Yusupha, I can sense some desperation and frustration in your latest
postings. Frustration perhaps due to the fact that you are confusing
yourself and in the process confusing some of the mental midgets on the
List. This frustration is leading you to use such emotive words like
‘dishonest’ and ‘silly’ to characterize me without backing up your rhetoric.
I have no problems in your use of such words. But I have to bring to your
attention that you are now embarked on a different terrain with me. Whereas
in the past I will talk about misstatements and typos from you (giving you
benefit of the doubt), now expect stronger terms from me. I will let this
one slide for now. But if I do not see a marked improvement in your
subsequent postings, I am afraid I will also have to remove the gloves and
treat you accordingly.
I had not read your posting saying that I was going underground when I sent
you the mail I did on Saturday. If you go to G_L archives, you will realize
that I have sent in more than 300 mails since April 2000. Out of those, less
than 10 would have been sent during weekends. I do other things during
weekends rather than come to G_L. The last thing I would do, is quit on you.
Again, let us stick to the facts and not try to score these cheap points. I
do not run away from my statements.
In order not to confuse you any further, let me reiterate an earlier
dichotomy I made here more than a month ago and have repeated to you several
times in this debate. Please have an open mind and digest this before you
move further: As far as the Opposition was concerned, we were looking at two
sets of voters that did NOT vote for UDP. The so-called absentee vote (1000
and something) as opposed to the voters that gave APRC the 700+ ‘majority’.
I maintained from day one and I still maintain that vote-buying accounts for
the 1000 votes that were not cast. I have NEVER moved away from this
position. Those 1000 votes could have overturned the elections. So I still
maintain that the vice of vote-buying was/is a major culprit. Without it,
UDP would win the election. And as the days go by and I read postings from
people like you, I am more convinced about my position. Why? Because you
have not given a coherent explanation for where the 1000 votes went.
I noticed how you always use certain gimmicks in order to put words in my
mouth. I tried getting you to quote me where I said certain things YOU SAID
that I said, but you were unable to do so. Let me give you an example of
what I am talking about. Yusupha: "I claimed you (Dampha) were being
dishonest when you denied vote-buying as your MAIN CAUSE. You challenged me
to quote you and denied ever saying this." Emphasis mine.
Why didn't you complete your sentence? See, why I said that you are using
gimmicks? Vote-buying was the MAIN CAUSE for WHAT? It was my MAIN CAUSE in
WHAT argument? The absentee ballot or the election debacle? We are talking
about different things here; two sets of voters. Don't use arguments I used
in one debate and transpose them to another debate dealing with a different
topic.
You used the same gimmick (of writing incomplete sentences) again when you
wrote: "Dampha: The main cause you highlighted was vote-buying: plain and
simple. For you to deny this right now, is simply dishonest. This has been
the main theme of your argument from day one."
You noticed again how you avoided stating what I attributed to the
vote-buying? The absentee vote (that could have evaporated the APRC
majority) or the people that did not vote for UDP because they voted for
APRC? Words such as 'MAIN CAUSE' are relative/subjective words. If you want,
you can use them to characterize the various causes for the election debacle
we are looking at. But please do not ascribe those words to me in areas that
I have not used them. For the hundredth time, I am using vote-buying to
explain the 1000 absentee vote. Other causes are responsible for the less
than 800 votes that went to APRC instead of UDP to make up the APRC
'majority'. Last month, I was talking about the 1000 absentee votes. We
started talking about the other votes, but you veered off and started
obsessing over arguments we made here more than a month ago. Fine if you
want us to revisit those arguments. But please quit misquoting me.
Talking about the debate of the day, I hope you noticed that you are not
doing your arguments any good by relegating them to the back burner and
instead obsessing over what was wrote here weeks ago. You are NOT making a
good case for your voter-apathy theory. The figures you are looking at prove
one fact; i.e. more than 800 people did not vote. Those figures ALONE cannot
be used to explain WHY people did not vote. I hope you get it this time. We
are dealing with people and elections and not machines. I am not just
looking at the 1000 votes to argue that there was vote-buying. I am relying
on confessions made by APRC stalwarts to say that there was vote-buying.
Where is your EVIDENCE to show that there was voter-apathy? More numbers
from an irrelevant election? I already showed you how ill-advised it is to
use general election numbers to analyze these by-election numbers. But if
you insist, I will reiterate the points I made earlier on. You have to do
better than speculations to convince me to discard vote--buying as an
explanation for the absentee vote.
