Mr Hamjatta,
Please allow me to make a correction.
The sentence :"SO ANY ATTEMPT TO HAVE ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS BY SENDING A
PRIVATE MAIL TO BUHARRY WAS NOT ME A SIGN OF YOUR WILLINGNESS TO DO
DISSERVICE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE L".should read:ANY ATTEMPT TO HAVE ANSWERED
THESE QUESTIONS BY SENDING A PRIVATE MAIL TO BUHARRY WAS NOT TO ME A SIGN OF
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO DO SERVICE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE L.
I apologise for the mistake .have a good night.
PEACE!
PASAMBA JOW COACH


>From: Pasamba 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: Buharry's Questions
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:08:45 GMT
>
>Hamjatta,
>
>I should commend you for answering the questions raised by Buharry.  I was
>however, disappointed by your last paragraph in which you wrote, "I have
>noticed also the impatience of incorrigible programmed fanatics like Samba
>Jow who simply would not desist from reminding me a duty to answer your
>questions.  Somehow, him and his ilk think you have had me cornered and
>there is no escape."  The essence of my insistance that you should answer
>the questions raised was simply, because these questions were raised during
>a debate at which you challenged PDOIS and its supporters on the L. So any
>attempt to have answered these questions by sending a private mail to
>Buharry was not to me a sign of your willingness to do a diservice to the
>members of the L.  For if one criticizes an individual or and organization
>in public one should always be ready to hear the case of the individual
>criticized or the organization in public.
>
>What I would want to know is how do you come to the conclusion that I am
>incorrigible and a programmed fanatic.  Does any of my postings on the L or
>the articles that I have written whilst in the Gambia carry any message
>that
>suggests that I am programmed?  What I would want to make clear is that I
>am
>a man of my own with a critical mind who gives things critical analysis so
>as to make an informed judgement.  It is true that I am a supporter of
>PDOIS
>that I believe that Halifa, Sidia, Sam, Amie Sillah, Sheikh Ndow, Swaebou
>Touray to name a few amongst the PDOIS membership are dignified, honest,
>dedicated, and patriotic Gambians who are sacrificing every day, every
>minute, every second of their lives for the betterment of the Gambia.
>
>Since its inception in 1986, PDOIS has always taught and continues to teach
>that people should own their minds they should not allow anybody to own
>them
>that they are part owners of their country and should never surrender their
>birth right to determining the manner of which the Gambia should be run to
>few individuals called politicians.  No PDOIS member has ever claimed to be
>a saint or a prophet who needs followers or deciples.  There is no
>TALOUBEISM in PDOIS's language.  In fact it is against the policies of
>PDOIS
>for any member or supporter to see any other member as a lord who controls
>him or her, all PDOIS members are humble servants of the people.
>
>Mr Hamjatta, I want to make it categorically clear that I am nobody's
>deciple, follower, or TALOUBE.  I am an independent man with an independent
>mind.  What is however more disturbing is your categorization of Mr. Amadou
>Kanteh as someone "lurking and prowling in the corridors of Gambia-L, yet
>have no positive contribution to make here.  They should either digest what
>comes in their mail boxes or simply zip up if they don't like what comes
>their way."  This, Mr. Hamjatta, to me is a clear manifestation of how much
>you cannot take criticisms from others, it also proves that you are not as
>democratic as you claim to be, for almost everybody who does not agree with
>you always ends up with a funny name from you in fact I believe this is why
>you are branding all PDOIS supporters as programmed fanatics.  This Mr.
>Hamjatta does not help your intigrity in fact I believe it undermines it.
>
>When I joined the L I promised myself never to engage in any form of name
>callings for the simple fact that it does not serve any purpose.  It is
>very
>clear that we are all interested in putting an end to the dictatorial and
>despotic regime of YAHYA JAMMEH.  It is always important to note that we
>shall never agree on the same way that we believe change should be effected
>in the Gambia, so it is important that we become more tolerant of our
>critics so that we can agree to disagree in order to be able to have a
>Gambia that is free from domination, intimidation, dictatorship,
>corruption,
>etc.
