okay, this is how you do it man! see someone you "fancy" send her a private msg exhibiting your intention (or on behalf of your freind) and see how it goes from there man----- I must warn you that this is something that has not been done (or to be precise i am aware of its occurence) Or alternatively you just have to wair when the Community section is relaunched--- Libaax what is happening with that anyway? Thus Spake I

Kaafi = ifaak! kaafi this is funny!. Actually someon'e name is ifaak; o to google and you will find Ifaak Whetny. So not that funny I take it huh :rolleyes:

Sirrus, how are you old boy? With elation I welcome you to this forum which I am sure you will contribute your englitening ideas. Ku soo dhowoow, caano iyo gambar. Respectively, Sophist

Odweyne, waxay ilatahay inaan bilaabo, abtey baratee indha jabi! then again that would be too bloody to the likings of your ilk-- since such a thing would result loosing of dignity; if any were to be had Laakin, mawaxay kula tahay inaan kuu jawaabayyo!? Rabow dadkaan usahal! walaahi rabi aan ku dhaartey hunqaaco ayaa iqabata meeshan waxa kuqoran markaan mararka qaarkood akhriyo!. Dhalintaan, waryaaraheen, waxaad kufiican tihiin, general, jokes and women section. Kobtaan raga qaarkiis marada ayaa kaga dhacdey. Thus Spake I

Barwaaqooy, if this is the case then ceeb ayaa wadankii kadhacdey; dadkaas dhaqan celis inlagu sameeyo waaye nooh!! Waxaa lasheegey in markii creamkan uu soo gaarey Djabouti, ayaa gabar aabaheed u imaatey; uu kudhahdey; aabe saaxibadey oo idil waxay marsadeen cream cadeeya, marka hee aniga inaan iscadeeyo waaye maxaa yeeley DOQON IYO HABEEN BAA MADOOW. Odeygii inta uugabdhiisa firiisiyey ayuu wuxuu dhahay, maandheey DH@LO IYO DHARAAR BAA CAD (sorry guys about the potentially vile word there) Barwaaqo, macaantey, it was good to seeing you yesterday; my deep apologies for rushing without spending more time with you guys! had to do something IMPORTANTE!. Thus Spake I

Arab Ayub aa kulatahay boowe!

Hi there Sire, Do you mean have you felt inadequate about yourself so you sought happiness in the hands of another human being? Isn't that what love is! if one admits this; it shows their sheepish nature. I say such a thing because think about it, the other person is human being! how come then would you allow your happiness to be depended upon another feeble human being like yourself? Anyhow, as my honourable Father was telling me the other day: YOU DON'T CHOOSE WOMEN, WOMEN CHOOSE YOU! sad fact huh! Lefty! Waa maah maah cajiib ah! I guess it reinforces maahmaahda aabahey sheegey!

Ijabo! belooy belo! Ceergaabo Cream kaas laguma gado aan ku dhahay! gabdheena biyaha macaan aa cadeeyey! so Diana have no market there walaashiis. Anyhow kulu fidna Cinda geel. Hadii Raga Soomaaliyeed ey iska saari lahaayeen aragtida ah in Gabdhaha "cad cad" ey ka qurxoon yihiin kuwa maariinka ah, walaaleheen waxaan maqabsadeen!. So let us not only blame the sisters for lack of confidence; men have inferiority complex--since they themselves are "balck" maxay ugu arkayaan maariinka wax laga qurux badan yahay? Sophist

