₦airaland Forum

ronkebp: The issue at hand are qualities that are both in men and women. A woman behaves like a woman and a man behaves like a man. It is an evil-minded person that behaves evil irrespective of sexes; A good person has good attributes, we have heard of men that have poisoned/sent hired assasins against their brothers and friends to inherit their properties, and women have done the same to take over their friends or sister's properties, husbands inclusive.

So it is not a woman-thing but an evil person thing.

You are wrong there, babes.

Firmly wrong.

This is a woman thing. It is gender-specific quality. Women unnecessarily hate on each other. Men tend to aspire to match the other man if he had something they do not have, rarely do they hate on him except he uses it to belittle them. Women tend to hate irrespective because they know they can harm her emotionally.

Men can't be harmed emotionally. If I had a Ferrari and some stewpid men try to snare at me and talk bitchyly behind my back, I would not feel hurt. I would laugh and take the car for a spin and demonstration on the spot (spin the wheels et al) to add to their misery. But reality is that, they are more likely to come over to congratulate or joke with me about how nice my car is and ask me what I do for a living and how much it cost. They would do it in awe, excitement and amazement. Then they would start treating me with reverence, not hate. That is men for you. Completely different!

Feel free to substitute "ferrari" with "hot wife/girl friend" in that statement. Men aspire, not hate. Women tend to hate on each other.

Una all know say I am not politically correct and don't aspire to be. I tell it as it is intelligently.

coogar: the age gap was the problem here, not the mobile phone.
if the boy was 14, the mother wouldn't flip...as far as the mum
was concerned, boyfriend was a pedo....

another thing, the topless pics were found on the boyfriend's fone,
not the daughter's. boyfriend was 21, he's not a child. i don't see
how this lends credence to the argument that kids shouldn't own mobile phones.

would you argue kids shouldn't use a desktop/netbook too? can they not
be on twitter/facebook/youtube with the laptop and derail just like they
would if they were using a mobile phone? can you see the hypocrisy in your argument now?

why is the mobile phone evil to a child and a netbook isn't?

Who told you my focus was on the mother killing him?

My focus is on the girl's pix being on the mobile. There is no report on how it got there, but considering the amount of kids that have mobiles, the cultural background of these people (Bangladeshi) that would restrict her movement at 13 and the frequency young kids use to send explicit pix according to research, I can safely assume she sent it to him as her puberty hormones are raging and she feels "in love".

He actually then put the pix online in his own childishness. That is the risk people face when they let young children have phones. Girls that are in their late teens and early 20s are very susceptible to such stewpidity, talkless of kids. They older ones volunteer it without you asking. I personally have had to tell many girls, altruistically, that if you are going to do it at least be intelligent enough to make sure your face is ALWAYS excluded because not all guys have principles like me.

What hypocrisy?

As the whole school curricullum would inevitably evolve around online research, I can't avoid my kids not having access to internet without damaging their ability to compete in the real world. But, preferably, I would rather they do not use online when they are young because I know how easy it is to access rubbish or even be offered it without solicitation. But I would still attempt to control their access by making them have access to only my laptop or a desktop in the living room.

I would explicitly make it clear they are not allowed FB or twitter account but reality is that you cannot control what they do outside the house, they might set it up outside on school computers, but they would know my rules and breaking my rules have consequences if caught.

I don't even intend to have Sky in my house because of the junk I see them proffer as "teenage TV". They might see some of these programmes when they are at their friend's place but I will surely restrict the access to it.

Because something is hard to control in the wayward world we are developing does not mean I should throw my hands in the air like a foool and follow the crowd without trying.

This is what a 13 year old girl did with her 21 year old "boyfriend" with a mobile phone that made her mother flip.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18152002

Mother flipped so bad, she killed the murrafcker.

debosky: If the doctors say you are both fine, what makes you think you will instantly impregnate another woman? If the first woman you approach doesn't get preggers in say 6 months, what then? Move on to another woman? And another after that?

You haven't even identified the issue preventing conception yet you're already talking about divorcing her?

It is clear you haven't forgiven your wife for her having sex before you got married, else you wouldn't bring it into this conversation. Furthermore, you clearly believe it is her fault (either because she had pre-marital sex or out of a backward African mindset that women are the ones exclusively with the issues when it comes to conception).

