TEE ZERO:

The good thing about that constitution is that Section 39 grants every Nigerian citizen " freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference."

There is nothing more powerful than that.
The Section preceding it grants us "freedom of thought, "

@TEE ZERO
I appreciate the spirit of your post, but your choice of words makes your position wrong. The Constitution does not and cannot grant you any of the freedoms you have mentioned. It merely acknowledges and affirms that as a member of the human race you were born with these rights, and charges every tier of government in Nigeria with the sacred duty of making sure that nothing and nobody acts in such a way as take these freedoms from you.

A city is happy when honest people have good fortune, and there are joyful shouts when the wicked die. - Proverbs 11:10 (Good News Bible)

Drive her fast to her grave!

I don't like activists. They get a lot of free publicity and sponsorship because people think they are angels whose actions are not rooted in self-interest.  Whereas they make a lot of money from their activism.

If entrepreneurs don't create wealth, activists won't have anything to give away, so lets stop worshipping them.

@Seun,

I don't get your logic. That's like saying, "I don't like teachers. If parents/guardians didn't pay fees the teachers would be unable to teach, anyway".

The truth is that there are good entrepreneurs and bad entrepreneurs. And there are good activists and bad activists. And there are good people called Seun and bad people called Seun. And there are,   oh, you get the point,

Everybody and their dog know Visual Studio Express Editions is free for any and all uses, and free forever. Only someone as smart and as accomplished in the industry like linxon is still struggling to come to terms with that, 

The reference linxon made to http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx does not refer to Visual Studio Express Editions at all. It refers to the material on all Microsoft-owned web sites (text, images, pictures, and other digital resources which are not specifically covered by any other software license). You will notice from the URL that its a general copyright statement and does not refer to any particular Microsoft product.

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES.
Through its network of Web properties, Microsoft provides you with access to a variety of resources, including developer tools, download areas, communication forums and product information (collectively "Services". The Services, including any updates, enhancements, new features, and/or the addition of any new Web properties, are subject to the TOU.

To break it down for you linxon, what Mr Gates is saying is that you can't take a picture or a paragraph off a Microsoft web-site and try to sell it, or try to make some other commercial gain from it. You can save the picture or the paragraph on your machine and use it personally, though.

The real license terms for Visual Studio Express Editions is found here http://www.microsoft.com/express/support/faq/. If you pay close attention you will notice that No. 7 cannot possibly be misunderstood,

7. Can I use Express Editions for commercial use?

Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions.

Have a nice day!

I think that iReport's position on this issue is ridiculous. It suggests that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Muslim governor to seek to enforce the law against churches without being accused of executing a religious agenda.

Also baffling is the suggestion by abhosts that because the churches in question are led by highly educated men, its "unlikely" that they would build on land without C of O. The area where I live has at least 50 churches (including RCCG, MFM, etc), of which about 10/15 own their own property. Those church buildings are obviously sited illegally, because no building in the whole area (churches and non-churches) has a C of O.

Notice that its not churches alone who were served this notice -  a number of individuals were also served. Are you going to suggest next that these individuals were also targetted because they're Christians and not Muslims?

Nigeria we hail thee,
Our own dear native land,
Though tribe and tongue may differ,
In brotherhood we stand,
Nigerians all, and proud to serve
Our sovereign Motherland.

Our flag shall be a symbol
That truth and justice reign,
In peace or battle honour'd,
And this we count as gain,
To hand on to our children
A banner without stain.

O God of all creation,
Grant this our one request,
Help us to build a nation
Where no man is oppressed,
And so with peace and plenty
Nigeria may be blessed.

Its difficult to believe, but the National Anthem was changed because of that one offensive line. In a world where eminent Nigerians frequently refer to the country as "a mere geographical expression", the use of the word "tribe" and an admission of the fact that we "differ" could not be tolerated in the National Anthem.

Hi All,

Would anyone want to volunteer to write an enterprise application over the web?

This project would not be for the faint-hearted, It would take about 100,000 man-hours of work to finish it, But the rewards would be out of this world,

Most Nigerians would never appreciate this sort of humour. Try giving a Nigerians a copy of Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn and see if they appreciate it. And its not just because its American humour. Most Nigerians would appreciate the humour in "Some Mothers Do Have Them (Frank Spencer)", but not "Yes, Minister",

How many Americans or Britons would find BasketMouth funny?

Its always amusing to read the opinions of Nairaland contributors on a variety of issues. For this particular one, these are the facts as I understand them:

[list]
[li]One of the requirements for gaining entry into Nigeria (and many other countries) is that you provide proof that you can afford to support yourself if and when you visit the country in question.[/li]
[li]An American citizen (never mind the fact his name is Bill Gates) expressed interest in visiting Nigeria.[/li]
[li]Nigerian Immigration officials requested, in line with the law, that he provide proof that he would be able to support himself while in Nigeria.[/li]
[li]The American citizen provided a letter from his bank stating that he had more than sufficient means at his disposal to support himself if he ever decided to visit Nigeria.[/li]
[li]The American citizen was granted the visa.[/li]
[/list]

The pertinent questions here are:

[list]
[li]Did the American citizen do anything unusual, or out of order?[/li]
[li]Are Nigerian Immigration officials under instructions to grant exemptions or waivers based on face-recognition?[/li]
[li]Would it not have been more sensational, if Mr. Gates had been given access to the country without due process, and then some newspaper or tabloid turns round to say, "You see, Nigerians are corrupt. These officials must have taken a bribe from Mr. Gates"[/li]
[li]Is Bill Gates too rich to be asked to provide a letter from his bank, where such letters are usually demanded from lesser mortals?[/li]
[/list]

If I were Bill Gates banker, I would write such a letter and courier it to him by private jet wherever he wants it sent on the planet. It would be a small price to pay for the privilege of managing his money.