"Education And Discipline" Bertrand Russell Any serious educational theory must consist of two parts: a conception of the ends of life, and a science of psychological dynamics, i.e. of the laws of mental change. Two men who differ as to the ends of life cannot hope to agree about education. The educational machine, throughout Western civilization, is dominated by two ethical theories: that of Christianity, and that of nationalism. These two, when taken seriously, are incompatible, as is becoming evident in Germany. For my part, I hold that, where they differ, Christianity is preferable, but where they agree, both are mistaken. The conception which I should substitute as the purpose of education is civilization, a term which, as I mean it, has a definition which is partly individual, partly social. It consists, in the individual, of both intellectual and moral qualities: intellectually, a certain minimum of general knowledge, technical skill in one's own profession, and a habit of forming opinions on evidence; morally, of impartiality, kindliness, and a modicum of self-control. I should add a quality which is neither moral nor intellectual, but perhaps physiological: zest and joy of life. In communities, civilization demands respect for law, justice as between man and man, purposes not involving permanent injury to any section of the human race, and intelligent adaptation of means to ends. If these are to be the purpose of education, it is a question for the science of psychology to consider what can be done towards realizing them, and, in particular, what degree of freedom is likely to prove most effective. On the question of freedom in education there are at present three main schools of thought, deriving partly from differences as to ends and partly from differences in psychological theory. There are those who say that children should be completely free, however bad they may be; there are those who say they should be completely subject to authority, however good they may be; and there are those who say they should be free, but in spite of freedom they should be always good. This last party is larger than it has any logical right to be; children, like adults, will not all be virtuous if they are all free. The belief that liberty will ensure moral perfection is a relic of Rousseauism, and would not survive a study of animals and babies. Those who hold this belief think that education should have no positive purpose, but should merely offer an environment suitable for spontaneous development. I cannot agree with this school, which seems to me too individualistic, and unduly indifferent to the importance of knowledge. We live in communities which require co-operation, and it would be utopian to expect all the necessary co-operation to result from spontaneous impulse. The existence of a large population on a limited area is only possible owing to science and technique; education must, therefore, hand on the necessary minimum of these. The educators who allow most freedom are men whose success depends upon a degree of benevolence, self-control, and trained intelligence which can hardly be generated where every impulse is left unchecked; their merits, therefore, are not likely to be perpetuated if their methods are undiluted. Education, viewed from a social standpoint, must be something more positive than a mere opportunity for growth. It must, of course, provide this, but it must also provide a mental and moral equipment which children cannot acquire entirely for themselves. The arguments in favour of a great degree of freedom in education are derived not from man's natural goodness, but from the effects of authority, both on those who suffer it and on those who exercise it. Those who are subject to authority become either submissive or rebellious, and each attitude has its drawbacks. The submissive lose initiative, both in thought and action; moreover, the anger generated by the feeling of being thwarted tends to find an outlet in bullying those who are weaker. That is why tyrannical institutions are self-perpetuating: what a man has suffered from his father he inflicts upon his son, and the humiliations which he remembers having endured at his public school he passes on to Ònatives" when he becomes an empire-builder. Thus an unduly authoritative education turns the pupils into timid tyrants, incapable of either claiming or tolerating originality in word or deed. The effect upon the educators is even worse: they tend to become sadistic disciplinarians, glad to inspire terror, and content to inspire nothing else. As these men represent knowledge, the pupils acquire a horror of knowledge, which, among the English upper-class, is supposed to be part of human nature, but is really part of the well-grounded hatred of the authoritarian pedagogue. Rebels, on the other hand,, though they may be necessary, can hardly be just to what exists. Moreover, there are many ways of rebelling, and only a small minority of these are wise. Galileo was a rebel and was wise; believers in the flat-earth theory are equally rebels, but are foolish. There is a great danger in the tendency to suppose that opposition to authority is essentially meritorious and that unconventional opinions are bound to be correct: no useful purpose is served by smashing lamp-posts or maintaining Shakespeare to be no poet. Yet this excessive rebelliousness is often the effect that too much authority has on spirited pupils. And when rebels become educators, they sometimes encourage defiance in their pupils, for whom at the same time they are trying to produce a perfect environment, although these two aims are scarcely compatible. What is wanted is neither submissiveness nor rebellion, but good nature, and general friendliness both to people and to new ideas. These qualities are due in part to physical causes, to which old-fashioned educators paid too little attention; but they are due still more to freedom from the feeling of baffled impotence