Consider the following scenario:

A guy, let's call him John, meets three girls; Jane, Jill, and Jacynthia at a house party. They strike up a conversation and John is struck by how much fun each of the girls is. It also helps that each of the girls is very pretty, and he finds them all extremely attractive.

Assuming John decides to make a move, this is what might happen:

The Realist John: He hits on the girl he is most attracted to, and if she is down fine. If not, he cuts his losses and moves on. The problem with the realist John is that he is attracted to all three and not just his first choice. As a result it is very hard for him to maintain his realist outlook. As a result he transforms into...

The Optimist John: He hits on the girl he is most attracted to, and if she gels fine, if not he moves to the second, and then on to the third if necessary. The optimist John almost always knows he is pushing his luck, but he can't help himself. He is hoping that if one of the girls likes him enough, she will be able to overlook the fact that he hit on one of her friends first.

The Deluded John: He hits on all three practically simultaneously, hoping that all three will gel. He is no relation to the realist or the optimist. His plan from the first was to try and organize all three. He is the butt of all those jokes girls tell about a guy that tried to toast her and her friends at the same time. However he is also the guy that girls stutter about as they try to explain why it wasn't so bad that they all hooked up with him.

Like most Johns (sorry couldn't resist) I vacillated between the realist and the deluded, only in my darkest days becoming an optimist. I have come to realise that in situations like these, John should not be the first mover. Here is why:

Girls being girls, Jill, Jane and Jacynthia know that John is having a bit of a bother. If any of the three has "feelings", they will discuss, and take pity on poor John. After which the "one" in question will make her attraction "known". Needless to say, guys have a different definition of "known". Thus if John is unable to see that Jill (to take one at random) likes him and starts to hit on Jane, Jane will likely steer his attention to Jill before the situation is irrevocably damaged.

If all three are attracted... let's just say that any action that involves the deluded John normally ends badly. Alas, I cannot comment on the situation because this is a PG-13 blog ;) (just kidding mom! :D)

In closing, Girls generally believe that guys are deluded Johns by nature, and with a little reform can be upgraded to optimist Johns. According to them realist Johns are as rumored as the Higgs-Boson particle ( minus 10000 cool points). I would argue, but the evidence is probably against me. What do y'all think?

Oh and have u figured out what the title means yet?

Picture if you will this little scene of mine:

A girl picks up a phone and hears a voice she doesn't know. She is about to put it down to a wrong number, when the male voice on the other end says her name. She tries to place the voice, and asks who is speaking. Once the guy says his name, she realises that she doesn't know him. She then asks the obvious question: How did you get this number? H

His answer, nine times out of ten, "your friend X gave me your number. She thought we would hit it off"

This scenario is played out dozens of times around the Nigerian mating or dating scene; Girls from all over get calls from guys their friends approve of. As most people know, the likely result of this scene is the guy chopping isho from the girl and generally making an all-round fool of himself.

However if you think that the title above refers to the friendship of the two girls, you would be wrong. The title refers to the friendship between girl X and the "would be" suitor. As a girl herself, X should know that this approach almost never works and yet she still sets up her "friend"

I started pondering about this when I saw two of my female friends tell one of my male friends to continue his pursuit of a girl using the number on her business card. Now anybody with half a brain knows that this is basically a no-no. However they encouraged him to do so, while I was the lone voice of reason. However like the still small voice I was ignored, and disaster resulted.

When the glow from the satisfaction of being proved right faded, I decided to try and see why women like to lead their male friends down the primrose path. I came to realisation that they couldn't help it, cos like the scorpion and the frog "it was their nature"

This is what I mean: women have different rules for lads they like and the rest of lads. The lads they like can call them 10 times a day and it's ok. However the rest of the lads call twice, and a stalker has been born. Women place their friends in the category of lads they like, and for some reason assume that all other women will see them so (since it is so obvious why the guy is a catch). This is why they will advise their male friends to do things that result in calamities. I suppose the secondary reason is that every woman has heard of a friend of a friend who did it and the two are now happily married.

In closing, guys cherish your female friends but don't take dating advice from them.

I was almost 27 the first time I cried over a girl, and like all late bloomers I overindulged a little bit. My conclusion is driven by the fact that unlike Crybaby I did not shed just a single tear. I like to think that I was justified, after all she did break my heart. If I were being fair to her, I would admit that she did it, because she was afraid she would break my heart even more later. It goes without saying that I am not in the business of fair.

