Haruna tendered "So here Evian you will notice that my notes were in response to your notes and I encourage you to read your notes where you re-presented what Halifa said." This is how I represented Halifa's statement: "You seem to be in denial but that is sadly the truth. The APRC is far from credible and from the perspective of the potential electorate, neither exists a more credible alternative. Otherwise, the opposition would have won last time." Please note that perspective does always represent reality. The truth isI did not  misrepresent Halifa; you did. Instead of acknowledging your error, you are trying to shift it elsewhere. That's absolute dishonesty! Bailo --- On Fri, 5/2/10, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Foroyaa News : HALIFA SALLAH COMMENTS AFTER THE APRC TOUR To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, 5 February, 2010, 0:55 What i will do Evian is to leave my comments close to yours and Halifa's in order that the proximity may yield further comprehension where cacophany meddles. [-----Original Message-----  From: bailo jallow [log in to unmask]  To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thu, Feb 4, 2010 12:20 pm Subject: Re: Foroyaa News : HALIFA SALLAH COMMENTS AFTER THE APRC TOUR Sheikh Haruna, The following is exactly what Comrade Halifa was reported to have stated (emphasis mine): “Some supporters of the APRC said that the opposition parties in the Gambia are not credible. They should also add that the ruling party is not credible. Their assessment of Gambian politics as it stands would then be correct and balanced."   And this is how you interpreted it: "As to which party official speaks for the other parties, Halifa shared with us that there is no credible opposition or ruling party. What he should have said was that his party PDOIS was not credible. Then he would have been speaking for himself because he is more intimately aware of PDOIS' credibility. i think he was echoing Waa's assertions that there is no credible opposition. The problem is instead of focusing on his party's credibility, he attempted to match Waa's cluelessness. In so doing he admitted Waa may be right." So here Evian you will notice that my notes were in response to your notes and I encourage you to read your notes where you re-presented what Halifa said. Then come back here and read the entire quote as it appeared in the Foroyaa note, undoctored by you. What you will conclude is that even given your sophomoric representation, my comment (Not interpretation) here does capture the cluelessness of PDOISards fantastically. You see the APRC supporters are smart people compared to Halifa. They are not interested in selling the demerits of the ruling party because that is who they support. Now Halifa advising them to ALSO say that there is no CREDIBLE RULING PARTY, in addition to There is no CREDIBLE OPPOSITION PARTY, and that they will have been both CORRECT and BALANCED is where he put his foot in his mouth. Implicitly, Halifa agrees with their supposition that there is no CREDIBLE opposition party as CORRECT. Because there is more than PDOIS in the opposition parties, Halifa is thereby speaking for other parties. That is the reason I shared the advice about when in court and accused of theft, your defense ought not be that not only are you a thief in agreement with your accuser, your accuser is also a thief. The grander picture Bailo is when you consider you are an independent voter. And you hear Halifa utter such. How does it make you feel about him and his incredulous party PDOIS. Forget NADD at this time for there is really nothing in NADD besides PDOIS. Please let me know if this is still not clear to you.   [So now let us focus on separating the chaff from the grain: Halifa reported that "some supporters of the APRC said that the opposition parties in the Gambia are not credible." This is factual. It is APRC supporters like Waa Juwara as you conceded who are claiming the above; it is not Halifa as you wrongly asserted. Halifa is merely a messenger who conveyed the message. What Halifa opined in response is "They should also add that the ruling party is not credible. Their assessment of Gambian politics as it stands would then be correct and balanced."] Evian. Inutile. [I hope you would therefore accordingly revise your interpretation of Halifa's statement to reflect the reality of what he expressed.] Evian.   I was not interpreting anything. I was translating. And there is no further revision necessary. [You aso wrote: "I would encourage you to read Halifa's quotation again because I think you misunderstood it. Not that it makes any significant difference whether you understood it or not. It just throws your analysis of that part off quilter a bit. That is the bit about "Not excluding acceptance of candidature". There Halifa is speaking of himself and not the candidature of other. Share with us your renewed understanding."] Evian regurgitating what Haruna shared. [As you encouraged, I referred again to the relevant statement of Halifa as follows (emphasis mine): "Even though I am not excluding acceptance of candidature, I have already declared that the best option is to select a neutral candidate who will be able to run a non partisan transitional cabinet for a period of 2 to 5 years and then step aside after a genuine multiparty contest. It is left to Gambians to decide whether they have a better way forward."] Evian repeating.  [My understanding of the statement remains the same even though I admit that Halifa did not qualify whose candidature he meant.] Evian.   Halifa did not need to qualify whose candidature he spoke of. The English is sound and very good. If it were you or Mams I would have asked for further clarification.   [He did not indicated either "my" or "any" to give us precision of reference to candidature.] Evian.   