RightToReject's Posts
Nairaland Forum › RightToReject's Profile › RightToReject's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 (of 36 pages)
bukatyne:Mama de mama, you have been in laughing galore everywhere with some wise submissions. |
One problem almost all of you in this kind of situation has is putting a wrong price or meaning on peace, love, maturity, wisdom, civility, etc., from the inception of your relationships. From the connotation of your submissions: - While courting her, you gave her an impression that she can always do whatever makes her happy, instead of what is right regardless of whether it makes her happy, all in a bid to appear a civil/modern - wannabe libertarian - because you didn't want to lose her. Now that she has started living your philosophy in fullness, you have started complaining and appearing weak and helpless. - The fact that you have put a wrong price on peace is the reason why you have brought this matter here instead of sitting her down and read the riot act out to her that the price of peace (love in general) in the house and union is everyone striving hard in doing what is right at any given time; else, war will take center stage and mean it in words and actions. No, you won't do this because of feeble-mindedness glossed with the false garb of maturity/emotional intelligence. In summary, put an ethical philosophy that is humane in place and let it be the bond that will hold two of you and the union in general. |
Always come into equity with cleans hands and be benevolent and conscientious in general towards she who's just/comes with clean hands too, but never fail to be insane or indifferent towards she who comes with madness/without clean hands. |
The fingernails, though, he can do better. |
uchman:Truth is that since it's just a riddle, if it's to be solved simply as that without analytical application, the answer can be 63. Thus: Men = 7 Wives = 7 Men + Wives = 7 + 7 = 14 Each man & wife = 7 children For all children 7×7=49 Total number of people Men + Wives + Children =7 + 7 + 47 = 63 people |
Given that the total family member of 1 man is 8 (wife + children), and there are 7 men in total; this means: One family will be (8 x 7) + 1 = 57 And by extension, 7 families will be: 57 x 7 = 399 In summary, the total number of people will be 399. |
You've nothing to worry about if both of you're coming from strong ethical leanings and are in sync, and provided that you're gumptious and have an altruistic interest in her, better if she does towards you too. |
babzo:There's something called "technicality." Once more, Pst. Tunde was right on his mention about b- 1707. There are more than one b- 1707 of Boeing 737-85C aircraft, and he could have bought a used one from Xiamen Air that owns its right of use from Boeing, assuming that he literally owns one as claimed. So, the dialogue isn't about whether b-1707 is a model of Boeing or a make of an aircraft in general or whether his assertion of owning one "literally" is true. |
FarahAideed:That's a b-1707 as at 4 years ago. Stop this blind argument.
|
FarahAideed:Argue all you like, b1707 has been in existence for many years. Now I know that your blind argument is based on the little information you garnered from the surface of Google. |
FarahAideed:People like you like arguing needlessly. Once more, Pst. Tunde didn't make a mistake with his assertion of owning a b1707 because b1707 is part of Boeing 737-85C aircraft. |
PeaceJoyLove:I'm not the cause of your frustration and low IQ. Stop yarning trash and scram and look for small-minded people like you to exchange words with. |
FarahAideed:Stop yarning trash. |
FarahAideed:
|
FarahAideed:The way some of you are always bold to spew out misinformation in a public platform like this always baffles me. There was a B- 1707. |
Balderdash! One can accuse most Nigerian women, and it's not even exclusive to them alone or the female gender alone, of lack of altruistic kindness, but definitely not outright lack of kindness. They're good in strategic kindness. |
People like you who obviously lack discernment nor have a philosophy rooted in principle guiding you always irk me. The issue here isn't the fact that she's a divorcee and has 3 kids, but the fact that you loosed-guard for a disingenuous woman who's out to destroy your life. It may surprise you to know that you aren't responsible for her said pregnancy, if at all she's. Many of her kind are plentiful everywhere, this forum inclusive. |
SeaTrade:You don't cut off your nose to spite your face. According to you "It is people who are shallow and have so little to offer that aren't depressed at all because those little things you call fun is what they live for and can be gotten easily." That is one of the most absurd things I have read; it's big misinformation. Gumption and grit have nothing in common with depression - it might have everything to do with greed, overconfidence, and failure, however. |