Here you are saying you're fed up with your wife not conceiving - what if your wife goes around saying she is fed up of the impotent man she married?

Stop secretly resenting your wife and blaming her for what is not her fault (according to the tests). Explore all the potential options within your marriage and take a moment to think about what your wife is feeling.

GQ, I concur with you jor.

OtunbaGm: I want to ask some questions, if you are Mikel Obi's father won't you go to church for thanksgiving for the success of your son in church?

If you are a politician, if you win at the polls either by rigging or otherwise, won't you go for thanksgiving in church or mosque(we have seen people doing it b4)

I was told the Governor of Ondo State pay most of viewing centers in Akure to show the final free for all,if this is true won't he be very happy to dance to the altar for his club victory.

Chelsea winning the UCL is a pride for the whole of Africa cos our boys (drogba,mikel n kalou) represent d continent well. I know many governors and each of them have a particular team they support. So what is wrong dancing to thank God for the success of your team in your local church and you don't need to be a xtian for you to know that it was really God that helped Chelsea to lift the trophy

You are a supreme person!

Your reasoning is on par with chimpanzees.

[quote author=kelly_one]hmmmmm, interesting topic..

This almost happened to me, met a guy, that was sooooo boring... he will not go out or take me out, his excuse, he dosent go out at night..ok.. can we go to the movies? No , can we go to a restaurant /bar and just hang out for a while? no, he says buy the food n come home.. , He sleeps at 9pm , and i can't sleep before 12am.. so i'm left on my own, watching tv n watching him sleep ..bored shitless.., i thought to myself , is this how i'm going to live the rest of my life.. bored out of my mind, all for marrying a good guy.(brief background of how we met, we met when he came here on holiday n we got on well , he proposed the 3rd week, he told me , why wait, he's found what he wants ..of course i accepted cos i thought why wait too, i like him , he likes me, n i 'm not getting younger .), so i came to nigeria to get to know him better.. n he told me this is me blah blah .. i thought ok..well its not a bad thing , that a guy does not like going out.. ..i thought i could do it , but i couldn't .. n the way he says it is , its my way or no way...

so on this night , i just sat there on my own.. starved of affection(maybe its a naija men thing o.., but the dude is affection less , no hugs , small kisses ..just cold, but when u get on the bed, obviously ..but outside the bed cold cold cold)., so i was soo bored on the night, and i wanted to go out n hangout with some friends , that came on holiday too n were staying at Transcorp hilton.. he said no, u know , i don't go out ..and i'm tired , i want to sleep, i said we r going to hang out for just a while and we ll come back early, he said No, i told him, i NEED to go out cos i can't sleep i want to hang out..he said ok, i will drop u there n come back , but i won't come back and pick u, so u have to sleep there, i chuckled n just put took my hold all bag ,.(thinking to myself , like this men go day think say they r doing someone a favour ,cos they proposed, so u need to kiss their ass n pretend to be what u r not ).. he thought i was going to say no, but i didn't ,he drove me down there , like one maniac on the road.. i was just praying Father, please get me there safe, he dropped there n screeched off, and i'm like ,do ppl treat girls like this? i walked in there, booked the best room in that hotel..(yeah ,it cost a arm, but i felt liberated n free)... went to my friends n met them drinking cocktails ,..and asun..lol(this guy is teetotal, so no drinks in his house).. i downed a glass of cocktail.. n sighed ope o..

called him the next day to pick my bags(was leaving the next day), got to his place n told the cab to wait out, he was giving me this attitude, i just picked my bag n left.. we didn't say a word to each other.. n that was it..!

If that was glimpse of what my life will be .. then no, though i think about it again, like did i act to rash..i could have just chilled n not go out, but thats not me.. i like hanging out , especially with my man.

Op, sorry for hijacking ur thread, ..but ask urself, what makes u happy..!![/quote]Well done.