If getting this letter for Nigerian Immigration was not a problem, and he was never at anytime at denied entry, then what is the whole hoopla about?

Hi All,

I've read with amusement every post in this thread. Please permit me to make the following observations.

1.) Most people who made posts in this thread did not bother to read properly the full text of Prof. Soludo's statement, or at least an informed summary from someone who has read it.
2.) Most people who support Prof. Soludo's position have not made any effort to quote the man's reasons for taking this position and defend them.
3.) Most people who do not support Prof. Soludo's position have not made any effort to quote the man's reasons for taking this position and point out the fallacies in his arguments.
4.) There are topics in which we can afford to yield the ground to every man's fancy, such as who should play in our national football team, and who should coach the team. Economic policies which mean the difference between eating and starving, between being able to send your kids to school and not being able to, should be excused from this category.
5.) We all have a duty, as educated people, to be sure we understand the thinking behind economic policies which our government is planning to execute. This is exactly the excuse given by white people in the American South before the Civil Rights Movement for denying African-Americans the right to vote. They claimed African-Americans were not intellectually capable of deciding who was a good candidate.

It is unfair for you to recommend we support Prof Soludo's move, or oppose it, if you cannot convince us that you have engaged in rigorous thought to arrive at your recommendation.

Hi all,

I do not intend to join issues with those who support Tunde Bakare, or those who oppose him. I only wish to draw your attention to these verses of Scripture:

Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This seems to me a very simple way to judge if God inspired a man to make a prediction. These verses tell us, if a PROPHET speaks something in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not happen, then the Lord has not spoken. "Obasanjo will die", "April 19 elections will not hold" seem like predictions to me.

Anyone who wishes to make predictions in God's Name should be ready to submit to this standard. If what I predicted does not come to pass, then I must be ready to concede that God did not speak through me. To claim that "God spoke to me but, " is actually not Biblical.

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Deu 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

I have taken the liberty of quoting Deuteronomy 22:5, and Deuteronomy 22:11, just to show that a discerning believer will never take he reads, even in the Bible, at face value, without making an effort to place it in its proper context.

A lot of so-called fundamental/conservative/"old-time religion" Christians quote verses like Deuteronomy 22:5 and attempt to twist such verses to suit their own preconceived notions.

For example, Jesus said that believers are the salt of the earth. I do not believe that anybody would insist that He actually meant that we are literally that household item we all use to spice up our food.

In the same way, we must understand that anything the Bible says has to be understood in its context.

What is "that which pertaineth to a man?" And what is "a woman's garment?"

In the day in which the writer of Deuteronomy penned these words, there were no trousers, at least not in the manner we have them today. What this law was actually saying was that a woman should not wear clothes which would cause her to be mistaken for a man, and vice-versa. This law was apparently instituted to forbid cross-dressing and by extension, transvestitism.

It is obvious that in our day, no one would really see a lady and assume that she's a man, or trying to look like a man, simply because she's wearing trousers. In fact, most guys would rather die than wear the kind of trousers that ladies wear. Modern fashion has actually evolved trousers/slacks/pants that are designed for women. Apart from these, there are those trousers which are designed to be unisex, for both genders. There is nothing to suggest that merely wearing trousers would cause a lady to be mistaken for a man.

If a lady were to dress up with the real intentions of being mistaken for a man (or vice versa), then this law could be said to have been contravened.

Another point to note is that this law in Deuteronomy 22:5 is of no greater importance than the one in Deuteronomy 22:11. Why do preachers who wear a shirt or a jacket of cotton and wool, for example, not realise that they are breaking the law too?

Indeed, a mature study of these verses should cause the serious student of the Bible to start asking questions, I would be more than willing to try and answer any questions folks would care to pose along these lines,

I wouldn't want to get into the argument about whether Rich Dad is real or not. In my opinion, if Rich Dad is real, it still does not make the principles RK is teaching valid. And if Rich Dad is not real, it would not make the RK's points invalid,

You may also want to consider the following points:

[list]
[li]RK's best one-liner, in my opinion, is that "An asset is something that puts money in your pocket, and a liablity is something that takes money out." I believe this statement really packs a punch, unlike many of his other meaningless statements.
[/li]
[li]Many of the ideas that RK shares would not work in Nigeria. For example, he talks a lot about people who sell real estate to him on the cheap because they cannot afford the taxes on the real estate. Or real estate in this country is not taxed, at least not to a degree that the owner would be absolutely unable to pay.
[/li]
[li]He talks a lot about banks being unwilling to give you a loan to buy stocks. Nigerian banks actually love customers who wish to borrow money to buy stocks![/li]
[/list]

A lot of what people call "investing" in Nigeria today is actually speculation. We need to pay attention to what RK says about real estate, but we need ideas that would work in our own economy.

***

***