>
>Peace
>
>Pasamba Jow Coach
>
>
>>From: Hamjatta Kanteh <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Buharry's Questions
>>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:41:42 -0700
>>
>>Buharry,
>>
>>After a closer perusal of your questions and some of the comments in that
>>posting, i came to the
>>conclusion that your conceptions of me as an individual critic as opposed
>>to an organization like
>>say, PDOIS, what you deem to qualify as "empirical" and whether my voice
>>should discounted
>>simply on the basis that unlike organizations on the ground i'm less
>>likely
>>to see my views/ideas
>>implemented, were all sloppily conceived. You, like else, have made it a
>>point to continually
>>equate or indeed, juxtapose me, Hamjatta, the individual critic, alongside
>>organizations like say,
>>the UDP, NRP and PDOIS and hence posed questions which assumes that like
>>these
>>organizations i have dispositions which equate with their propensity to
>>effect changes on such a
>>scale expected of organizations that can mobilize on a mass scale. See,
>>once you sloppily
>>construed as such, your questions, comments and criticisms become wide off
>>the mark. To place
>>Hamjatta or Kebba Dampha, individual critics, along-side organizations and
>>expect the same
>>chores and results from them is to mistake the tree for the woods. Not
>>only
>>is this making the
>>misplaced assumption that individuals have the capability of
>>organizations,
>>it also lacks a grasping
>>of the role of individuals in a society or a struggle as opposed to
>>organizations. Not to romanticize
>>the individual critic, but in my book, the individual critic is
>>Voltairean;
>>not burdened by
>>organizational shackles to see beyond the conformity of like-mindedness,
>>never playing to the
>>gallery of constituents that help sustain such organizations and a lone
>>ranger: grubby iconoclast,
>>acerbic, witty, maverick, agitator and always on his feet pointing out
>>inconsistencies in society and
>>indeed, at loggerheads with mainstream view.
>>
>>Which brings to related issue of the individual critic and the place of
>>his
>>ideas in a struggle or
>>society at large. I think it would amount to gross ignorance and
>>irresponsibility not to take
>>seriously dissenting voices on the periphery. It was thanks to the
>>individual dissension of
>>Copernicus that geocentric cosmology associated with Ptolemy crumbled.
>>Discounting the voices
>>of individuals who hold contrarian viewpoints has always been part of
>>mainstream culture. Just
>>because Hamjatta is currently residing in the UK studying doesn't mean his
>>judgements on the
>>Gambia cannot be profound and thus should be dismissed. The anti-thesis
>>that  individuals who
>>have credible ideas but are impeded by material limits, and are therefore,
>>not worthy of attention
>>or should be discounted is grossly false and misconstrued and tantamount
>>to
>>sheer arrogance. It
>>misses the point i made earlier and above about the individual critic.
>>Most
>>or virtually all of our
>>current cadre of opposition leadership were at one point part of the
>>Diaspora studying. And some
>>of them might have been involved directly/indirectly in some struggle on
>>the African Continent.
>>Does this imply that their ideas should  be discounted largely because
>>they
>>lack institutional
>>mechanisms on their own to implement the ideas they might have hatched in
>>the process? Since
>>when has one's contribution to a struggle become determined by being on
>>the
>>ground or material
>>resources one has to implement ideas/strategies? Mbeki was at some stage
>>here in the UK
>>studying whilst his comrades were in the front line of the naked
>>aggression
>>of Apartheid. I have
>>never read anywhere Mandela and else dismissing him as some arm-chair
>>critic who lacks
>>understanding of South African situational realism. If anything, the likes
>>of Mbeki in the Diaspora
>>were largely utilized by the struggle as conduits for feed-backs on ideas,
>>tactics and strategies,
>>and selling the struggle to wider audiences.
>>
>>Most misconstrued was your perception of the nomenclature "empirical". It
>>seems that you and
>>those who keep parroting after you, conceive of "empirical" or empiricism
>>to mean presentation of
>>only variables or statistical data to support ones postulates or thesis.
>>This is a very narrow
>>conception of  the terminology. Empiricism or "empirical" evidence as it
>>applies to the social and
>>political sciences, is not narrowly confined to the presentation of
>>variables and statistical data.
