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