Former VP Atiku misappropriated his eight previous years in high office. His occupancy of high office was best characterized by low deeds. Self-enrichment occurred at lightning speed but social welfare moves slower than a dousing snail.

Just a few weeks ago, Atiku offered his vision of the economy when he said that enriching his friends would be an appropriate objective of any government he led. At best, patronage is a regrettable and necessary reality of politics that should be severely curtailed. But Atiku goes in the opposite direction. He bypasses patronage to brazenly elevate the much greater evil of cronyism from the shadows to make it the central plank of his national economic policy.

“Look, I have made no attempts to hide my friendship with Atiku. We were friends before this election and hopefully we will be friends after February 16 when he goes into retirement. Despite our friendship, I must say the type of enrichment of friends he envisions does not recommend itself to me. It is unjust and impoverishes all but a handful of Nigerians. I want no part of such enrichment for my love of Nigeria and its people is far greater and deeper than my friendship with Atiku. For the good of Nigeria and even the good of Atiku himself,


http://dailypost.ng/2019/02/14/2019-presidency-atiku-friend-tinubu-issues-statement-ahead-saturday-poll/?utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter

deomelo:
[s][/s]


You should have sent Tinubu's praise to the US Congress to show that your boss, athiefKulooter did not collect bribe from Simens..


lol @ this athiefKulooter......what a comedian..

lexy2014:


Nice. I like d attachment u posted. Now, were Tinubu &APC not aware of d contents of d document u posted b4 they said these:

"Atiku is an asset& a special gift to APC & that he did everything politically acceptable & possible". "Nigerians need Atiku to make life more meaningful".


Are u trying 2 tell me that because APC& Tinubu said these things about Atiku, atiku is their boss& APC& Tinubu are now "Athiefkulooters"?

Former VP Atiku misappropriated his eight previous years in high office. His occupancy of high office was best characterized by low deeds. Self-enrichment occurred at lightning speed but social welfare moves slower than a dousing snail.

-Tinubu


http://dailypost.ng/2019/02/14/2019-presidency-atiku-friend-tinubu-issues-statement-ahead-saturday-poll/?utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter

deomelo:
[s][/s]


You should have sent Tinubu's praise to the US Congress to show that your boss, athiefKulooter did not collect bribe from Simens..


lol @ this athiefKulooter......what a comedian..

deomelo:
[s]

http://dailypost.ng/2019/02/14/2019-presidency-atiku-friend-tinubu-issues-statement-ahead-saturday-poll/?utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter

[/s]

lexy2014:


Lest I forget, pls what is d date of d document u provided below?

lexy2014:


This statement from Tinubu that u just posted, when was it made? Can u give d date?

deomelo:




Read the link if you know how to read and comprehend.

deomelo:




Read the link if you know how to read and comprehend.

deomelo:




lmao at this silly question? You pick and chose what's corrupt or not based on dates?


As I said, you are too shallow and you reason like a 2-year-old.

lexy2014:


I didnt ask u 4d content. I asked u 4 date. Or don't u no what date means? Pls look thru ur posts again 4 ur imaginary link

lexy2014:


As an adult, I thought u knew that every document has a date it was produced. U have my screenshots & they have dates hence u were able to reference them. I thought u knew such minute things?

deomelo:




You mean you are too lazy to click and obtain the answer you seek?

Laziness sounds like one of your many problems..

lexy2014:


That's y I said u only getting emotional & when u do, ur rationality is greatly impaired. Instead of staying with d issue being discussed, u start getting personal. Pls go back& check ur posts were u sent me a link& revert

deomelo:




You mean the same link you saw with the date right there in the link?


