"saihou Mballow" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> It is troubling that few people on this list exhibits
> a strikingly low level of political intolerance and i
> don't believe you are part of those people. They don't
> want to see any thing written against their favor.

Mr. Mballow,

I am not sure if the above is what you really meant to write but if so, I
cannot see what problem you may possibly have with people on the list
exhibiting "... a strikingly low level of political intolerance..."

Or is it that TOO "FEW people on this list" exhibiting "a strikingly low
level of political intolerance.." that you have a problem with?

You also wrote:

".. many Gambians have expressed positive feelings about Mr Daffeh's
writtings.."

I guess that should be all the more reason for you to ask "Mr. Daffeh" to
subscribe to the list like all those who are genuinely interested in
debating issues of national importance and have access to the internet,
instead of having his 'intellectual' take forwarded under headings such as
"Ss. Daffeh"?

That way he can at least participate directly and debunk any counter
arguments that are put forth against his 'analysis'. Or is "Mr. Daffeh" is
aware of the fact that his 'analysis' are full of holes and that they can't
hold water under closer scrutiny?

The fact that you add a "DISCLAIMER": THIS ARTICLE WAS NOT WRITTEN NOR
ENDORSED
BY ME JUST FORWARDING does not convince some of us that you do not "endorse"
the "F's".

The mere fact that you see it necessary to add a disclaimer is quite
revealing since at the end of each piece "Mr. Daffeh" appends his name.

You went on to say:

> Daily we see people on this list using "F" words but
> do any anyone care to tell them to stop, NO.
> Therefore, it is unfair for me to reject forwarding
> Daffeh's writings. Daffeh has always been backing his
> articles with facts and records.

Well, I use the "F" word (to borrow from you) quite frequently, but then
those are not from individuals but from newspapers and magazines. On a
number of occasions we have been late in receiving "Foroyaa" online
resulting in it not being forwarded here 'on time' and many have written to
me privately to ask what the problem was. Amny have come to expect it.

The difference between forwarding "Foroyaa" and "F"-ing  intellectual take
of "Mr. Daffeh" is that "Foroyaa" for example, contains news items about not
only NADD but other miscellaneous items of interest to many.

Had Mr. Daffeh" been here himself may be he could have explained the many
inconsistencies in his 'analysis'. I quote "Mr. Daffeh" here just a give an
example:

>  I have heard cynics saying Darboe is never even
> elected into the National Assembly, how can he win the
> presidency? Well, he never won a National Assembly
> seat because he never contested one, period. Even
> though he didn't win the Sami and Fulladu West
> Constituencies in the past presidential elections,
> something his critics have persistently use as a
> weapon against him, that doesn't mean he cannot pick a
> parliamentary seat in one of these constituencies
> should he decides to seek one. Gambian electorates
> tend to have different ways of deciding who should
> represent them in Parliament and who they want to
> become their President. In the past two presidential
> elections for example, the people of Wuli refused to
> vote in favour of Sedia Jatta and yet the same people
> who rejected him as a presidential candidate voted him
> three times into parliament. This shows how outlandish
> and absurd such arguments are. As a matter of fact, we
> are talking about a presidential election here, not
> parliamentary elections. Owing to their localised
> nature, parliamentary elections simply do not fit in
> the equation. Nevertheless, since there is another
> school of thought who may disagree with this, I now
> venture to compare Mr Darboe's electoral records with
> that of NADD's chosen Halifa Sallah in respect of
> former Serrekunda East and Serrekunda Central from the
> period 1996 to 2005. In the 1996 presidential
> election, Twelve thousand, three hundred and
> thirty-three [12,325] people voted for Mr Darboe as
> opposed to Eight thousand five hundred and twenty-nine
> [8,529] votes for Halifa Sallah in the 1997
> parliamentary election. That is a majority of Three
> thousand, seven hundred and ninety- six votes in
> favour of Mr Darboe. In the 2001 presidential
> election, Eight thousand, one hundred and thirty-six
> [8,136] people in Serrekunda Central [Halifa Sallah's
> present constituency] voted for Mr Darboe as opposed
> to Five thousand, five hundred and eight-three [5,583]
> votes for Halifa Sallah, in the 2002 Parliamentary
> elections. That is a majority of Two thousand, five
> hundred and fifty-three [2,553] votes again, in favour
> of Mr Darboe. It is to be noted that the splitting of
> former Serrekunda East Constituency by APRC, gave
> birth to Serrekunda Central. In the September 29, 2005
> by-elections, Mr Sallah managed to secure a surplus
> vote of only Three hundred and twenty-eight [328]
> despite the backing of five political parties. Even
> with this, he still trails behind Mr Darboe's 2002
> record by a margin of Two thousand, two hundred and
> twenty-five [2225] votes in his [Halifa] own
> constituency. This demonstrates how incomparable Mr
> Darboe's popularity is to that of Halifa Sallah in the
> later own constituency. Taking cognizant of these
> facts, how can any reasonable person conclude that
> Halifa Sallah is more sellable than Lawyer Darboe? Are
> people behind such a bizarre argument actually
> interested in seeing the back of APRC? These kind of
> disingenuous arguments are a complete menace to our
> common objective and it is about time for people
> engaged in it to re-examine their positions. I
> challenge Halifa Sallah's disciples to come up with
> tangible explanations as to why they consider him more
> sellable than Lawyer Darboe. Make sure your arguments
> are backed with statistics and ascertainable facts,
> and please keep them within the scope of the topic.
> Your Ayatollah is a great believer in statistic. I
> therefore expect you to use them in your arguments.
> Otherwise, you may risk earning the wrath of Ayatollah
> Sallah. I am not interested in vague arguments or
> sweeping statements and I am not going to be dragged
> into any sort of idle talk.

