Moses Sarr wrote:

"No-one can just present scrap here and expect people to entertain it  for the simple reason that we need different opinions.They should make their arguments based on facts.No hidden agenda,we've suffered a lot and enough is enough!"

I understand this.  If I make a statement you believe is not factual or I seem to present a hidden agenda why not argue the on the merits of my statements, or lack thereof?  Wouldn't that do more to expose the apparent deficiencies than immediately attempting to characterize my motives?

Earlier on Moses wrote:

"I think some of you stating that this forum has a trend of condemning pro APRC writers should know that this was not how it use to be some years back. Many supported him when he came to power and even extended their support for a period of two years or more. So what made the U-turn? There is saying in Wollof that 'If everyone is to spit on you, there is no doubt that you'll end up been wet' and this is exactly what has transpired.Period."

I couldn't agree more.  I remember those days.  I know because on many occasions I found myself defending then unpopular "anti-A(F)PRC" views.  Remember too, the arguments or debates were often heated, but mostly respectful.  Political, economic and social issues were debated in such a manner that regardless of your own personal opinion, you felt they ended with everyone taking a deeper understanding of the issues.

Take the discussion that followed my previous posting as an example.

Daddy, respectfully and in a detailed manner gave what he believes to be evidence contrary to Ebrima's very thorough and methodically painted view of the state of affairs back home.  Yusupha, in his turn, took exception to many of those points, again in a very respectful manner, laying down point by a point a rebuttal to most of Daddy's statements.  He focused on the facts, not some veil attempt to paint Daddy as some sycophant civil-servant.

Rene then came along and without explicit disagreement to Yusupha, decided to offer a different perspective to one of Yus' statements.  Even as I type this, my email program has alerted me of new message.  Yus has, respectfully, taken issue with Rene but in such a contemplative manner that his thoughts managed to include:

'Anyway, maybe I was a bit harsh in my condemnation of a fisheries plants as white elephants and such. '

Ebrima, I am sure is not too far behind (if his busy schedule permits).  If I know Coach, he will relish this as the perfect opportunity to dissect Daddy's rebuttal.  His prize will be the facts, not an assassination of Daddy's character.  Not an expedition to divulge Daddy's apparent motives. 

This was Gambia-L and it's all I'm asking for now.

Peace,

Latir

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------