which arises when vital impulses are thwarted. If the young are to grow into friendly adults, it is necessary, in most cases, that they should feel their environment friendly. This requires that there should be a certain sympathy with the child's important desires, and not merely an attempt to use him for some abstract end such as the glory of God or the greatness of one's country. And, in teaching, every attempt should be made to cause the pupil to feel that it is worth his while to know what is being taught-at least when this is true. When the pupil co-operates willingly, he learns twice as fast and with half the fatigue. All these are valid reasons for a very great degree of freedom. It is easy, however, to carry the argument too far. It is not desirable that children, in avoiding the vices of the slave, should acquire those of the aristocrat. Consideration for others, not only in great matters, but also in little everyday things, is an essential element in civilization, without which social life would be intolerable. I am not thinking of mere forms of politeness, such as saying "please" and "thank you": formal manners are most fully developed among barbarians, and diminish with every advance in culture. I am thinking rather of willingness to take a fair share of necessary work, to be obliging in small ways that save trouble on the balance. Sanity itself is a form of politeness and it is not desirable to give a child a sense of omnipotence, or a belief that adults exist only to minister to the pleasures of the young. And those who disapprove of the existence of the idle rich are hardly consistent if they bring up their children without any sense that work is necessary, and without the habits that make continuous application possible. There is another consideration to which some advocates of freedom attach too little importance. In a community of children which is left without adult interference there is a tyranny of the stronger, which is likely to be far more brutal than most adult tyranny. If two children of two or three years old are left to play together, they will, after a few fights, discover which is bound to be the victor, and the other will then become a slave. Where the number of children is larger, one or two acquire complete mastery, and the others have far less liberty than they would have if the adults interfered to protect the weaker and less pugnacious. Consideration for others does not, with most children, arise spontaneously, but has to be taught, and can hardly be taught except by the exercise of authority. This is perhaps the most important argument against the abdication of the adults. I do not think that educators have yet solved the problem of combining the desirable forms of freedom with the necessary minimum of moral training. The right solution, it must be admitted, is often made impossible by parents before the child is brought to an enlightened school. just as psychoanalysts, from their clinical experience, conclude that we are all mad, so the authorities in modern schools, from their contact with pupils whose parents have made them unmanageable, are disposed to conclude that all children are "difficult" and all parents utterly foolish. Children who have been driven wild by parental tyranny (which often takes the form of solicitous affection) may require a longer or shorter period of complete liberty before they can view any adult without suspicion. But children who have been sensibly handled at home can bear to be checked in minor ways, so long as they feel that they are being helped in the ways that they themselves regard as important. Adults who like children, and are not reduced to a condition of nervous exhaustion by their company, can achieve a great deal in the way of discipline without ceasing to be regarded with friendly feelings by their pupils. I think modern educational theorists are inclined to attach too much importance to the negative virtue of not interfering with children, and too little to the positive merit of enjoying their company. If you have the sort of liking for children that many people have for horses or dogs, they will be apt to respond to your suggestions, and to accept prohibitions, perhaps with some good-humoured grumbling, but without resentment. It is no use to have the sort of liking that consists in regarding them as a field for valuable social endeavour, or what amounts to the same thingÑas an outlet for power-impulses. No child will be grateful for an interest in him that springs from the thought that he will have a vote to be secured for your party or a body to be sacrificed to king and country. The desirable sort of interest is that which consists in spontaneous pleasure in the presence of children, without any ulterior purpose. Teachers who have this quality will seldom need to interfere with children's freedom, but will be able to do so, when necessary, without causing psychological damage. Unfortunately, it is utterly impossible for over-worked teachers to preserve an instinctive liking for children; they are bound to come to feel towards them as the proverbial confectioner's apprentice does towards macaroons. I do not think that education ought to be anyone's whole profession: it should be undertaken for at most two hours a day by people whose remaining hours are spent away from children. The society of the young is fatiguing, especially when strict discipline is avoided. Fatigue, in the end, produces irritation, which is likely to express itself somehow, whatever theories the harassed teacher may have taught himself or herself to believe. The necessary friendliness cannot be preserved by self-control alone. But where it exists, it should be unnecessary to have rules in advance as to how "naughty" children are to be treated, since impulse is likely to lead to the right decision, and almost any decision will be right if the child feels that you like him. No rules, however wise, are a substitute for affection and tact.

