Jabou,
I am now pleased that we are at least understanding each other on this
issue. At least, I have discerned some appeal to sanity in your response to
my response to your posting. Let's agree or agree to disagree. That's
healthy indeed. You said, "...why does my voicing of my opinion, and my
statement that I and others are not prone to manipulation lead you to the
conclusion that I am trying to stop you from pursuing this topic,or from
having a different opinion." Well I neither said you were "trying to stop
us" nor are you stopping us, because you simply can't. What I requested from
you was that we be allowed the opportunity to express ourselves without any
baseless insinuations against us. But you wrote, "... please be forwarned,
manipulation, trickery and attempts to discredit do not and cannot qualify
as acceptable as acceptable methods."

You are insinuating, if not agreeing, that what we are doing is to
"manipulate, trick, or attempt to discredit" in our arguments with Halifa.
That's baseless. If you had provided evidence how we were doing what your
insinuations portend, then we would have been better off in our exchanges.
But when you simply throw tirades against us, without any tangibility,
that's akin to villifying us in our quest to express ourselves in this
debate. And that's unhealthy.

You wrote:"I am sorry if your opinion and respect for me was based only on
stands that I take that agree with you views." Well, first, you have nothing
to be sorry about. Second, it is news to me that you have mostly agreed with
my views. I never knew that. The only time I have seen your agreement with
my views was when you lent credence to my position against Ebrima Ceesay's
article on Gambia's "Liberalised authoritarianism." In any case, if you have
mostly agreed with me, so be it. You are at liberty to be entitled to my
opinions. Third, my respect for you is not conditioned on your agreeing with
my views, but rather the objectivity and sanity you have mostly tossed into
your writings. Fourth, I am not in the business of seeking agreements with
my readers on issues I write about. Honestly, it does not please me greatly
to see my readers concur with, or throw plaudits at, me. Among other things,
my duty is to stir a debate and put in place, a conduit for an array of
views and opinions from others to filter through. In this way, we all can
learn from one another. It often pleases me for my readers to constructively
criticise me, point out my inaccuracies, and provide better viewpoints. No
one is perfect or  can claim a monopoly on ideas.

On Ebou Jallow, you seem convinced that I "have strong convictions" on his
allegations. That is untrue. I have never believed anything close to that.
What I said was thus: Ebou Jallow's contentions must be viewed with care and
tact, but again, we still can learn from the snippets of information he is
rendering. You seem inclined that we should have published Jallow's account.
You wrote: "Why did you not find any way to print Ebou Jallow's account...."
Well, without any evidence to rely on should it became evident that we were
going to land in trouble with the law or the military authoirities, we just
couldn't. That's responsible journalism. I presume you are not a journalist,
and since you aren't one, you don't know what is a publishable story or what
isn't. Recently, Jallow used the Net to convey his allegations. And when the
Gambian press got hold of the information, they simply carried an overview
of it, carefully failing to publish the names of those alleged by Jallow to
have "killed" Koro Ceesay. Nor did they publish the details surrounding
Koro's death. And that's what the Daily Observer did at the time. Newspapers
have to be very careful not to disseminate information they cannot
substantiate.

I rest my case. Thanks for the correspondence.