Now, just as statistics can be applied to 'prove' one theory, the same
statistics can be used to 'disprove' the same theory or 'prove' a theory
that is in total contrast to the theory it was used to 'prove' earlier.

The proper appilication of statistics is the logic and essence to which they
are applied.

For example, the number of donkey-carts in Wuli may have a certain
ststistical co-relation to the number of motor vehicles in the same area,
but only to a given extend. In that equation, one cannot ignore the length
of passable roads available, for example, nor can one ignore the percentage
increase of the buying power of a segment of the inhabitants of Wuli.

Such buying power may be limited to a small segment of the population of
Wuli, who to begin with, did not have much use for donkey-carts as a means
of transportation. They may also have had use for donkey-carts up to a
certain point in time when other forms of transportation, not necessarily
self-owned, may have increased, availing them with alternative means of
transportation, which would again have a direct bearing on the number of
donkey-carts 'on the road' at any point in time.

Such reasoning may be applied elswhere; for example the rate migration by
farmers to the urban areas to the inability of the state to guarantee buying
their harvests, but again, other factors will have to be taken into
consideration.

What "Mr. Daffeh" shows is that he neither understand the proper application
of statistical material nor its intepretation. That Arsenal have beaten
Chelsea in their past twenty home matches up to two years ago could not
necessarily be intepreted to mean that they are going to continues to beat
Chelsea. Unless one is blind to the fact that there are certain factors
governing the correct interpretation of statistical material. One would have
to take into consideration the obvious fact that the latter is nolonger the
team it used to be.

I do not have the statistics but I wonder if  the results from "Wuli" as a
whole or "Wuli West" (Sidia's parliamentary base) should have been the
statistical material for "Mr. Daffeh's" analysis? And whereas he cannot be
faulted for comparing Sidia Jatta's performance to that of Darbo in
presidential elections (statistically) he is totally wrong when he
elaborated by saying that Darbo could have picked up a parliamentart seat if
he wanted to. There is no proof of that anywhere, it is something he just
pulled out of thin air!

Besides, some factors that existed in the mentioned presidential elections
have changed and anybody with the slightest understanding of statistics will
not fail to take those into consideration when projecting future election
results. For example, the factors behind the statistics "Mr. Daffeh" quoted
are not the same as they were at the period under consideration.

One will fail woefully in one's predictions if one fails to take that those
into account. For example (again), Darbo did not run as an independent then.
He had a party structure behind him, the UDP. The UDP of today is not what
is used to be. Certain key members like Waa and Kemeseng are nolonger there
and the effect of their absence must be taken into consideration.

They effect of the brawl that led to the departure of Waa, or the number of
voters that he may have taken with him cannot ignored either. Neither can
the PPP-voter factor. So those statistics being quoted by "Mr. Daffeh" were
all nolonger valid when he wrote his 'analysis' and if he had any
understanding of the application of statistical data he would not have
failed to acknowledge that.

He went on to misapply statiscal data even after observing that: "...As a
matter of fact, we are talking about a presidential election here, not
parliamentary elections..." by comparing Darbo's performance in the last
presidential elecions with Halifa Sallah's, not withstanding the fact that
Halifa never ran for president, hence no two separate, relevant statistical
data to compare. Talk about comparing mangoes with oranges!

But all this quotation of irrelevant statistical data is just a red-herring.
The relevant issue at hand is that the UDP abandoned the alliance without
being able to give Gambians a satisfactory explanation.

The quotation of all this irrelevant statistical data is just to 'prove'
that UDP had a 'right' to lead NADD by dint of numbers when the ground rules
for selecting a flag bearer had already been laid long ago. No single party
wrote the MoU and then invited the others to append their signatures; all
signatories were there all along, during both its crafting and signing.

To begin to move the goal posts in the middle of the game is a demonstration
of a lack of game spirit and what is there to convince us that when one
cannot adhere to the rules during the selection process one is not likely to
violate both the letter and spirit of the MoU if elected under a NADD
ticket?

Regards,

Kabir.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