The fact that you are dishonest doesn't mean you can fool me with your deceptions and dishonesty.

deomelo:

deomelo:



1. Is Tinubu a presidential candidate today?


2. You mean Tinubu's alleged comments from 2016 negate d comments he made in 2019 or vice versa?

lexy2014:


Sorry I missed it. My bad. D question i asked still remains. If Tinubu said Atiku is what Nigerians need to make life better in 2016, then in 2019 he says this:


"Former VP Atiku misappropriated his eight previous years in high office. His occupancy of high office was best characterized by low deeds. Self-enrichment occurred at lightning speed but social welfare moves slower than a dousing snail".


Was it that in 2016, Tinubu didn't have this knowledge of atiku then? Is it in 2019 that he is just knowing these things about Atiku?

lexy2014:


Can u kindly explain d use of d words "us" & "we" in d following excerpts from d letter?

"...Hilary lost to US".

"Our figures demonstrate that WE have a very slim chance of winning".

"The result of the poll are, put it bluntly, very negative for US".


Also, what do u mean when u say d Ballard Twitter account isn't verified?

deomelo:




See how you fell into your own trap.

You are so dishonest and disingenuous, you are in one breath holding Tinubu's comment as proof that athiefKuloooter is not corrupt, now in another breath, you are rejecting the same Tunubu's words simply because this time around, it's the opposite of your preferred narratives.


Dude, again, it's very childish and shallow to take the words of politicians as any kind of worthy truth, they say whatever based on their own current interest. You are not a child so stop acting like one.

There are speeches uttered by athiefKulooter out there praising PMB, but do you see me or any of hs supporters littering that rubbish all oc=ver the place? It means nothing, it's just political rubbish politicians spew all over the place.


....but what you can not dispute is the fact below.


AthiefKulooter is corrupt.

deomelo:

Dude, again, it's very childish and shallow to take the words of politicians as any kind of worthy truth, they say whatever based on their own current interest.

TAO11:


The use of "us" and "we" here is obviously intended to show that they (i.e. "Ballard Partners" served as consultant to Mr Trump's team towards the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

That was clear enough from the context of the discourse, it beats me how you couldn't figure that out yourself.

Regarding the point about the twitter account that "refuted" the contents of the "leaked" report, I had assumed that anyone who could follow the discussion with some fair understanding will know the difference between a verified twiter account and an "unverified" one. I guess your case proved that my assumption is not necessarily true in all cases.

However, please refer to the first attached screenshot below to hear from the horse's mouth what a verified twitter account is.

Furthermore, it may interest you to see below, the homepage screenshots of the twitter account of some public interest legal persons like Channels Television, CNN and even Small Doctor, at al. as well as the twitter account claiming to belong to Ballard Partners, and then point out the odd one.

I hope to hear from you.
Regards.

lexy2014:



Thanks 4 ur response.

This is d statement related 2d Trump campaign:

"...Hilary lost to US".

D two below are d statements made in relation 2d poll done on behalf PDP.

"Our figures demonstrate that WE have a very slim chance of winning".

"The result of the poll are, put it bluntly, very negative for US".

In ur earlier post u made mention of "consultant-client relationship". Do consultants use possessive words to appropriate to themselves d outcome of that which they are expected 2 deliver to their clients?

Regarding d twitter handle, pls go to this address www.http://ballardpartners.com
Go to contact. U will c d twitter symbol. Click on it& c were it takes u

TAO11:


To begin I'd say that my understanding of your question

"Do consultants use possesive [sic] words ..." is that:

you're asking if consultants are permitted by some general regulatory compliance to use the pronouns "we" and "us" when working in the interest of a team, in opposition to another team and their allies.

If this my understanding of your question is what you're saying, then you need to be very clear and assertive whether you're coming from a position where you have absolutely no answer to the question and you need help, in which case I'd advice that you consult better resources than me all over the internet, and then revert here with a clearer and more assertive argument;

OR whether your question is intended to be a rhetorical one, in which case you're indirectly making a claim that:

"consultants are NOT permitted, by some general regulatory compliance, to use the pronouns "we" and "us" when working in the interest of a team, in opposition to another team and their allies";

and if this is the claim you're making, then I have a right to demand evidence, reason, and proof for the claim; and you have the obligation to provide it in accordance with the principle called onus probandi, otherwise your claim does not hold water and your argument falls flat on its nose.