She broke my heart for two reasons, either of which would by themselves be sufficient to have done so;

She was not sure she liked me enough to risk being in a serious relationship with me. At that time we were possibly heading in that direction and she believed that though we were in the same place feelings wise, the risk was that I would get deeper into it, while she would remain stagnant. As someone pointed out, the fact that she was worried about the risk made it almost a certainty that she had reached the pinnacle of her affection for me, which didn't bode well anyway for any possible future.

She was worried that the fact that I was an oasis of calm in her life meant that she would get dependent on me. That she would not be able to make the decisions she felt she needed to, to take control of her life, if I was there for her to rely on. The fact that I existed may make her not decide to try. I was in a word, too much of a "comfort zone". She had decided to find out if she was with me because it was "comfortable." As all the world knows, the only way to find out is to leave.

Looking at it now, I realise that good relationships come with their own special breed of problems. Knowing some one will be there for you creates its own set of pressure, especially when you are not sure in your heart of hearts that you are ready to be there for them. Ultimately I think that she did the right thing for her, as the saying goes, you can't be a "We" if you aren't sure you are even an "I"

It is even possible it was a net positive for me. After all I didn't really believe in relationships when we started, and I definitely cannot say that anymore. One of my theories was that good relationships are rare and should be treasured even when they end. This one was living proof that one of my theories was vindicated by experience. It is also possible that I am trying to put a brave face on this, after all the bottom line is that I got a variation of the "it's not you it's me" speech. It would take more time than has already passed to tell, I think, but so far so good :D

When most people think of corruption in Nigeria, they think of two things: First, they think of politicians with "ghana must go" bags sipping cognac as they chomp on cigars and wonder which of their student/model girlfriends they will pick up in their newly minted bentleys. Second, they think of greedy money grubbing companies, eager and willing to grease the palms of correspondently greedy politicos to secure the future mounds of relatively risk free money.

As you can see, both of the above examples involve government in one way or the other. The central belief in Nigeria (and outside) is that corruption stems from government. The private sector is rightly seen as the "saviour" of Nigeria. And as with all "saviours" there is the tendency to view with rose tinted glasses.

The private sector in Nigeria has worked miracles. For example the mere fact that people are still manufacturing in Nigeria is amazing. South Africa had an itty bitty brown out earlier this year, and almost every business claimed they would go "out of business" Granted the manufaturing sector is looking a little punch drunk these days, but that is beside the point.

Private sector corruption exist simply because most individuals feel that their salary is not enough compensation for them to do their job. This goes beyond their actual salary, they believe they are entitled to some of the wealth that they create by virtue of their position in the company. Corruption is in two broad types: taking from your company, and taking from your client / supplier.

Insurance companies are the best example of taking from your company. An employee from an insurance company demands an agency fee for doing his job to example an insurance firm employee believes that he should get a cut of the premium he wins for his company above and beyond his normal compensation. If he does not get it, no premium for the company.

Multinational Firms are best examples of taking from your client / supplier. For example, you do an event with a multinational contracted at N100 million. It is almost a given that 10% - 30% of the contract amount will end up with the employees at the firm that approved the contract. After all why should only the promoters get rich?

Don't get it twisted, contracting the world over is one of the most corrupt activities known to man. If you doubt me take a look at the reports on the Iraq contracting scandals. Nigeria is no better or no worse than other countries, except that in here there seems to be no amount to small to escape the eye of the extortionist. After all it is about the principle of the thing.

I just thought I'd give a flavor of the other side of corruption, though to put it in perspective it is a gnat against the elephant of government corruption. Take our Nigerianlocal governments that were given about N3 trillion ($25 billion) during the 8 years of the Obasanjo presidency, and there is basically nothing to show for this amount. I wouldn't want to bore you with all the hearsay tales of once a month sharing activity, because it would be another exercise in futility. The EFCC and ICPC have said that they will focus more closely on the local governments, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

I suppose my nightmare is that corruption always starts small and replicates like the virus that it is. While unlikely, it still is a possibility. The likely outcome is greater transparency as companies become more concerned about leakages. Apparently leakages at the early telcos were legendary, and while there are still rampant, they are a lot better than before. I suppose there is progress, but for those of us trying to do business the right way, I wish it would come a little faster.