Good job. You only wasted a fraction of your life, you could have wasted the rest, or the best part of the rest, of it if you stayed with such a guy.

joanana: @ op They cheat because its their nature and Its a Mans World Total rubbish!!!! I don't really know y they cheat seriously. Yesterday on Inspiration FM, a married man openly confessed that he cheated on his wife after listening to an inspiring word on the "Importance of Family n Marriage" from a pastor on air!!!

If ur wife can pledge her undying love to u forever, y cant you the husband do the same? Na wa oooooo

Which undying love?

More likely, a wife pledges undying self-interest forever.

Stop fooling yourselves with these Mills & Boons tosh of love when reality is completely different.

MsDarkSkin: Very interesting thread.

Lack of self esteem on top of our competitive and (OVERLY) emotional nature are all to blame.

Maturity is the only way to let the crap go and learn to appreciate womanhood.

Well said!

[quote author=Sisi_Kill]This not a hatefest abeg, we want solution so we can form a good, strong and supportive SISTERHOOD [/quote]Secondary layer.

At the end of the day you will look for advantage for yourself only.

onila: .women pretend to get along but then later on gossip abt that person..they two faced...men tho they fight physically 4 wat theyy wantttt..

it's all about genetics. Women have been genetically taught and manipulated over thousands of years to compete against each other for male partners. This psychosomatic phenomenon has brought out characteristic traits in women which value lying, cheating, and hurting each other because of this gentrification.

Well said!

Men, when jealous, use violence, not the rubbish the ediot above said.

Women evolutionarily try to avoid violence because they know it will more likely only damage their number one asset: their looks!

So they have evolutionarily developed the art of using their mouth and psychological torture instead.

Brixtonyute: The bolded part of you post is an outright lie, men are worse than women when it comes to talking ill of other men....

I don't want to turn this thread into an intellectual bashing thread but I really have to say, you are an ediot for this stewpid comment.

Talk facts and stop pulling opinions out of your arse. I don't know what kind of men you move with. Surely they are not natural, maybe they are poofters.

What a steeewpid comment.

[quote author=tpia@]^^i have to disagree with much of your post.


women by nature tend to be "preemptive strikers"- meaning they will attack anyone they consider a threat to whatever attention they deem fit to be received by only themselves, from men.

you dont have to be bitchy before you find yourself at the receiving end of these bitter attacks launched against your person.

as a matter of fact, someone who is well behaved and who gets the attention of males because of this, will often find herself making enemies even out of thin air. The obvious reason being the fact that she is making herself attractive to the males instead of endearing herself to the female folks. If such a person takes the trouble to endear herself to females, the attacks may not be as bitter.

the key factor which makes a difference in such scenarios, is still the presence of males which determines which way the penduum will swing.[/quote]She's right you know, sheee's right!

I normally go out to some events with some female group of friends. Surprise, surprise, jay bee once called me to say he saw my pix surrounded by lots of girls [them] on FB, that whatsup? These girls are fashionista types, as in they are in shape and dress up to best show their figures. I have a habit of studying the reaction of women when we go to an event.

Jesus! I can just see the vicious eyes of other girls there as they look my female friends up and down and whisper to their own friends. Pure preemptive strikes.

And when we sit down, it does not take long for my female friends to do the same to other girls.

I just sit down there in amazement and study these curious living things for my PhD in Womantology.

[quote author=Sisi_Kill]It's quite simple really - women look to men for validation and they will do anything to get it even if it means destroying their fellow (wo)man.

Yep, they join the men to attack their other women because a woman who isn't in favor with men is automatically out of the competition. Unfortunately the men know this and use it all the time to pit women against one another. A few words of praise here, A good job tap on the head there and the woman on the receiving end of their praises starts to preen (she has received her Queen Bee Badge)and is ready to do more of their bidding.[/quote]I totally disagree.

I actually think women work well together on their collective interests. For example, when you put scenarios in front of women for judgement, they always know how to work it to favour womanhood.

When a man leaves a woman, he is generally termed a bastard. When a woman leaves a man, the man is still blamed because "he did not know how to treat her right".

When a law disadvantages women, it is unjust, when it disadvantages men, we have to see the logic because women are the weaker sex.

All these tags on men that don't want to do what women want e.g.: "Not a real man", "irresponsible for not being married", "not yet mature for not standing for a woman's irrational BS" etc are subconciously well infused in social psyche by women. Virtually any woman you speak to is on auto-pilto in using such words like if evolution has infused the art in them.