Regarding the point about twitter handle, firstly, will you agree with me (having answered your question about what a verified twitter account is and what is not) that the twitter account that issued the "refutation" is not verified?

Secondly, will you agree with me that (according to the clarification I posted from twitter) the "Ballard Partners" twitter account that issued the "refutation" is counterfit and not authentic since it is supposedly "an account of public interest"?

see attachment below for reminder.

In light of this clarification from twitter, it is obvious then that the existence of a Ballard Partners webpage that is hyperlinked to this same twitter account doesn't prove anything. In fact, if it proves anything, then it clearly shows the extreme lenght individuals, groups, or organisations can go for a damage control.

lexy2014:


I didn't say anything about permission. Who is giving d "permission" if I may ask? Cos if u talking about permission, then that means regulation which there's nowhere in my question that I suggested that. I only asked in terms of general practice or experience. Simple norms. U might have encountered a consultant or u may have consulted so I don't think d question is strange or complex based on ur level of exposure.

Many modern websites feature icons 4 their social media accounts. And if Ballard has such a feature which when u click on leads to d "fake" Twitter account, then we can as well say d website is fake. So even if ur authentication method is correct, how does a "fake" twitter handle get linked to a genuine Ballard website?

TAO11:


The use of "us" and "we" here is obviously intended to show that they (i.e. "Ballard Partners" ) served as consultant to Mr Trump's team towards the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and that they are also currently engaged by Mr Abubakar's team towards the upcoming 2019 Nigerian presidential election.

That was clear enough from the context of the discourse, it beats me how you couldn't figure that out yourself.

Regarding the point about the twitter account that "refuted" the contents of the "leaked" report, I had assumed that anyone who could follow the discussion in this thread with some fair understanding will definitely know the difference between a verified twiter account and an "unverified" one. I guess your case proved that my assumption is not necessarily true in all cases.

However, please refer to the first attached screenshot below to hear from the horse's mouth what a verified twitter account is.

Furthermore, it may interest you to see below, the homepage screenshots of some public interest legal persons' twitter accounts such as CNN and even Small Doctor, et al., as well as the particular twitter account claiming to belong to Ballard Partners, and then point out the odd one.

I hope to hear from you.
Regards.

lexy2014:


in d first place, i didn't set any trap so falling into a trap doesn't arise. 4d fact that I acknowledged i made a mistake, is honourable& it isnt d same thing as being dishonest & disingenuous except u have a different meaning 2 those words. Again I insist that cos u are too emotionally attached 2d subject matter, u choose 2get personal instead of addressing d issues I raised. D best u have done is 2 deflect& avoid answering d questions I asked. There is no where I rejected or accepted what Tinubu said either in 2016 or 2019. I told u that Tinubu& APC arent courts, so their statements cant exonerate Atiku of anything u are accusing him of. But of course, u didnt c that. U are still rambling in ur default setting.

If u remember u said d screenshots I provided were "dumb&shallow". That shows that it is u who rejected Tinubus statement cos it didn't conform with ur prejudice. Again u also asked me if Tinubu was a presidential candidate cos once again, d 2016 statement didn't reinforce ur prejudice& I responded by saying if d statement of 2016 was otherwise, would u ask if Tinubu was a presidential candidate?

What I have done so far was to ask u to help me understand y u say Atiku is a thief, yet d APC& Tinubu were showering him with praises in 2014& 2016. I also asked that if Atiku is a thief as u allege, were Tinubu & APC not aware of this b4 2014& 2016 or was it after 2016 they realised that Atiku became a thief? I also asked are Tinubu & APC "AthiefKulooters" 4 being so generous in praising Atiku? So far, u have been running away from shedding any light on this mystery instead u are talking about dishonesty, disingenuity& 2years.