As much as you might not be able to change someone's disposition, you can, however, make them almost always act the way that resonates with your philosophy whenever hir is around you, provided that your philosophy is rooted in principle and you adhere to it. The reason people like you always find yourselves in an awkward position as this when relating with others is that you stand for nothing and are always hesitant out of pretense or feeble-mindedness to verbally or demonstratively let anyone who comes close to you know upfront that you don't condone nonsense or pander to the whims and caprices of anyone. Nobody is perfect, yes, I know, but every sane person is expected to be decorous unless hir doesn't like or want peace. Citing your submission, you have been dealing with a self-absorbing person. Well, provided that you are coming from a conscientious position, the most effective way to neutralize a self-absorbing person is shouting/confrontation (not nagging and screaming) telling about their negative inaction instantaneous thereby deflecting their ego by reminding them that the world doesn't revolve around them, insisting they do the needful, and denying them the privilege of getting any self-serving favor from you - they hate them and will do everything possible to stop you from meting out them to them. You'll have hir gradually adjust for good in a short distant time, provided that you do not succumb to hir antics; provided that hir values whatever might be the bond that holds the two of you, and provided that you don't mind scattering in principle whatever might be the bond that holds the two of you. It is unfortunate that most of you, out of feeble-mindedness or pretense, do allow bad things to fester or happen around you lots all in a bid to appear more peaceful than peace; more civil than civility; more classy than classiness, etc. You must be both gritty and gumptious to effect the change/get the best of hir. |
"every one has got at least one Ex to cry about at some point." The statement in the quote above is one of those misinformation/notions that has become stale; it's an insult to see yourself as a standard for everyone. |
ststyreal:It's always amusing seeing people like you who aren't too bright trying hard to appear wise. See you trying hard to justify and rationalize the perfidious act of your friend - truly, birds of a feather flock together. Anyway, maybe the husband didn't come into equity with clean hands; yet, taking to perfidy as she has done as opposed to taking some drastic action that would have jolted him to the reality of sticking to the fidelity bond of the union would have been the honorable thing to do. Of course, I don't want to believe that they're consciously into an unjust and bondless union, which means it's a dog-eat-dog setting rather than a sacred union, which means you ought not to have termed their union marriage in the first instance. |
ststyreal:Perfidy isn't cleverness. I wonder why you and your supposed friend have not seen anything wrong in her not telling her husband, who has been fair and loving towards her as you alleged, that she is building a house from the money she saves from the monthly upkeep; something a scrupulous woman in her position would have done from the inception. Whenever he finds out, he will feel betrayed, and it'll take feeble-mindedness and/or stockholm syndrome for him not to start meting out cruel treatment deserving of a perfidious spouse to her. Of course, when that starts happening, all of you far and near who are now feeling happy and clever will try to change the narrative to make him the villain. She's a treacherous wife. Anyway, your post has just validated what I have known from the inception and even said somewhere here today that women have always literally been the primary instigators of spousal problems in most homes. |
Nothing can be more ironical and appalling than seeing articles portraying women, who have been known to be the weaker vessel, as the more scrupulous of the two genders. Given that, as the weaker vessel, they are both more susceptible and involved in immorality than men, the assertions in an article like this that state that there are more women victims of marital abuse/neglect between spouses than men are nonsensical. It's a fact that 89% of the time, women are the cause of marital problems in homes having spousal issues - realistically, they are; notionally, they aren't. Well, as much as I will continue doubting the veracity of the public claim that most men are usually abandoned at old age by their children; yet, I know for a fact that where such happens, 89% of the time, it stems from the pure inherent wickedness of the women involved - every proponent of hypergamy has inherent marital wickedness in them - which usually manifests fully when in an advantageous position than as a result of the neglect/abuse they suffered in the hands of their male partners in the past, and of course, together with ignorance/feeble-mindedness of the partaking children in the unjust injustice against their fathers. Every man living with a woman who believes in hypergamy or married him on that basis has a frenemy living with him, just as every woman living with a man who believes in women subjugation has a frenemy living with her. It is just a question of time and opportunity before the proponent rears their ugly head. |
His first paragraph doesn't make sense because one's girlfriend, and vice versa, genuinely making a passionate appeal for monetary assistance isn't a taboo, and responding to her with "I am sorry, but it seems you mistake me for your father" doesn't make you a wise or clever person. The last time I checked, one's girlfriend isn't his enemy or frenemy. Doing what is right at any given time is neither a sign of foolishness nor craziness. The second paragraph, however, is in order. |