uuh such a delightful observation my fellow! Walaahi past couple weeks I had sense of self-oblivion waan istabaa! Eventhough I can physically touch my presence there seems to be a sense of oblivion. I can not explain it; some here may think i am either being barking mad or worse I am trying to be deep--either case I give no bugger about it. Jamal, how are you? done anything enticing lately? Thus Spake (shall I say I; then what would that mean! I signifies who?--oh well who bugger cares!

Interesting read. ----- False Prophets: A lesson for the ill-informed columnists. One can not help but chortle as to the surfeit of articles commenting the uncertain predicament Sool and Sanaag had found itself—or rather a self- induced quandary one might say. Reading some of the articles published in this fine website, I could not help but write this brief note stating the objective facts in this bothersome issue. As man whose interest in Somali politics (and political history for that matter) goes deep into his veins; it would be rather absurd to be silent about the grave mistakes made by the likes of Mr Absiye- such an action would either allow the writer to be in false bride or worse bewilder and misguide the well meaning readers of Somali websites. These articles embark on with analysis that commence with a rather false premise; that is the widely held view that there is constitutional or shall we say conventional legal principles that bind the people of Sool, Sanaag and Eyn (Eyn: formally Western Togdher- Buhodle) to current administration in Hargeisa. This apparently stems from the fact that *********** was part and parcel of the former British Somaliland. This of course is perpetuating misinformation which is partly the result of lack of erudition of the political history of the area concerned. Also to allow this sort of fallacious information to spread is the crime committed by none other than those who are from these regions. As history teaches us; the first serious resistance to colonial rule in Africa begun in Somalia. The Darvish resistance lasted more than two decades from 1898 to 1920 which forced the British colonisers to employ series air strikes against that Noble resistance which fought for the dignity, integrity and most of the Unity of Somali people. As you read the letters that Douglas Jardine penned down in his Book The Mad Mullah of Somaliland; the long dead emotion of Somali-hood engulfs the sensory emotions rending you feel like a child whose mother left him for uncertain period of time. Such were the cause that more than hundred thousand of Dervishes and the sympathetic tribe members perished. Of course from then on, the colonisers had free will to do whatever tickled their fancy. According to Mr Jardine, the British administration was confined to the areas where ***** people resided- Hargeisa, Berbera and Burco. Interestingly, these columnists omit the fact that *********** had never signed a “treaty” with the British colonisers (or as my brethrens in the north west would like to say British protectors since the area was a protectorate) where the Isaak had done so in the earliest opportunity. Where does this legal binding comes from? Since there has never been an accepted government of the British over these lands it confuses me where this legal binding arises from? If coercion is legally binding then that would have been understandable. The other false accepted premise is that of cultural ties with isaak where there is only Blood ties with ********** . This is clearly unadulterated lie. Granted the loudest of the *********** share land with the Isaak, but the majority does not. For example, Nuur Axmed, Ugaasyo, Qayaad, Baharsame, Cali Geri, Hayaag, Yahye and many more sub clans of *********** (a sizable majority) have no cultural or land ties with Isaak but they indeed share lands with ********** and ******** . In fact the first two clans reside partly in Garoowe with Isse Mohamoud (********* Subclan) rendering them to have similar “culture” . Whereas most Nalaye Ahmed share lands with Warsangeli. Consequently, this seeming division of interest is an utter fabrication from the Isaki camp. What the Hargeisa camp need to realise is that it would be incongruous for those whose forefathers had lost defending the very thing they are campaigning for (division of Somalia) would not indeed let it happen. It makes no rational sense why they would want to break away from the rest of Somalia. Further, the arguments that there are self selected politicians like Fuad Adam Adde who support Somaliland then surely they must represent *********** is just an argument that holds no water. Cisman Kalun, late C/raxman Tur and Gen Jama M Ghali to mention a few are strongly apposed to Somaliland’s secessionist but it is widely accepted that they don’t represent their kinsmen. Isn’t there a double standard here. It seems these commentators are bliding themselves to the real facts on the ground. In conclusion, as I write these words I am sitting in a Internet Café in LasAnod and it pains me greatly to see our intellectuals being silent from advocating and enhancing our political beliefs. As we say in Las Anod, if the Unity of Somalia is not Sacred then surely that of the former British colony is nothing to speak of. Adam Jama Afxakame Laascaanood, Puntland, Somalia.

