all your insinuations cause that's an effort to deviate from the subject and I'm not the type to chase shadows or engage in petty talks. I said that if the guy invited them, then running away after they're done eating is not being smart but shameful. If you do this here, nobody will call you smart. Even in your Germany, I'm sure that would be seen as shameful as well. If you do not intend to pay, say it ahead of time. That's the ideal thing to do.

If anything you are the one making insinuations about others. Nobody doubted your Canadian claims, but you are the one to be quick to assume others are lying, so stop the victimization.

Furthermore, it is indeed shameful to run away from the bills if you have invited someone with the understanding that the Bills are on you. The story is different if people are trying to play you, which is the axiom here.

WoundedLamb:
You mentioned in the western/civilized world, and I said I live in the so-called western world and it is not true.

I mentioned in the western world, in response to a comment and not on my own, so your argument does not hold water. Since I was responding to a claim, it is enough for me to prove that in any part of the western world it is not as the initial post I was responding to, claimed. Hence your argument should be directed at him.

WoundedLamb:
You didn't bring any fact, sir. The links you shared are mostly about gender dichotomy and who pays between male and female.

In case you missed my question, I'm still waiting for you to show me the part that states he only invited one person and she came with her friends. This is a detail that changes everything. Point me to it, please. If you cooked up that part just to support your argument, then there's no telling how much more you've cooked up in this entire conversation, and I'm probably wasting my time.

I will answer your question, when you will answer this: where in the links I provided was it indicated that these people were not invited ?

Guess what? it was never explicitely indicated but you made an assumption. That's how life is: you make rational assumption based on the elements you have.

WoundedLamb:
If you cooked up that part just to support your argument, then there's no telling how much more you've cooked up in this entire conversation, and I'm probably wasting my time.

Mr Mayor of Quebec, nobody needs your validation and I don't give a f*ck whether you believe me or not.

Afromentalist:
If anything you are the one making insinuations about others. Nobody doubted your Canadian claims, but you are the one to be quick to assume others are lying, so stop the victimization.

Furthermore, it is indeed shameful to run away from the bills if you have invited someone with the understanding that the Bills are on you. The story is different if people are trying to play you, which is the axiom here.


I mentioned in the western world, in response to a comment and not on my own, so your argument does not hold water. Since I was responding to a claim, it is enough for me to prove that in any part of the western world it is not as the initial post I was responding to, claimed. Hence your argument should be directed at him.


I will answer your question, when you will answer this: where in the links I provided was it indicated that these people were not invited ?

Guess what? it was never explicitely indicated but you made an assumption. That's how life is: you make rational assumption based on the elements you have.



Mr Mayor of Quebec, nobody needs your validation and I don't give a f*ck whether you believe me or not.

Lol... of course, I wasn't expecting a direct response. After all, there's a reason you avoided the question in the first place. A lengthy text running in circles while clearly avoiding the subject and then ending with the f word is not far from what I was expecting, to be honest. At least, you learned not to invite people to dinner and refuse to pay when they're done eating.

It is not stated in the story if the ladies were invited or not and that is why I started my statement with "if he invited them...". That is the ideal way to introduce an opinion based on assumptions except if you believe the reasons for your assumptions are so obvious you don't need state the assumption anymore (and it's not in this case). Even if you rightfully made those assumptions, the fact that I started my first post with the clause "if he invited them..." clearly indicates that what the guy did is only shameful in the absence of the assumption that he didn't invite them. So what exactly are you on about? I must operate with your own assumption and call him smart? Why should I do that?

Sir, I have not for once deviated from my stance and it would seem you've landed in the same positon after all. If the guy invited them to lunch/dinner only to disappear after paying, then that's not smart but shameful; no more, no less. Don't invite people when you aren't ready to be a host, Western world or Eastern world.

WoundedLamb:
Sir, I have not for once deviated from my stance and it would seem you've landed in the same positon after all. If the guy invited them to lunch/dinner only to disappear after paying, then that's not smart but shameful; no more, no less. Don't invite people when you aren't ready to be a host, Western world or Eastern world.