ImaIma1:The lie that women didn't use to cheat before has become stale already because it's an established fact that most women, just like most men, have been cheating from time immemorial. Evidence abounds everywhere. The only thing that made it seems as if women weren't used to cheating in the past, even up to now to some extent, is because they do mask their act with disingenuousness. That is unlike men that have always been haughty with their acts, even though some have adopted the disingenuous approach of women in this regard since the wake of the wave of equality, especially in the West. |
Assuming that you are coming from a just position outright and are tired of pandering to his whims and caprices, all you need to do is make a conscious decision to gain/regain your dignity by either losing in principle and leaving him to his fate or having him treat you with dignity in victory. Well, to start with, you have to stop giving a damn about any social construct that has been a source of inhibition in gaining your dignity all this while. The major problem people like you always have in a situation like this is caring a lot about having a greater number of people giving you support instead of doing what you know is the just thing to do without giving a damn about the number of people supporting you or whatever inconsequential and unjust people think. All that said, your partner isn't the sole cause of problems in the union. Your shortcomings have been quite glaring right from your previous threads on your previous monikers, despite throwing around the submissive woman's card to appear unblemished. On the other hand, if both of you sincerely wish to continue together healthily and happily, forgive yourselves and create a just bond that will hold two together with everyone respecting the bond. This is achievable, even as both of you do not share the same ethical leanings. Both of you should give up greed and conceit because they are the core causes of the problem in the union, not money, and start being altruistic towards each other and conscientious in general. |
FFK is a typical hypocritically crass, disingenuous, and opportunistic person - bravado and scheming have always been their major hallmark. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the naive, his type is truthful, unblemished, and confident; to the feeble-minded, he's a warrior; to the needy/favor seeker who gets some crumbles from him, he is a godly kind man. But to a true informed and/or just person, he is what he is, a hypocritically crass, disingenuous, and opportunistic man. |
Your friend might be smart, as you have posited, but he's certainly neither discerning nor clever, just as you, for the following reasons: - He ought to have known long ago that you as his friend discernment and cleverness aren't your forte - conceit is - therefore, you're not the kind of person to assign a task like this, its unnecessariness notwithstanding. - He ought not to have been needing someone to help him look for a woman to marry in this age out of lack of option, his supposed gentleness/reclusiveness notwithstanding, and couldn't have had difficulties distinguishing reasonable women from the unreasonable ones quickly anywhere. - The four previous girls in his life that took advantage of his assumed generosity would not have succeeded in their shenanigans. Yes, there are both good and bad women everywhere, this forum inclusive, but a clever and discerning person in your position could have easily identified them within a short interval and reach out to them privately, and wouldn't need to advertise in this manner, which is a recipe for disaster waiting to happen to your friend. Because with the amount of desperate disingenuous and opportunistic women that abound here and everywhere - of course, these bad qualities aren't exclusive to the female gender alone - this route you've taken will likely consume your friend in the long run. My submission might sound bitter to your hearing, but truths have to be told, so no apologies. |
Consortium exists for a situation as such; so, one will be formed officially or unofficially and everyone will benefit from the deal in the end. |
Not all married women cheat. The ones that cheat, however, who, of course, are in the majority, two of the recurring factors I have observed as the cause is greed on their part and thoughtlessness of the part of their husbands. The bitter truth is that as an established man, your presentation, promise/words of mouth, and business card will cause all of them that cheat, regardless of their social stratum, to organize a meeting with you in a secret location and open their legs for you without stressing yourself. Most men aren't better anyway. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 (of 36 pages)
?? And the house is a chicken change compared to how rich her husband is. The man sef no send. That is her personal project though. Take the case of usifo atanga as a case study... A rich man with a beautiful wife yet went around sleeping with little girls. So you see all these rich men, my brother/ sister, a sensible women got to be wise when dealing with a rich husband ok. You have to protect your self and your future as no one knows tomorrow. Gracias!!!!!