Women work well together without having to discuss it. They are collectively consistently looking for advantage for womanhood. But that is where the problem lies. They are looking for those advantages because they know it would brush over them as being a member of that group. Basically it is a selfish act! THAT IS THE PROBLEM OF WOMEN!

As far as I am concerned, I have no problem saying this, not one iota of a problem saying this because I have no problem saying the truth: The average Woman is fundamentally SELFISH and has no qualms being selfish! So the reason they have problem with other women is because they are looking out for their own interest and interest of their loved ones like their kids (permanent) and their partner (transiently dependent on relationship strength or dependency on him). They will look for any advantage for themselves at the frontier layer, womanhood advantages is important but is only at a secondary layer and inferior to personal advantage. As for Male advantages, to a woman: fck that, that is immoral!

Point: They are not working with men. They more often work with women, but have no qualms screwing other women to get even more personal benefit.

Freesia: . Reason I mentioned lack of self esteem...You wouldn't put too much into it because all you see is a good truck but a woman raised with no self esteem would think that a man is behind the other woman's sucess.I have always wondered why a woman would knowingly date a married man for instance especially when he's financially well off? Why not say no and believe that her own man will come too

Because beliefs are not reality.

She knows he aint coming especially when she has waited for 23 years plus.

Or maybe this other woman's man is actually her man she has been waiting for, she was just late in meeting him.

PStylish: @All

As regards going to heaven, there are 3 categories of people:

1.Those who expect to make heaven.
2.Those who are not sure they will make heaven or not.
3.Those who are hell bound.

Sagamite falls in the 3rd category.The fold is made up of islamists, satanists,atheists,freethinkers,philosophers and some academicians.
The sorry thing is apart from the satanists who know the truth, other members of the fold have a strong conviction that they are on the right path.Their doom is sealed.

person! You are in fucktardistan.

Keep on believing moronic fables about HELL!

Mooron!

AjanleKoko: All of you lot that don't even have kids yet, enough already!

I am pretty more sure I might have a few, I am just not yet aware of them.

AjanleKoko: This argument is inane. Why would any kid need a mobile phone? Who are they talking to? It's nothing but a major distraction. With all the sexting (in the West) and the 4 hours of yammering utter nonsense in the name of Free Midnight Calls (in Nigeria), any responsible parent would keep a mobile phone away from their kid until the kid can afford it with his first paycheck.

Even Nigerian teens have turned Twitter to something else. So many handles abound, of silly boys and girls with 10k plus followers, yammering nonsense, all day long, on Twitter.

None of my kids are getting mobile phones of any kind. I'll put tracking devices on them, but no cellphones. No effing way.

You nailed it on the head.

Add the computer games they have to it. They are just bombarded with distractions and even the sense of relevance/importance (Facebook and Twitter) when they have not done or achieved nada.

Another Okija: Lock her indoors... seize her phones and cut her off of facebook and the internet in general..

Thats why I'm the man...

I dont negotiate with terrorists and women..

coogar: there aren't always other options. there are plenty of kids
with medical issues. kids who can come into an instant attack
and they need a mobile phone to reach out. attacks can happen at

Again that is like talking about an immigrant kid that can not speak English but lives in the UK as you did earlier.

The average child does not have severe medical issues. If a child has severe medical issues then a mobile might be useful. But we are talking about the average child here, so I don't see the point is this point.

coogar: folly in buying a £50 phone for my kid?

It is waste of £50 in the large scheme of things.

coogar: that's the modern world. why do people insure their lives n properties?
for instance, you have insurance on your car you pay monthly, have you ever
had to use it? has everyone ever had to use it and yet you pay gazillions on
insurance every year. i have been on aa since 2007, i have never called them once
to come tow my car or whatever. would that stop me from paying? hell nah!

No 1, there is a lot of fear consumerism in the West, that is not necessarily good.

No 2, don't compare insurance to this argument. Insurance virtually always does what it plans to do as long as you do it right. What it is there for is to compensate as a reaction to an unfortunate occurence, not to prevent it.