>>Suffice to say that tangible materials and or events can constitute
>>"empirical" events at any rate in
>>the social and political sciences which is our concern. At preliminary or
>>embryonic levels,
>>researchers/scientists of the physical and natural sciences certainly do
>>make use of such tangible
>>observable materials and events and hence their qualification as
>>"empirical" evidence. If evidence
>>involves real life tangible/observable experience, then it qualifies to be
>>called "empirical". In fact
>>the early proponents of  empiricism like Hume, Locke, Berkeley, et al were
>>not natural or
>>physical scientists and did not necessarily use variables or statistical
>>data in their works. Yet,
>>these three can without any fear of exaggeration be labelled as the
>>founding fathers of "empirical"
>>evidence at any rate in Western Thought. In my posting, i gave such
>>observable/tangible
>>evidences of the US Congressmen's Report, the IMF Scandal, the terrorist
>>attack on Mr. George
>>Christensen's radio station and the continued harassment of the civilian
>>population as "empirical"
>>evidences that the opposition strategy is not working and lack-lustre. I
>>hope all these disclaimers
>>and clarifications would help in throwing further light on the answers i
>>give to your questions
>>below.
>>
>>    #What has been your strategy since April massacre as a concerned
>>citizen to ensure that
>>      justice is served?
>>    #This question makes me really wonder whether in essence you do read
>>or
>>follow my
>>      writings on the subject of the Gambian political stalemate and its
>>solutions. My views on
>>      this subject is the less kept secret about me. In fact in the very
>>posting you had responded
>>      to, i had clearly stated my position, interpretations and strategies
>>of the problem in the
>>      Gambia. I shall for the sake of further clarity re-state my position
>>here again. My position
>>      has always and consistently been that of a sceptic who has realized
>>that the way things are,
>>      to put one's faith in the political process to remedy the ills of
>>our
>>nation, tantamount not
>>      only to mis-apprehension of reality but gross negligence. Fact is,
>>under the current political
>>      arrangements, none expect blind fanatics to the political process,
>>can expect elections to be
>>      held under FREE and FAIR conditions. Not only is the body politic
>>corrupted, discredited
>>      and bankrupt by the reaches of the tentacles of the executive, but
>>it
>>so fundamentally
>>      flawed and tilting favourably towards the incumbency that
>>holding/participating in elections
>>      under such circumstances is to commit political suicide. Since i
>>have
>>realized that the
>>      political process as it is, is incapable of effecting the changes i
>>and else desire, the next best
>>      thing that legitimately and practically exists is to EXTRICATE
>>oneself from such
>>      arrangements and AGITATE for fundamental reforms of the body politic
>>before one can
>>      except to be attach to it again and expect genuine changes. Such
>>AGITATION, calls for
>>      not only the political opposition to bandy together, but the
>>inclusion of all civil society from
>>      the cultural to economic strands of Gambian existence to come under
>>one big familial
>>      unifying tent to fight the cause of the oppressed people of the
>>Gambia. The AGITATION,
>>      has to be peacefully and civilly conducted through sit-ins,
>>peaceful
>>marches/demos, rallies
>>      and any other form of civil disobedience until our demands for
>>justice and fundamental
>>      reforms are instituted to the body politic inorder to see a relative
>>peaceful transfer of power
>>      back to the People. In the very extreme, if such agitation fails,
>>then force, even if we are
>>      opposed to it, becomes not only attractive and seductive but
>>inevitable. It is better if such
>>      gallant, moral and progressive force is courted by civil society
>>rather than isolate it from the
>>      mainstream. The great Kebba Dampha was the first to point out this
>>fundamental truth and
>>      precisely why he is endeared to me. As he cogently observed, such a
>>force, if it is ready to
>>      cleanse the current system and replace it with free institutions
>>needed for a genuine political
>>      process to take-off once again, need not be ridiculed, side-lined
>>and
>>put at loggerhead with
>>      civil society or the opposition. Rather it should be courted and
>>made
>>to realize how
>>      common all our objectives are: a free and prosperous Gambia. I
>>believe and like him, that
>>      such  moral, gallant and progressive force should be wooed and
>>reminded how together
>>      we can restore peace, decency, respect and freedom for all in the
>>Gambia. If as some are
>>      saying, that this is "closet adventurism", so be it. We make no
>>apologies. Truth is the
>>      problem in the Gambia is not only a political problem, but a
>>national
>>crises of survival. And
>>      politics as it is now in the Gambia  CANNOT solve the problem.
>>    #How is it different from PDOIS'?
>>    #Well, if you read my answer above, you will realize that whilst PDOIS
>>still has faith in the
>>      current political arrangements and indeed, fanatically pursues it, i
>>have stated that the
>>      current arrangements are not only fundamentally flawed, but are
>>discredited, bankrupt and
>>      corrupted and therefore, no genuine changes can come out of it.