I hope you also realize that we will be embarking on a totally new debate if
we want to address the people that did not vote for UDP because they voted
for APRC. When we (me and you) started this debate, I articulated this
dichotomy to you and you appeared to have grasped the difference. So I
proceeded to discuss other causes for the election debacle (apart from the
absentee vote). I talked about tribalism, voter intimidation and other
issues. I made it abundantly clear to you that it was NEVER my position that
vote-buying was the SOLE cause of the election debacle; after you
unsuccessfully tried to pin that misstatement on me.
You moved from using ‘SOLE’ cause to ‘MAIN’ cause. I admonished you and told
you that you are the only one in ‘THIS DEBATE’ (between me and you) that was
saying that vote-buying was the ‘MAIN CAUSE’ for the election debacle. I
choose my words carefully, Yusupha. See, unlike you and some of the mental
midgets and clowns I see on G_L, I take what I do here very seriously. I
again challenge you to show me in ‘THIS DEBATE’ where I said that
vote-buying was the MAIN CAUSE OF THE ELECTION DEBACLE. When I say ‘this
debate’, I mean the debate where I began discussing, in depth, the other
causes of the election debacle.
You see, on April 1, 2001 after the results came out, we in the Opposition
had different options. We could have focused on the absentee vote (1000
votes that could overturn the APRC majority) or we could focus on the people
that voted for APRC in order to explain the election debacle. To me,
focusing on the latter set of voters would have entailed blaming people I
did not want to blame. So my main focus was on the absentee vote that thanks
to people like Baba Jobe, I could lay the blame squarely on APRC. It was not
until I started debating with you that the focus shifted (or so I thought)
to the other set of voters (the APRC voters). If you show me conclusively
that you understand this fundamental difference in emphasis, then we can
proceed and discuss other causes of the election debacle and assess their
degree of importance.
Turning to the difference between by-elections and general elections. Can
you please tell me what you meant by this statement from you: Yusupha: "I
never used general election
results." Mind you, this was after you sent me the results for the 1997
parliamentary (GENERAL) elections. When I saw that statement from you I had
two options. I could have concluded that you either did not know the
difference between a general election and a by-election, or you told a
blatant lie when you used general elections figures and turn around and say
that you NEVER used them. Because I did not want to engage you in a
combative way, I passed on the latter conclusion and gave you a chance to
explain that you were perhaps confused by the two concepts. What did I get
for giving you benefit of the doubt? You accuse me of being dishonest. Do
you realize what is going on here? I am using your own words. " I never used
general election results." What were the 1997 figures? General election or
by-election?
Yusupha, the ball is in your court. You can either engage in a civil and
productive discourse, or you can continue what you started over the weekend
and let things deteriorate from here. Because of some of your past
contributions, I am giving you this option. With some other people, I would
have simply engaged them the way they came at me.
KB
>From: Yusupha C Jow <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: My opinion. - Kebba Dampha
>Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:02:31 EDT
>
>Dampha:
>Please answer my question and stop beating around the bush. I will repost
>it at the end of this piece.
>
>To claim that I do not understand the difference is terribly weak of you.
>
>I have provided the numbers to you showing that what I referred to was the
>1997 parliamentary elections in the form an attached e-doc to show you the
>statistics I was referring to. Isn't it dishonest of you to still say that
>these were the wrong figures?
>
>I have gone to great lengths to explain that the by-elections were held
>because of the tragic car crash. Yet you still say that I do not know the
>difference. It is legitimate to compare the nos from
>parliamentary/general/cabinet/house etc etc elections in 1997 to a by
>elections in 2001 because they both determine a parliamentary seat for a
>constituency.
>
>For you to use a play in words to try to trip me is plain silly and
>dishonest of you. The fundamentals are correct and this is what really
>counts. I would never try to use word play and sill tricks in an objective
>debate of this magnitude.
>
>Please see below to see how you have contradicted yourself and please
>answer the questions that matter. Otherwsie, I will have no alternative
>but to continue this debate with Saihou Mballow.
>
>
>
>
>Dampha:
>The main cause you highlighted was vote-buying: plain and simple. For you
>to deny this right now, is simply dishonest. This has been the main theme
>of your argument from day one. Look at what you wrote here: I am
>convinced God was with me when I found this.. Are you a liar or did you
>just forget what you wrote? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
>
>
>"My personal view is that the majorculprit here was vote-buying. You see,
>if one has that view, one will notthen turn around and blame the UDP
>leadership for not putting forward a goodmessage or not being up to the
>job. That was where I was coming from when Isaid that we should not be too
>hard on UDP (in this instance). I do notbelieve it was their fault that
>they lost the election. This is my personalview. You may disagree with
>that. Fine. I will try and convince you if I can, if not, I will just let
>you be."
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