So don't compare them.

coogar: i doubt it. a child in a car has the same chance of being hit by a drunk driver
with a child trekking on the side-walk. a child walking on the road is another
matter entirely. why should a child walk on the road? roads are meant for cars
not pedestrians.

Absolute tosh.

You would be surprise that children do have to cross the road in life.

A child crossing the road (which is when majority of accidents happen) is more at risk than a child in a car.

coogar: it is not.....you only think it is cos you see danger as what affects that particular child only.
what about the danger that might affect the people around your child and his mobile phone would
save someone else's life. his phone isn't there to save himself alone....but to save others should
the need arises.

Again, there are likely to be adults with mobile phones where a 10 year old is. Except the child does not stay in city and stays in the wilderness of Siberia.

coogar: i have already told you. mobile phones are different from mobile phones.
my kid will not have instant messaging features, no camera, no music and no picture
messaging. it would be a basic phone. i fail to see how a phone as grotesque as nokia
3310 would distract my kid. in most cases, he would be embarrassed to bring it out in public.

You have a point there. But if it text and calls, it still has a chance only that it is lower than the advanced phones.

Many kids are in accidents in the UK because they are talking or texting on the phone. It is bad enough for there to be street adverts put up by govenrment to warn them.

coogar: keep telling yourself that....they would have something extra
as an insurance should they or anyone around them come near harm.
it is when the phones are upgraded to blackberry or androids that the
dangers are imminent. not with a basic phone that can only make calls or
send sms.

Then what you are saying is that you are happy to increase the risk of harm to your child.

coogar: my reaction to unfortunate occurrence can save his life.
one minute can be the difference between life and death. it is still the same umbrella.
as long as a life is saved by whatever means, the purpose of giving him that phone has been achieved.
qed!!!

it depends on the danger.
with the phone, certain facts can quickly be reeled out by the parent.
my child is allergic to xyz, he's blood group xyz, phenotype xyz. it saves
few minutes if there's a need for transfusion or whatever information the parent can quickly
get across. in the medical world, prompt action saves lives!

The perfect sounds of fear consumerism.

"One minute. You never know."

coogar: i disagree......
as a parent, i know what it takes to send a child out by himself in this cruel
world where accidents n mishaps occur everytime. i would promptly want to know first hand
what has happened to my child by reaching him anytime i want.

You would get to know, not prevent. So the mobile is not primarily for safety, it is to react.

coogar: busy at work....when i break free....i would scour the net for your delight.

I can guarantee you that you will struggle to find such just like you are struggling now because the reference you made is usually of a kid using the land line to call emergency services to save their parent.

As I have said repeatedly, it is lame to say a child needs a mobile phone since there will virtually ALWAYS be other options.

coogar: let me be the judge of what is an expensive venture when my child is concerned.
unfortunately, you cannot make that decision for me or anyone but yourself.
some people think putting their kids on the bus is expensive, they can trek whilst
some people think putting their kids in maybach benz is the way to protect them.

Obviously you are the judge.

Obviously I cannot make that decision for you.

Obviously I can point out the folly of such opinion if you state it online.

coogar: it's not fear consumerism. that's what today's world dictates. mobile phone
is for emergencies. a child could lose me in a crowded mall. what do i do as a parent?
call him, tell him to hold his position and i would find him there....rather than having
to go through the stress of getting the PA to make lousy announcements n blah blah blah.

too many reasons a child should have a phone. it's endless.

No, it is fear consumerism when you decide to buy something for safety that you will hardly ever need. Worse still when it will not prevent the danger you are irrationally scared of.

coogar: so me being in the car would prevent a driver high on 'caine to hit us
and maim everyone in the car? really? putting a child can only reduce the
risk, it does not completely nullify the risk in the same way as giving him
a phone does not nullify any danger that might occur but it can prevent some.

both goals is to reduce the danger to the barest minimum.....

You being in car reduces the risk drastically. A child in a car is far, far, far, less likely to have an accident than a child walking on the road and being hit by a vehicle.