It then seems you are yet to understand my stance on this matter.

WoundedLamb:
Lol... of course, I wasn't expecting a direct response. After all, there's a reason you avoided the question in the first place. A lengthy text running in circles while clearly avoiding the subject and then ending with the f word is not far from what I was expecting, to be honest.

Je ne suis pas votre élève - Sarkozy to Hollande

You don't answer my question but expect me to answer yours ?

At least you have learned that you do not own any country out there.

Afromentalist:
It then seems you are yet to understand my stance on this matter.


Je ne suis pas votre élève - Sarkozy to Hollande

You don't answer my question but expect me to answer yours ?

At least you have learned that you do not own any country out there.

Like I said, I don't engage in petty talks. I couldn't care less about your stance and definitely wouldn't have known you had any if you hadn't quoted me. Calling a host who refused to pay after his guests are done eating "smart" is aggressive patriotism. If you're going to share an opinion based on assumption, at least, state the assumption.

The fact that Linda Ikeji who seems to be blog that originally shared the story stated that it happened in Ghana while the video shows a South African accent is an indication that nobody really knows what happened or where it happened. Some comments on that same blog event went ahead to 'debunk' the story saying the girls were make-up artists who came for a job but got disappointed by the person who had promised to pay for their stay. However, it's not uncommon for bloggers to pick up pictures or videos and make up stories around them. What I find funny is the audience adding a whole new paragraph to the story and arguing strictly based on this assumptions as if everyone else is supposed to assume along with them. That's a new height.

WoundedLamb:
Like I said, I don't engage in petty talks.

You start petty talks but when you meet stubborn resistance and are reciprocated, you begin to act self-righteous. Anybody can read the whole conversation and see who began to question the character of the other one. We already know your type, I have met such a few times on Nairaland: the type that because of foreign citizenship think he can lord it over the rest, thinking he has the keys to any country.

WoundedLamb:
If you're going to share an opinion based on assumption, at least, state the assumption.

This is my first response to you on this topic:

Afromentalist:
You assume he invited them, which is likely not the case.
He may have invited one girl, and she brought along her friends to milk the mugu off, or so they thought.

My man decided he will rather teach them a lesson they may will not easily forget.

How did I not state the assumption I was basing my opinion on? In fact I even stated your OWN assumption. Now it is very obvious you just want to act self-righteous to give yourself some form of self sense of superiority. Lmaoo

WoundedLamb:
I couldn't care less about your stance and definitely wouldn't have known you had any if you hadn't quoted me.

You just confirmed my doubts with this sentence. you are trying to validate yourself. You come in an open forum, and you think people quote you because you are important?

Nigga, nobody cares who you are, we are here to exchange and have fun. I quoted you without looking at your moniker, and soon we will move to the next discussion and would have forgotten each other monikers.

First you start with "I am Canadian", then "I am from Quebec", " we have Etiquette", and now "you are the one that quoted me"

Afromentalist:
You start petty talks but when you meet stubborn resistance and are reciprocated, you begin to act self-righteous. Anybody can read the whole conversation and see who began to question the character of the other one. We already know your type, I have met such a few times on Nairaland: the type that because of foreign citizenship think he can lord it over the rest, thinking he has the keys to any country.


This is my first response to you on this topic:



How did I not state the assumption I was basing my opinion on? In fact I even stated your OWN assumption. Now it is very obvious you just want to act self-righteous to give yourself some form of self sense of superiority. Lmaoo


You just confirmed my doubts with this sentence. you are trying to validate yourself. You come in an open forum, and you think people quote you because you are important?

Nigga, nobody cares who you are, we are here to exchange and have fun. I quoted you without looking at your moniker, and soon we will move to the next discussion and would have forgotten each other monikers.