D 2019 Tinubu statement just like that of 2016, also begs d question, is it now in 2019 that Tinubu knew that Atiku is corrupt? Y is he just coming to that realisation now?

I also asked u to produce d date of a particular document u shared. D document I believe are proceeds from an investigation into Atikus dealings. Am certain that Tinubu & APC are aware of that document. But u haven't shared d date of d document.

Ur producing this statement also contradicts u as a person & d things u say. U want me 2 accept what Tinubu is saying about Atiku in 2019 but at d same time u are saying this



Should I now say u are d one who is "childish & shallow" cos u are holding unto Tinubus 2019 account of Atiku?

U are still taking us back 2d issues I raised earlier which u failed to answer. Earlier u said politicians thrash& praise themselves on a regular basis. This confirms ur quote above. I then asked u, if that is d case, then y do u engage in insults, name calling on behalf of a politician? If u no that they do d things they do cos of interests, then y are u so emotional, aggressive & abusive on behalf of a politician who is living his life without d consciousness of ur existence? Like I said b4 except u are being paid, then am sure u should b d one asking urself if u are 2years old.

deomelo:




Again, if Tinubu's words are the supreme and authentic stamp that dictates who is corrupt or not corrupt, then you are truly worse than a 2-year-old kid apart from the fact that you are shallow adepthlessess.

lexy2014:


I told u that Tinubu& APC arent courts, so their statements CAN'T exonerate Atiku of anything u are accusing him of. But of course, u didnt c that. U are still rambling in ur default setting.

deomelo:


you are truly worse than a 2-year-old kid apart from the fact that you are shallow adepthlessess.

deomelo:




Again, if Tinubu's words are the supreme and authentic stamp that dictates who is corrupt or not corrupt, then you are truly worse than a 2-year-old kid apart from the fact that you are shallow adepthlessess.

lexy2014:


I told u that Tinubu& APC arent courts, so their statements CAN'T exonerate Atiku of anything u are accusing him of. But of course, u didnt c that. U are still rambling in ur default setting.

deomelo:


you are truly worse than a 2-year-old kid apart from the fact that you are shallow adepthlessess.

deomelo:




Again, if Tinubu's words are the supreme and authentic stamp that dictates who is corrupt or not corrupt, then you are truly worse than a 2-year-old kid apart from the fact that you are shallow adepthlessess.

lexy2014:


I told u that Tinubu& APC arent courts, so their statements CAN'T exonerate Atiku of anything u are accusing him of. But of course, u didnt c that. U are still rambling in ur default setting.

deomelo:
[s][/s]

you are truly worse than a 2-year-old kid apart from the fact that you are shallow adepthlessess.

TAO11:


The point I was making is that, your question "Do consultants use ...?" gives off the idea that consulting firms generally either use or do not use "we"/"us" in the context of my rephrasing of your question.

And if they do not use (which is where I think you're leaning towards), then it must be that there is some regulatory compliance enforcing such general consulting restriction which your position apparently presumes.

So, whether or not you used the specific word "permit" (or any of its derived form), or you used the word "allow" (or any of its derived form), or you used your so-called "terms of general practice or experience" becomes irrelevant;

what remains relevant instead is the fact that the very idea of permitting, complying, allowing, etc. by/with some regulator/regulatory standard in the consulting industry is implicit in your question, considering that you asked the question about consulting firms generally and not simply about a specific consulting firm (e.g. Ballard Partners).

It is obvious that you are either oblivious of the implication of your own question, or you're pretending to be.

So, I maintain that if your honest intention is to get an answer to your question from me because you don't have any (having clarified to you what your question really means), then you should get an answer from better informed sources than me, and then revert here to put forward a clearer and more assertive argument.

But if your question was indeed a rhetorical one, that is, affirming that consulting firms can not use certain words in certain contexts (as I have explained earlier) in light of some consulting industry regulatory standard; then you have the obligation to substantiate your claim with evidence, proof, and reason.

Until you do any one of the above, you have no argument in respect of the question you've put forward.