I have just finished this hilarious book by a guy named Toby Young (Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard educated respectively). It is called How to Lose friends and alienate people. It is very good read; if you need to get an insight in the world of vanity fair and all the paraphernalia that comes with glamour and gilts.

Salaams Zaylici, habitually you thread where only bold men dare to indulge their fancy!. I suppose it is the nature of those who have tasted the bitter flavour of reality—it is such a bore. Anyhow, with that adoration let me say I abhore teribly Al-farabi. Though the west calls him the Second Father; I think he was too platonic; a charge made by the defender of Islam Al-ghazali---tahaafut Al-Falasifa: Incoherence of Philosophers. Anyhow, brother enjoy swimming through the murky waters of Philosophy; it is damn blidingly enlightening Sophist PS: ooh by the way that Hadith is Daciif: Udlubul Cilmi walow kaana fi siin-- Seek knowledge as far a place as China!

Funny I would say something like that huh

Count me in my fellow that is so long as it is not anarchist Mag! Thus Spake I

Guessing from where the thread is heading so far! Utter boredem it is then huh!!! Barwaaqo macaantey, there is a lecture at Soas this Friday on Somalia: Economy without an State. There is a book launch by Peter Little Plitical Economist Prof from Kentacy Univ States. The book's title is that of the title of the lecture. Thus Spake I

Salaama Calaykum WR/WB 1. Sa,da Gabay Siciiddow Haddaan Siinka ka higaadsho 2. Oo Sugaantu waa badantihee aan ku solansiiyo 3. Sarbeebtuna ma fiicnee Haddaan hadalka kuu saafo 4. Gabyaa soo socdaa tahay Dadkuna waa kusugayaa e 5. Sinjigeedii baadleedihiyo ama Sansaankiiye 6. Ma saanqaado maansadu haddaan seeska loodhigne 7. ILa soco Tixdaan soo sidaa Sahamis weeyaan 8. Dalkeenii kuwaa Sahayday oo loogu Saangalye 9. Siqiir iyo Haween kama naxaan Sebi ma dhaafaane 10. Siyasada qarsoon bay intaa sogordohaayaane 11. Suntay qooshayeen bay inabadan sibiq u siiyeene 12. dhaaxay sidaa nagu wadeen oo na sirayeene 13. kuwa kula socdoo kaasocdoo saas ah baa jira e 14. Sirtaadaba ragbaa faafiyoon saxarba reebayne 15. Xadhigaad samaysaba kuwaa soohdintii fura e 16. Sama kama tashaan oo xumaha kama sariigtaane 17. Suldad adag hadii ay helaan Saanad iyo xoogba 18. Siday doonayaan oo qudhuun bay kusocod siine 19. Sidii uu gumaysigu rabey sahal u raaceene 20. Mar haddaan sidaa nahay kufrigu waa siduu rabey 21. Allow Sahal Amuuraha Adaan Saaka kuu caban e 22. Afartaa sidii seesla dhigay maysku wada seemay 23. Sa,dii aan ka qaadiyo miyaan siinka ka habowshey 24. Masargooyey maansada ragbaan sow sow garanayne 25. Soomaalideenaan arkaa say u socotaaye 26. Inkastay Sabaan adag martoo silicday oo hoogtey 27. Saf saf laysu laayiyo dagaal Seef u wada qaaday 28. Oo xumaha wada saad satoo maanka laga siibey 29. Markay nabadu seerowdey oo laysu socon waayey 30. Sacabada markay dhigatay oo wada sabaalow dey 31. Oo ay Siqiir iyi kabiir Sahay la,aan dhooftay 32. Suleekhooyinkeenii qaxbay Silic la,aadeene 33. Sangadhuudhigaa naga dhergey iyo Saancadaaleba e 34. Oo wada Sarkaal miidhan iyo Suxufi qaarsheegtey 35. Tobanaan Sanoo tegey makrii ay is wada seegtay 36. In Amxaarka loosacabtumoo loona kalasiibto 37. Oo Soohdima kuu cayimo oo ku kala sooco 38. Sawaaxili inaad raad sataa waa Sikhiifnimo 39. Sidii uu gumaysigu rabey sahal u uraaceene 40. Mar haddaan sidaa nahay kufrigu waa siduu rabey 41. Allow Sahal Amuuraha Adaan Saaka kuu caban e 42. Afartaa sidii seesla dhigay maysku wada seemay 43. Sa,dii aan ka qaadiyo miyaan siinka ka habowshey 44. Masargooyey maansada ragbaan sow sow garanayne 45. Waxba Hadalku yuu ila Sibqane waxaan Kusoo seesay 46. Kolhadaan xaqsoor Saafiyoo simani la keenaynin 47. Oo Qoloba Subaxday Rabaan Soconay yeedhayso 48. Oo aan Sifihi dawoladnimo Sahankii ii muuqan 49. Oo magaca Soomaaliyeed layslasixi waayey 50. Sunnadiyo Qur,aankiyo hadaan Diinta lagu seesin 51. Hayeeshee Siduu dhaamilaa Saawa saawuhu 52. Saadaal Wanaagsani mahadhin Suruqdi mooyaane 53. Allihii Samada Uumay oo Saatiraan sugi e Faysal Max’ed Cabdalle (Gar,ansaxa) Holland