First you start with "I am Canadian", then "I am from Quebec", " we have Etiquette", and now "you are the one that quoted me"

You quoted me for "assuming" meanwhile, in the post you quoted, I clearly stated the condition under which what he did wouldn't be termed "smart". The IF statement simply means what the guy did is only shameful IF he had invited the ladies. Unlike those calling him smart, I did not just give an opinion based on my assumptions, I gave a condition for my statement to be true (cause there's a possibility that he did not invite them). And I did that cause none of us actually knows what happened. Even if you think the guy was smart cause he did not invite them all (which is not stated anywhere), how does that contradict a statement that says "then he is not smart if he actually invited them"? What I find interesting is that those that called him "smart" did not even state any condition. They just passed judgment based on thier assumptions and you did not call them out for assuming, but would rather call me out despite my explicit condition statement. How objective.

Within a very short period of time, you've moved from saying my statement doesn't hold in the western world (as if taking care of your invitee is a region specific thing) to accepting that not paying for one's guest is actually shameful, and then to accusing me of missing the point, and finally to accusing me of feeling superior (I like this one). Yet, I don't see how all this invalidates my statement: IF they guy invited those ladies, then he wasn't being smart but shameful. Which part of this statement don't you agree with?

But superior? Lol... I only mentioned I'm Canadian cause you said my statement doesn't hold in the western world and I needed to tell you the guest pays everywhere. I really don't care about childish inuendos, memes and emojis. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if any of my comments made you feel inferior or triggered something within. I don't hold back when I'm chatting with someone who I believe to be just as confident. But yeah, my judgment fails me occasionally.

I was actually having a boring weekend, so thanks.

WoundedLamb:
Sir, that your first statement has no premises and that exactly is the point. You said I assumed the guy invited them and started working based on the assumption that he didn't. Meanwhile, I clearly stated the condition under which what he did wouldn't be termed "smart". The IF statement simply means what the guy did is only shameful IF he had invited the ladies. Unlike those calling him smart, I did not just give an opinion based on my assumptions, I gave a condition for my statement to be true (cause there's a possibility that he did not invite them). And I did that cause none of us actually knows what happened.

So according to you, a premise is only stated when the word "if" is used ?

I said "may" and "likely" are these not premises or expressions of assumption? Or I must write "if" necessarily before your brain can decode that we are dealing with a (reasonable) assumption? The fact and the matter is that, neither you nor I nor anyone knows what transpired. We all give our opinions based on (rational) assumptions from the facts provided to us.

WoundedLamb:
But superior? Lol... I only mentioned I'm Canadian cause you said my statement doesn't hold in the western world and I needed to tell you the guest pays everywhere. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if any of my comments made you feel inferior or triggered something within. I don't hold back when I'm chatting with someone who I believe to be just as confident. But yeah, my judgment fails me occasionally.

Dude where did I ever talk about the western world to you ? Now you are lying to make a point? You brought that up yourself (perhaps with some other dude), thinking you are among villagers. I had to correct that false impression, each time I was in Montreal I always paid my bills, even when people did invite me. Moreoever, the western world can't be restricted to Canada in anyway.

WoundedLamb:
I was actually having a boring weekend, so thanks.

Well, this monday is not open over here, So I still got the time to address your lies.

Afromentalist:
So according to you, a premise is only stated when the word "if" is used ?

I said "may" and "likely" are these not premises or expressions of assumption? Or I must write "if" necessarily before your brain can decode that we are dealing with a (reasonable) assumption? The fact and the matter is that, neither you nor I nor anyone knows what transpired. We all give our opinions based on (rational) assumptions from the facts provided to us.


Dude where did I ever talk about the western world to you ? Now you are lying to make a point? You brought that up yourself (perhaps with some other dude), thinking you are among villagers. I had to correct that false impression, each time I was in Montreal I always paid my bills, even when people did invite me. Moreoever, the western world can't be restricted to Canada in anyway.


Well, this monday is not open over here, So I still got the time to address your lies.

Lol... let me break it down. When I say it has no premises, I meant it did not derive its conclusion from my initial post that started the conversation cause my post gave a condition under which the statement I made would be true, so I didn't just "assum he invited them" as you stated in your post. I have updated my last comment just to break this down.