Your child walking on the road and being hit is still far more likely than your child being in a situation they use a mobile to avoid danger. So if you are going to do something about the latter, don't you think as a responsible parent you should do something about the former? Are you not going to reduce the danger of the more pertinent risk (which can lead to death or disability of your child) to the bearest minimum?

coogar: i am not. i am saving his life.
auto accident isn't the only potential danger on the streets.
with a phone, i can do a prompt check on the whereabouts of my child rather than
making wild guesses. you did not use a phone when growing up because there were no mobile fones.
if there were, your parents would have provided one for you to make sure you don't come into any harm.

You still don't get it.

Kids using mobile phones and being distracted to the point they are hit by a car is a far higher possibility than a kid using mobile phone to avoid danger and save his life or injury to his self?

So getting your child a mobile phone means you are increasing the possibility of harm to them. They are MORE likely statistically to face danger because they have a mobile phone than if they did not have a mobile phone. They are more likely to be distracted using the phone and be hit by a car, than to use the phone to avoid danger.

coogar: so i will bear the pain of waiting and searching all the police stations in my borough instead
of the luxury of placing a call to that child and getting the answer i need? thanx but no thanx.
i prefer the mobile.......lose a child in lagos and see how missing person's list would help you locate him.

That is my point. A phone hardly reduced the danger, it most likely will just give you quicker time to react to the sorrow.

So buying a mobile phone for "safety" as you claim is more of fear consumerism as I explained above.

If you say you buy it to accelerate your reaction to unfortunate occurence your child experiences, then that would be more apt.

coogar: it does. when accidents happen, good samaritans or emergency services
reach for the pockets to search for a diary or a mobile phone so they
can alert the next of kin.....it's very very important!

How does that prevent the danger?

Wehn Emergency services are reaching for phone in one's pocket, are they there to stop danger or to attend to the person that has already been harmed and incapacitated?

Again look at my definition of fear consumerism above. See the second sentence.

coogar: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,740680,00.html

That is the best you could do?

I thought you said you have several examples of kids using their mobile phones to call to save their mother's life?

coogar: i don't get your point. so because the risk involved in letting a kid walk by
himself on the road is more than the probability of a child needing his phone
for emergency we should then ignore one for the other? both eventualities
should be catered for no matter how remote it looks.

No.

I am saying the prevention you are recommending is virtually un-needed, an expensive venture, illogical for the aims and liable to create other significant challenges.

I am using the other (car accidents) to prove to you that you will not even do half of what can save them for a more risky possibility without looking like a freak. Despite your claiming you will never ignore danger for your child if you can do something to improve their safety.

Children facing accidents when crossing roads is a more pertinent danger, and yet you yourself would be rational and not overeact by saying your kids should not go out on the road. Despite your claim that if you can do anything to increase their safety by 1% you would. No you would not, if you can see the irrationality. The mobile phone for a child is pure fear consumerism. You can as well buy an Earthing hat for your child when it rains so the lightning does not harm them.

coogar: i don't get your drift here.....
how do i completely remove the possibility of my child getting hit by a car on the road?

The way of removing the possibility of your child being hit by a car is to always be with them when they are out walking on the road or to make sure they are always in a car or not go out at all. You will not do that because you will be rational and see it as a silly suggestion and you will be willing to accept the risk. A risk which by the way is FAAAAR higher than they ending up in a situation they need a mobile to call you to save them. It is like a choice of betting between Brazil winning the 2018 WC and Mozambique winning the 2018 WC. The probabilities are worlds apart, yet you place a £100K bet on Mozambique winning the WC in 2018.

coogar: isn't this the reason why he needs his mobile phone? you're making my point for me.
if he gets hit, paramedics would get there, see his mobile, place a call to the last
dialled number(which should be the child's parents) and update them what's gone wrong.

you've just made my point!

A mobile phone is actually more likely to increase his chance of being hit by a car than him needing it for an "emergency" where the call will lead to you changing the dangerous outcome.

So buying him a mobile phone actually means you are increasing the risk of harm to your child.

Paramedics can ask a child for his name.

If he is unconcious, they will notify police and when you go and report him missing, police would tell you.