>>Whilst they haven't made
>>      up their mind yet on AGITATION, i have already said we have got to
>>start AGITATING
>>      NOW! Infact we are getting late with the AGITATION.
>>    #How have you implemented the strategy or how do you intend to
>>implement the strategy?
>>    #Buharry, get real. Does my stating of an alternative strategy and the
>>acceptance of the
>>      profundity of my judgement depend on the material resources needed
>>to
>>implement? A
>>      debate about our country's problem is going on here and i have
>>stated
>>a position, should it
>>      suffice to say just because i'm a young struggling student in the
>>Diaspora, so my judgements
>>      should be discounted? My views should not be discounted simply
>>because i as an
>>      individual on my own cannot implement them. I refer you here to my
>>introduction on the
>>      individual vis-a-vis society and the struggle.
>>    #Can you guarantee or at least gauge whether the results of your
>>strategy will have a higher
>>      success rate than PDOIS'?
>>    #As Ben Franklin memorably noted to his friend Jean Bapiste Le Roy,
>>nothing in this world
>>      can be said to certain or guaranteed save death and taxes. No, i
>>have
>>no guarantees for
>>      you though my good sense of history tells me what i have suggested
>>had been implemented
>>      in similar situations and had succeeded in averting national
>>disasters and freed oppressed
>>      peoples from oppression without resorting to bloody social and
>>political upheavals. Indeed,
>>      history is littered with examples of victims of oppression no longer
>>seeing themselves as
>>      victims and organized themselves effectively against such
>>oppression.
>>    #What do you base such predictions or pronouncements on?
>>    #On precepts in history as i outlined above.
>>    #What alternative approach can you proffer to deal with the current
>>political impasse in the
>>      Gambia given that PDOIS' approach is not, in your opinion, working?
>>    #A repetitive question. I refer you back to the answer to question
>>number one.
>>    #How do you intend to institute your alternative?
>>    #Another repetitive question. Again,  i refer you to the answer of
>>question number three.
>>    #What do you expect PDOIS and the other political parties to do in the
>>meantime?
>>    #First, EXTRICATE themselves from their commitment to current
>>political
>>arrangements.
>>      Second, join hands together with all other stake holders in the
>>Gambian family, from the
>>      cultural to the religious strand, and AGITATE for change.
>>EXTRICATING
>>themselves
>>      from their commitment to the present arrangement doesn't mean that
>>they will idly watch as
>>      events pass by them. No. They will directly, if not lead the
>>AGITATION for change.
>>    #Given that you feel that political process is not a workable
>>alternative, do you believe that
>>      the available or workable option would be a violent overthrow of the
>>government?
>>    #Yes, i believe the body politic and in extension the political
>>process
>>are enfeebled by their
>>      inherent flaws, bankruptcy and corruption and as such, it would
>>amount to Peter Pan
>>      Idealism to expect genuine changes to ensue from them. However,
>>contrary to your
>>      perception or insinuation, a call for AGITATION to effect changes,
>>is
>>not a call for violent
>>      overthrowing of gov'ts. When the likes of Dr. King Jr. and Lech
>>Walesa were
>>      AGITATING for change, they did not involve or incite their followers
>>to violence. There
>>      was no violent overthrow of the US gov't during the Civil Rights
>>AGITATION of 60s and
>>      70s America neither were there any such acts in Poland when
>>Solidarity was AGITATING
>>      for change. When change came, it was because oppressors could not
>>COPE with the
>>      pressure that AGITATORS had unleashed on them. I'm obliged here to
>>play semantics to
>>      refute the charge that force inevitably leads to violence. Whilst it
>>is susceptible to violence if
>>      not properly dispensed with, force is not synonymous to violence.
>>Force that is used on
>>      moral grounds and professionally conducted can gallantly effect
>>peaceful changes in a body
>>      politic. Force can be another form of patriotism if it's rationale
>>as
>>i discussed above, is to
>>      cleanse institutions of evils and help create new and free
>>institutions. The philosophical
>>      rationale of my position, as i explained to you earlier, is based on
>>my sense of history.
>>    #When? What if that is not possible in the next one, two, five, ten
>>years?