Looking at the username now, I see you jumped into the chat half-way. You accuse me of "assuming" when I made it clear in the first post the guy's act is only shameful if he actually invited the girls. You accuse me of wanting to sound superior, meanwhile the person I was responding to actually made a statement that made me mention I was in Canada. Maybe if you had read the posts that started the conversation, you would have been in a better position contribute. But it would appear you were in a hurry to let me know you've also been to Montréal.

Nevertheless, even your own argument does not hold up cause my statement still stands: if that guy invited those ladies, then what he did is not smart but shameful, and this is regardless of the location.

WoundedLamb:
Lol... let me break it down. When I say it has no premises, I meant it did not derive its conclusion from my initial post that started the conversation cause my post gave a condition under which the statement I made would be true, so I didn't just "assum he invited them" as you stated in your post. I have updated my last comment just to break this down.

Why should my own contribution derive its conclusion from your own premise? you have stated your premise and drawn your conclusion as a result. I have a different and equally possible assumption, whence I drew my own conclusion from.

WoundedLamb:
Maybe if you had read the posts that started the conversation, you would have been in a better position contribute. But it would appear you were in a hurry to let me know you've also been to Montréal.

As usual, you write this then you will later turn and form self-righteous that does not "engage in petty talks".

In any case mr Governor of Quebec, you are the one that did not really read correctly. You even admitted you confused monikers, and were arguing since without knowing you are talking with a different individual. All in a bid to assert yourself as a Canadian with exclusive rights to Quebec.

WoundedLamb:
Nevertheless, even your own argument does not hold up cause my statement still stands: if that guy invited those ladies, then what he did is not smart but shameful, and this is regardless of the location.

In your Manichean binary reasoning, you think it is always about proving you right or wrong. Mr Governor, I have good news for you: it is not about you at all.

You made a statement under an assumption. I came to tell you, that your statement is only valid should your assumption be the only logical one. However, this is not the case. If a different axiom is possible/postulated, then one can arrive at different, equally if not more pertinent conclusions. It has nothing to do about proving you right or wrong, but everything to do with showing you "the other side".

Afromentalist:
Why should my own contribution derive its conclusion from your own premise? you have stated your premise and drawn your conclusion as a result. I have a different and equally possible assumption, whence I drew my own conclusion from.

As usual, you write this then you will later turn and form self-righteous that does not "engage in petty talks".

In any case mr Governor of Quebec, you are the one that did not really read correctly. You even admitted you confused monikers, and were arguing since without knowing you are talking with a different individual. All in a bid to assert yourself as a Canadian with exclusive rights to Quebec.

In your Manichean binary reasoning, you think it is always about proving you right or wrong. Mr Governor, I have good news for you: it is not about you at all.

You made a statement under an assumption. I came to tell you, that your statement is only valid should your assumption be the only logical one. However, this is not the case. If a different axiom is possible/postulated, then one can arrive at different, equally if not more pertinent conclusions. It has nothing to do about proving you right or wrong, but everything to do with showing you "the other side".

Read yourself, I made à statement stating the sole condition under which the statement is valid. And then you quoted me to tell that my statement is only valid under the condition I stated. I that added the condition in the first place, you think I didn't know that? What value did you comment add to my logic that wasn't there already? You echoed what I said already, how is that not redundancy? You even accused me of working with an assumption.

I : if the the guy invited, he's not smart.
You: You assume he invited them.

First, I did not just assume, I clearly stated à condition. If I had just said he wasn't smart, that would have been working with an assumption (like those calling him smart). But I made à comprehensive statement of fact: if he invited them, he's not smart. This means he could still be smart in the case that the IF statement evaluates to be false. Second, you going ahead to tell me he's smart if he invited only one girl does not in way oppose or invalidate what I have already stated.

And how come you did not add to the statement of those calling him smart to tell them other conditions under which he might not be smart? Or maybe you're just okey with everyone calling him smart regardless of the condition and that is why my statement was the one worth quoting?

Others: the guy is smart!
You: .....

How objective and logical.

Werey

The guy should share the formula he used . Poo GIRLS THAT RIPE WHERE THEY DIDNT SOW.