A mobile phone does not help prevent nada in that situation, it just speeds up your time to react to the harm that has happened, not prevent it.

pro01: These are the sort of idioots that make a mess of this over-hyped marriage of a thing. You don't like his company and yet you married him. Why? Were you married at gun-point? Why didn't you marry any of the bad, sharp niggas out there? Oh I get it. You want a guy that is a bad sharp nigga - and is also God fearing, honest, caring, rich, funny, blah blah blah all at the same time. In the absence of this complete package of a man, you settled for the safest choice - a good, God fearing and honest man. Sadly, and rather predictably, you would then spend the rest of your life making his life a living hell.

I pity the fools that commit the folly of marrying these repugnant types of women.

You got it!

I missed the deduction that they are already married.

So I guess she is unlikely to dumb him, she is just going to cheat on him.

Amaks Tonia: I have a friend who has a very good guy, God fearing, honest and all but he does not seem to be on the same level with her. The types of friends he hangs with are introverts, those that don't know what's happening or fashion and can't really dress well and some what lack experience in dealing with girls. I don't know what else to advise her so i resorted to getting more advice here.

Advice her to do what she is inevitably going to do in the end: Cheat on him and dumb him.

Girls don't like guys like that despite all their rubbish lines of "I am looking for a good guy".

The sound of him is sufficient for me to know he is a goner: A very good guy, God fearing, honest.

He is a loser all round. He would lose when he is young because the girls will go for the more bad boys and he would lose when he is older because when the girls become old and worn, they will settle for him and give him the remnants. And you will be surprised he will accept such useless life-offer with a smile. He is a very good guy na.

She better not waste time now and start enjoying her life. He or someone like him would be there in future when she wants to settle down. She should get what she wants now.

My phone number is 07. . . . . . . .

coogar: plenty of them.....you would find a handful of stories about kids
dialling 911 to save their sick mum or save themselves on the internet
this is why you have google. if mobile phones have only saved a life of a child
since it's invention, then it's worth it!

Which kids?

Show me one! Please.

With which phones?

With their mother's phone or the home line? So how does that relate to kids having their own mobiles?

coogar: of course, everytime he leaves the house, he must be in a car until
i am sure he is aware of the dangers walking on the road. every child
needs a mobile so he can reach and so he can be reached.

You think the kids that are hit by cars are not aware of dangers on the roads?

You think the ADULTS that are hit by cars are are not aware of dangers on the roads?

So when will you stop them from leaving the house without being in a car? When they are retired and in a coffin going to their burial site?

coogar: yes, because many of them don't look before they leap.
they chase balls, objects, pets, bikes and cross and get hit......it did not say all the
107 kids got hit by a car because they were using their mobile phones.

So your child has FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more chance of being hit by a car than needing a mobile phone "for emergencies". So are you telling me, as a parent that will not ignore any danger and that will give his child mobile phone "for emergencies", you will only allow them to go out when they are in a car until they are 21 years old? Don't tell me you will ignore the higher danger but cater for the remote, virtually impossible danger?

coogar: if it's unneeded, the government would have prohibited it.
mobile phones have saved the lives of kids.....

So would an airport in Obalende save Billionaire investors coming to Lagos 15 mins off their travel or even avoid them being robbed while driving on Ikorudu road.

Of course it is unneeded, that is why the governement will not do it. It is as unneeded as most kids needing a mobile "for emergencies".

Which kids have mobile phones saved their lives?

What proportion of kids with mobiles have needed the mobiles to save their lives?

coogar: 1% possibility to save the lives of children will not be ignored!
yes, some foolish kids would abuse the mobile phone and send obscene pics here and there....
this is why a basic phone that can only send texts and receive calls was suggested.
the parents buying smartphones for their kids have themselves to blame. if i buy a nokia 3310
for my child, he has no chance in hell to see pictures on it.

No 1, it would be far lower than 1%.

No 2, your child is far more likely to be hit by a car than have an emergency where a mobile would help. So would you ensure everytime your child leaves the house, he is in a car to avoid being hit? Would you think it is rational if any parent had that policy? Would you say "such safety measures" can not be ignored?

No?

Yet, having your kid not walking the street and always in a car when out will have a higher percentage possibility of saving their life than a having a mobile phone "for emergencies" that has equal possibilities as lightning striking them. The mobile phone might even be the item that would distract them and cause them to be hit by a car.