Cherno Baba Jallow
Detroit, MI

>From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Halifa Sallah, PDOIS & Foroyaa
>Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:31:39 EST
>
>Cherne baba, you wrote:
>
>" Well some of us beg to differ. And can we be afforded the opportunity to
>  hold contrary views, please?"
>
>l am glad that you realize that what one sees is not the same that is seen
>by
>everybody, and that there are two sides to every story. What l express here
>is what l see, and my view, and since you do realize that we are each
>entitled to our opinions and views on any given situation, then we have no
>problem. Also, why does my voicing of my opinion, and my statement that l
>and
>others are not prone to manipulation  lead you to the conclusion that l am
>trying to stop you from pursuing this topic, or from having a different
>opinion. My conclusions are based on the arguments and counter arguments
>between yourselves and Halifa. Let the debate continue because it is
>proving
>to be quite an education on more than just Halifa's character actually.
>Also,l am not shallow enough to think that  any human being on God's earth
>can claim or have perfection attributed to them, and for you to even
>insinuate that this is what l am doing leaves me a bit dissappointed in you
>too. Since when does voicing support for a stand taken by someone amount to
>declaring them totally infallible? And while you are talking of
>infringement
>on other's opinion and views, perhaps you guys should also take heed of
>this.
>Everything l have stated is my opinion and my observation, and as l have
>said
>before, and will say again, l am entitled to it, and no barrage of words,
>or
>insinuations aimed at belittling my view  will change that.
>l am sorry if your opinion  and respect for  me was based only on stands
>that
>l take that agree with your views.if the opinion l now hold on this issue
>has
>changed your view of me, then l guess that is the way it has to be. A
>question l have for you is this: Why did you not find a way to print Ebou
>Jallow's account of  the circumstances surrounding Koro's death if you have
>such a strong conviction about it? Perhaps we should view that as a
>betrayal
>of the Gambian people by a member of the press whose job it is to inform
>the
>public.Perhaps as a competent journalist, you should have pursued the story
>with Mr Jallow and conducted your own investigation, or did you not think
>that you, as equally as anybody else owned this to the Gambian people?
>
>Jabou Joh
>
>  Jabou,
>
>  You wrote: Mr Sallah, the jury is still out as far as I am concerned, and
>  all I see is credibility, competence and undying dedication to the
>  betterment of our people and our country."
>
>  Well some of us beg to differ. And can we be afforded the opportunity to
>  hold contrary views, please? While you and Alpha Robinson and others, see
>  ALL "credibility, competence and undying dedication" in Halifa Sallah,
>some
>  of us see Halifa as a competent, dedicated public servant, but equally
>see
>  him as imperfect, having done things that do not make him credible and
>  competent at all. Do you see our differences in our grappling with
>issues?
>  Of course, you are at liberty not to agree with us all. But will you stop
>  your insinuations of deceit on our part in our challenges to Halifa? You
>  averred: "But please be forewarned, manipulation, trickery and attempts
>to
>  discredit do not and cannot qualify as acceptable methods." You  stressed
>  further, "Let those who think that cunning, manipulation and the smearing
>of
>  people's character is what will win them or those they support a position
>in
>  the hall's of Gambian leadership think again."
>
>  And you wonder why Saul Khan is "tongue-lashing" at you? Honestly, do you
>  think that we are hell-bent on sullying Halifa's character? Do we have
>  hidden agendas to discredit Halifa and his party, much to the advantages
>of
>  others in Gambian politics? Given our arguments with Halifa, have you
>  noticed any sycophancy, or deliberate vindictiveness to destroy the
>  personality of Halifa? Do you know that we were all supporters of PDOIS?
>Can
>  we be allowed to voice our dissent with the party we supported in the
>past?
>
>  Take or leave, our arguments with Halifa. What you see is not seen by
>  everybody. People have different opinions, views, observations. What is
>  healthy is to allow unfettered cross-fertlisation of ideas without any
>  infringement upon one another. Let's give access to even nonesensical or
>  illogical ideas. In the marketplace of ideas, the cure to free speech, is
>  not less speech, but more. If you had given Halifa a bed-of-roses speech,
>  defending his record, I, and probably others, would have cared less. But
>  when you go further to employ tirades against his critics, than can be
>  cynical imbecility.
>
>  I have always held your views in high esteem. To peddle sycophancy or be
>a
>  sycophant, is anybody's inalienable perorogative, but please don't
>  disappoint me by stooping so low in your cynicism over our dissent on
>Halifa
>  and his party. Perhaps, you need a reminder that there are two sides to
>  every issue. Take note.
>
>  Best regards,
>  Cherno Baba Jallow
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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

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