Bailo, the MY is implicit. That happens all the time in conversations in English. Just for fun, let us replace MY with ANY just before candidature. That would not have been the best sentence structure but it still tells you Halifa is speaking of himself. This is because MY is the ownership litmus but ANY goes to the quality of the candidature and not domain. Hey Allah, I hope you understand me. So let's extend the semantic game further; Let us say Halifa meant Ousainou, OJ, Hamat, or Waa's candidature, and insert any of these names just before candidature. Now you will agree with me that Halifa does not have the purview of accepting other's candidature. Do you agree? If you don't just ask yourself where is the authority for Halifa to ACCEPT a dog-catcher's candidature????? He can ascend to their candidatures when they accept accept it themselves and the way he does that is by voting his desire or ascension. These are some of the games Shaky Shaky plays with English in order to improve himself. Please let me know if you need further ideas on these and others.   [In essence, he might have been referring to his own candidature or someone else's.] Evian.   Unless he is retarded, he could not have been referring to any other's candidature.   [It is for him to help clarify.] Evian.   I don't need Halifa to clarify and I am certain most of our coleagues don't need any further clarification of the statement. Let us save Halifa the mental gymnastics where he could try to manufacture extraneous meaning. That will be a bigger problem for the man.   [Whatever he meant, I know that either interpretations are possible.] Evian.   You do the tests and convince yourself either way. It is easy. You can do it Bailo. [In conclusion, I think you have mistakenly fallen for that proverbial saying of comparing apples and oranges in the following statement of yours: "Halifa endorsing Ousainou's candidature will be equal to you or me endorsing Ousainou's candidature or Halifa's candidature at this point in time. There is not much basis for that."] Evian repeating what Haruna shared. [In order words, you have over-rated yourself and me at to be at par with Halifa;] Evian.   No. I am not at par with Halifa. Just ask him. We are of different mettle and polarly opposite ambition.   [the latter is a political known and both you and me are virtual political unknowns.] Evian.   Well. Do you want to be a political known Bailo????? I can make your arse famous in a jiffy. You might not like what you become famous for though. Political known. I have not heard such cacamayme since Moussa Camara shared Mbaranbirinbiring with me in 1982 in Kuntaur.   [Therein lies the difference between us Halifa's endorsement of any candidature.] Evian.   I see.   [Cheers] Evian.   Cheers to you too. And don't try to be cute with your Grand Pa again. If you know what is good for you, you'll turn in your PDOIS armband.   I still love you though. Haruna. --- On Thu, 4/2/10, Modou Nyang <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Modou Nyang <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Foroyaa News : HALIFA SALLAH COMMENTS AFTER THE APRC TOUR To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, 4 February, 2010, 0:41 Foroyaa News : HALIFA SALLAH COMMENTS AFTER THE APRC TOUR, NO CREDIBLE RULING PARTY NO CREDIBLE OPPOSITION A NEW WAY FORWARD NEEDED After the completion of the APRC tour, Foroyaa approached Halifa Sallah for comments. This is what he said: “Political leaders should tell their supporters the truth. A political vacuum exists in the Gambia. Some supporters of the APRC said that the opposition parties in the Gambia are not credible. They should also add that the ruling party is not credible. Their assessment of Gambian politics as it stands would then be correct and balanced. Some leaders who do not want to be honest to their supporters are trying to give the impression that the statistics I have been putting out are over statements. They are not telling their supporters the truth. Political leaders should tell the truth. For only the truth shall set us free. I have relied on empirical evidence to conclude that at this very moment we do not have a credible ruling party or opposition party. We have a duty to create both. Those who are offended by this statement are not prepared to do what is necessary to save Gambian politics from being an exercise in mediocrity. After the presidential elections in 2006, I wrote a pamphlet in which I quoted the statistics to confirm my assertion. Gambians have to be reminded these statistics to awaken each from our political apathy. According to the IEC, 670, 336 voters were registered prior to the 2006 presidential elections. When the results were delivered the IEC indicated that the APRC candidate who was also supported by the NCP had 264,404 votes. If this is subtracted from the total number of registered voters it would mean that 405,932 voters did not vote for the APRC candidate. The UDP candidate who was also supported by NRP and GPDP had 104,808 votes, while the NADD candidate had 23,473 votes. The total votes of the opposition amounted to 128,281 votes. If this is subtracted from the total number of registered voters it would be apparent that 542,055 voters did not vote for the opposition. Wherein lies the credibility of the ruling party and the opposition party if politics is reduced to its lowest common denominator as contest based on the number of votes. Interestingly enough, in 2001 the APRC candidate had 242,302 votes when it forged no alliance with the NCP. At that time there were 501,304 registered voters. Suffice it to say, even though the number of voters increased by 169032, by 2006 the votes of the APRC could only increase by 22,102 votes. The UDP candidate had 149,448 votes in 2001. Even though it developed alliance with NRP, which had 35,671 votes in 2001, its votes went down 104,808 votes in the 2006 elections, despite the increase in the number of registered voters by 169032 voters. Foroyaa: What is your advise? It is therefore necessary for political leaders to go back to the drawing board and map out a new way forward. How is the opposition to attract the 542,055 voters who did not vote for them is the subject at hand. This is what Agenda 2011 is all about. Even though I am not excluding acceptance of candidature, I have already declared that the best option is to select a neutral candidate who will be able to run a non partisan transitional cabinet for a period of 2 to 5 years and then step aside after a genuine multiparty contest. It is left to Gambians to decide whether they have a better way forward. ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

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