In th UK, 107 children are killed and more than 5000 seriously injured each year as they crossed the road. I don't think anywhere close to those figures of kids are kidnapped each year, talkless of a mobile helping them stop the kidnapping. I am pretty sure a large fraction of those figures were kids using their mobile phone and not concentrating.

coogar: depends on the situation....a kid watching another kid
getting abducted can quickly dial 911, describe the kidnapper
and his car to the cops and it would aid the capture of the culprit.

it's not 100% safe but it's better than having nothing at all to reach out.

And there would not be other adults there to see the car and call 911?

The possibility of that scenario is so remote, I am sure it would be close to the possibility of lightning striking the child.

coogar: this is akin to you people should no longer travel via
planes. before the airplane was invented, people trekked.
many trekked from nigeria to saudi arabia for pilgrimage.

of course, the more advanced we get, the more advanced the
danger is as well. criminals/kidnappers/pedos/etc use mobile
phones to track kids to steal, it's only fair for parents to also
arm the kids with mobile fones to prevent danger.

I think it is more akin to building a local-airport in Obalende so people can fly from Ikeja there to get to VI. Hence Western Billionaire investors can get to VI faster and avoid the traffic.

It is virtually un-needed, an expensive venture, illogical for the aims and liable to create other significant challenges.

fredoooooo: somebody shout hallelluyah

[Sings with his best and most hearty smile while his hands are raised in the air]

Everybody shout Hallelu

HALLELUYAH

Shout Hallelu

HALLELUYAH

If you love Jesus shout Hallelu

HALLELUYAH

Shout Hallelu

HALLELUYAH

[Drums] Brukutu paapaa paa, prakajiji, prakaji, prakajiji, prakaji, prapaapaa, tirindi, tirindindin, tirindi, tirindindin

[Next song]

What the Lord has done for me, (Ye)
I cannot tell it all; (Ah)
What the Lord has done for me, (Ye)
I cannot tell it all; (Ah)
What the Lord has done for me, (Ye)
I cannot tell it all; (Ah)
He saved me and washed my sins off. (Be ni)

So I will shout hallelujah,
I will shout hallelujah,
I can shout
Sing and praise the Lord. (JESUS)



Awon ode!

When I say I am very intelligent and have unrivalled prescience, some yeye people would be opening their mouth to say: "Sagamite is arrogant".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18088334

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/16915104

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12385159 (see the second video clip at the bottom)

When it comes to thinking, I am way ahead of the curve.

Nuff said!

If I was Fashola, I would take them back on the following terms:

- They will be employed at the grade below their previous level and with its corresponding pay. Anyone that was at the entry grade would hence spend an extra year at that grade and pay.

- They are all on two year probation/contract. Hence if you take the offer and then start to cause trouble or be non-cooperative you would get the boot easily.

- Any ineterested person has to sign the punitive contract within 2 weeks.

blacklion: Like I said, it does not make sense for someone who plans to remain abroad permanently to spend such money on properties in Nigeria. Maybe those UK-based guys are planning to return to Nigeria.

Is the rental market in those countries still that good nowadays? I thought the economies of most of those countries were badly hit by the Euro crisis.

And my point is, even if a UK-based person plans to return, there is still another better way to do it than to waste your money on overpriced and inferior assets.

Only those who have no option and are based in Nigeria need to buy the wrong asset. I will happily rent it from them after THEY have bought it when I decide to move to Nigeria.

The rental market might be shaky now in some of those countries, but it is still decent and far better than the prospects of a Nigerian property.

190: More from d stables of 190

^^^ I knew Ole-depo would not miss out on a growth market.

He is an astute conman and strategist.

I am sure the guy uses Mckinsey.

obinon: @op-the thanksgiving is personal and voluntary,please do not make it look as if the churches made it a rule.people are happy and want to thank God so because you are a pastor you will stop them because it's all about a club in 'far away london'.i have a question for you. Do you think God will be happy should the pastors tell the people not to come for thanksgiving?

akyus: The people are happy and decided to go and thank God in their church. Please, someone should tell me in specifics the offence that the priest has committed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you citizens of Fucktardistan.