Regarding the twitter account, you wrote:

"So even if ur authentication method is correct ..."

In relation to this statement of yours, firstly, I need you to be more explicit and assertive as to whether the authentication criterion by Twitter Inc. itself which I attached is "correct", or another authentication criterion from somewhere else which contradicts it is "correct". And if you have any such other authentication criterion, please put it forward.

Secondly, I have not stated either expressly or impliedly anywhere in any of my reply that the website whose link you put forward is fake, neither have I said anywhere that it is not.

What I have maintained instead is that going by the crieterion put forward by Twitter Inc., the account which issued that "refutation" is a counterfiet account.

How and why that account is linked to the website whose link you pasted in one of your replies is a separate and an entirely different question.

And the answer to this question is not reached through some rocket science:

The webpage does not necessarily have to be fake for it to be hyperlinked to a counterfiet twitter account which will be used to pull a serious damage control "refutation" stunt in relation to a very grave and sensitive issue as this.

Thanks ...

lexy2014:


Every profession has its lingua or technical jargons. It is in this context u can b talking of allowing or permitting. "We" & "us" are used in general English and aren't d exclusive preserve of any profession.(I dont no how u came up with d "allowing" or "permitting" thing). But when they are used, u get an impression of ownership & inclusiveness. So when I queried their use in d purported letter, I gave d context in which I felt they were inappropriately used. I asked about d outcome. their deliverables. Can consultants "appropriate to themselves d outcome of that which they are expected 2 deliver to their clients"?

"Our figures demonstrate that WE have a very slim chance of winning".

"The result of the poll are, put it bluntly, very negative for US".

These quotes from d letter suggests that d consultant is affected by d outcome of that he or she is going to deliver 2d client of which it isn't. Cos whether Atiku wins or looses d election, that outcome doesn't affect Ballard as far as d polls which it was purported to have conducted 4 PDP is concerned. So if that is d case, y would it now use "we" or "us"?

Just as Ballard was said to have been contracted by PDP to conduct a poll on its behalf, its d same way APC could have also contracted them 2do same thing at d same time. So would they b "we" & "us" for PDP and b "we" & "us" for APC at d same time?

Its like what advertising or branding companies do. They have several clients at d same time. Are they going 2b "we" & "us" for each& every one of their clients? If they are going 2 make reference of a previous job they did, are they going 2b saying something like "...Hilary lost to us"?

Let say an advertising company did a job 4 coca cola& then it is hired by Dangote to do same job. While addressing Dangote&making reference 2d job it did 4 coca cola, is d advertising company going to refer to coca cola as "us" or "we"? They are going 2b saying things like "them" or "they".

These scenarios have nothing 2do with whether it is "allowed", "permitted" or "regulation", but it sounds more appropriate because as a consultant, u are serving varied interests which doesn't tie ur loyalty to just one client. Nobody will fry a consultant 4 using "we" or "us", but I strongly doubt if they use such words in d context i have explained, especially in writing.

As regards d Twitter account, pls let's get something clear. First, I didn't query ur authentication process. I didn't tell u that its wrong neither did I tell u that it is right. There's nowhere in d course of our discussion that I contested ur findings. I only tried to paint scenarios. Second, I also didn't allege that u said d website is fake.

There are several twitter accounts without that authentication sign, mine inclusive. It doesn't mean that my account or that of others without d sign are counterfeit or that we intend using them for d purpose of "damage control". Pls check this twitter handle @tvcnewsng. Its that of a reputable organization.

D question is this, is d Twitter handle for Ballard? Yes or no? Whether it is authenticated or not or whether they choose to do whatever it is u say they want 2do with it, d account was created in d name of Ballard Partners & they haven't denied having d account. D account is on twitter. 48hours from now, a week from now, 2years from now, u& I can still hold them accountable 4d information that they used d account to supply 2d public. Its that simple. But 2 say because it isn't authenticated makes it a counterfeit, is something I can't agree with.