Ansu
I think, Laye laid bare where all sides of the talks must improve upon. We
all agree that, talks cannot be held in public, neither is there any
necessity for opposition parties to be telling Gambians their ideas for a
coalition. The question is, the opposition parties are forming a Coalition
with themselves, not with Gambians.
Therefore, Gambians are mainly interested in the ending of Jammeh's madness.
By extension, how many Gambian voter will grab a Foroyaa copy, the
Dailynews, the Freedomnewspaper, sit under the cool Bantaba tree analysing
the semantics of the Coalition document? As far as I know, it will not
happen in Wulli, neither Sandou or Kaing, Kombo SOuth, or any major areas.
Therefore, we urge Halifa, Ousainou, Hamat to sit and talk. They should
not be in a haste to try to fight over media front page, Gambians are
seriously not interested. A bag of sugar is D1600 Dalasis today.
Thanks

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Ansumana Bojang <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Laye,
>
> You keep on trying to spread the blame evenly between UDP and PDOIS without
> facts to back you.  You keep saying that lawyer Darboe gave conflicting
> assessments of the chance of a coalition by attributing the comments to
> newspaper interviews he gave.  Did you not ponder on the possibility that
> one of the papers may have mischaracterised what Darboe said?  I would dear
> say that Gambian papers are known to do quite a bit.  Because, as for the
> attribution to him that he was not aware of any talks, did the interview on
> Freedom with Halifa and Shyngle prove that in fact UDP was and is still
> talking to the other parties as Hailfa himself has acknowledged?  So, would
> it make sense for Darboe to say that he was not aware of any talks when in
> fact there were robust activities between UDP and other parties?
>
> Negotiating in public is a stupid idea that will not work.  For the life of
> me I am I do not know why you guys keep wanting this avenue.  If they want
> to negotiate in private but on camera I have no problem with that suggestion
> just so that evidence can be there for all to see if the talks fail because
> it will end up becoming a blame game with each side spinning things in their
> favor.
>
> Just my take on this.
>
> Ansu
>  >>>
> Laye Jallow said:
>
> Daffeh:
> Without all the name calling and extra hubbub from your end; it is as
> simple as this: They either negotiate in camera or lay it out in the public
> domain. However, saying one thing in camera and another in the public domain
> will only serve to diminish the goodwill and sincerity they've all started
> with. And IMHO this is the biggest draw back in these talks. Ousainou would
> tell one paper today "there is high probability for a united front." Then a
> few days later he will tell another paper he is not aware of any talks! I am
> not making this up Daffeh, the records are there for anyone to see. PDOIS on
> the other hand, are saying people want a united front and then turn around
> and "challenge" folks to prove numbers while claiming they are going to talk
> to UDP in private. What I am trying to highlight is that the convolution in
> the mixed messages is disheartening and only serves to spin the wheels in
> one spot - point zero!
>
> It serves no good to claim we want to talk in private when the UDP leader
> himself is putting out mixed messages out there. They (both UDP and PDOIS)
> need to decide if they want to negotiate in the public domain - PDOIS's
> position/claim to safeguard from repeat of 2006 blame game after the
> collapse - or in private - as you're claiming UDP insists on.
>
> There is a great chance that by the time they agree on anything, they way
> they're currently flip flopping (thank you Haruna) between public and
> private messages, the voting base will be further disoriented and
> disinterested. This is a clear and present danger we should all be worried
> about at this point.
> It should not be so hard to just negotiate and make progress instead of
> trying to strategically position oneself in attempt to damp the odds in case
> of failure. That only serves to highlight differences rather than
> commonalities –the exact opposite of where they should be. Both PDOIS and
> UDP are equally guilty.
>
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>



-- 
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