The author took words out of my mouth!. Thus Spake

Nacalatulah Cala Makhaaniid! :mad:

Soo dhowoow, I like conservative people with idead. I am sure you will contribute your conservatism--conservative ideas are much indeed in this forum. Thus Spake I

With great disappointment I must inform you all that the story would not be completed for various reasons. I am sure alot of people were looking forward to the concluding part; but since i can not finish it, I will humbly ask Bee to complete it since she profesed that she knew where the train was going. Bee, come darling take up the challenge!!!!!, Once again, terribly sorry. Thus Spake I

Salaams, Ijabo Gacaliso, Are you referring to Xishood or Qajilaad? There is of course difference between the two; if it is the former then I would agree with the above gents including Shaqsi if however you are speaking of qajilaad; then there you have a problem which stems from lack of confidence and assertiveness. So one need to cultivate the seeds of confidence that we all posses. Thus Spake I

KILROY-SILK QUITS THE BBC TV presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit the BBC following a row over anti-Arab comments he made in a newspaper article. Mr Kilroy-Silk, who presents the Kilroy show on BBC1, referred to Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors". The former Labour MP was unrepentant about the comments he made in a Sunday Express column but said he realised it had caused the BBC "difficulties". "I have been overwhelmed by the support from the general public, and I continue to believe that it is my right to express my views, however uncomfortable they may be," he said. "However, I recognise the difficulties this has caused the BBC, and I believe my decision is the right way to resolve the situation. The offending article "I believe this is the right moment to leave the programme and concentrate my energies in other directions." Jana Bennett, the BBC's director of television, said Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments made his position as host of topical discussion show untenable. "I would like to say that this has never been about freedom of speech," she said. "Presenters of this kind of programme have a responsibility to uphold the BBC's impartiality. "This does not mean that people who express highly controversial views are not welcome on the BBC. "But they cannot be presenters of a news, current affairs or topical discussion programme."

Organised Anarchy? Don't you think that is a dichotomy in itself? Anyhow, I am all for order and enslaved society man! this liberatus thing does not do it for me!. Thus Spake I