>>    #Buharry, such extrapolation doesn't help anyone. Any struggle that
>>sets time frames within
>>      which it expects to effect changes, is ridiculously constraining
>>itself. In the AGITATION of
>>      Walesa and King Jr., they never constrained themselves within time
>>frames. They merely
>>      maintained and sustained the tempo of their AGITATION until when the
>>oppressors were
>>      no longer able to COPE with it and change inevitable came. I see it
>>the same way.
>>    #Should the political parties stop all operations and wait for the
>>alternative you propose or
>>      do you believe that they are obliged under the Constitution of The
>>Gambia and their own to
>>      propagate their beliefs?
>>    #Here again, i have to refer you to the answer to question number 8. I
>>will, however take
>>      you on what constitutes lawful in societies/States that are lurching
>>towards anarchy and
>>      where the masses are brutally oppressed on a daily basis. In my
>>book,
>>and i dare assert in
>>      common sense, any law that goes on to help oppression of the masses
>>even if it derives
>>      from seemingly legal authorities, is ILLEGAL and needs to be defied
>>by conscientious
>>      beings. Any movement that seeks to liberate the masses from such
>>daily oppression
>>      CANNOT be made illegal by any form of authority be it in the Gambia
>>or beyond.
>>    #Since Yaya is still in power doing as he pleases despite the presence
>>of all stake holders,
>>      would you agree that not only the "failure" of PDOIS' policies but
>>also that of all the
>>      stake holders in and outside the country including me, you, the
>>other
>>opposition parties and
>>      every other concerned Gambian? If you do not agree, what do you base
>>your
>>      disagreement on?
>>    #Here we are in agreement. I have never shelved the whole blame of the
>>crises in the
>>      Gambia on PDOIS strategy or lethargy. We all share varying degrees
>>of
>>responsibility in
>>      the tragedy unfolding in the Gambia.  What i have always gone after
>>is their tendency to be
>>      self-righteous and impervious to credible criticisms.
>>    #Agreeing totally with Karl Popper's quote [thanks by the way for
>>bringing such a heavy
>>      quote to my attention] and accepting in principle also the
>>opposition
>>parties' refusal to
>>      engage in civil disobedience measures, what should we all do pending
>>the solution you
>>      propose?
>>    #Here again i sense repetition. However, if the opposition refuse to
>>accept our suggestions,
>>      then we still positively engage them until they begin to see the
>>inevitability of our strategy.
>>      Events in the end will prove us right that a tyrannous evil will
>>never willingly give up without
>>      a tussle. Yet, inspite the profundity of our position, we must be
>>engaging and not
>>      condemning of the opposition. For to be very frank, they have it in
>>them more than us in
>>      the Diaspora, to practically bring to end the crises in the Gambia.
>>We must patiently
>>      persuade them and indeed, continue engaging them positively until
>>such time it dawns upon
>>      them that the political process as it is, is ineffective in bringing
>>about real changes in the
>>      Gambia.
>>    #a la Realpolitik or realistically speaking, how do we go about
>>bringing meaningful change
>>      when the forces that can bring about the change you espouse do not
>>feel that the time is
>>      right for them to employ the methods you propose? Would there be any
>>possibility for you
>>      to lead and to bring to fruition the methods you espouse, would you
>>agree with me that as
>>      the opposition parties are able to bring to fruition the methods you
>>espouse, no matter how
>>      "ineffective", they are within their rights  not to accept  your
>>proposal no matter how
>>      brilliant or no matter how much of a panacea it is to the Gambia's
>>problems? If you do not
>>      agree, could you please tell me why?
>>    #Let me state two disclaimers here: One, i have said anywhere that the
>>ideas that i
>>      contribute online are a "panacea" to the Gambian problem neither
>>have
>>i pretended to have
>>      all the answers. I'm like all Gambians contributing towards the
>>debate. I do not have any
>>      monopoly over ideas. Secondly, i have never stated anywhere that the
>>opposition have to
>>      accept my proposals by force [as if that is ever possible]. You are
>>right, they are with in
>>      the purview of their rights to do as they wish and what their
>>consciences dictates to them as
>>      the best plausible thing to do. There is moral equation i wish to
>>take up here: The idea that
>>      those who are in the Diaspora or at any rate not in the glare of the
>>naked aggression of the
>>      oppressive gov't, do not have no basis to dictate to those on the
>>ground and indeed, facing
>>      the brutality on a daily basis. In my view, the relationship between
>>the concerned and
>>      anxious Diaspora and those faced literally with the real thing on
>>the
>>ground should be
>>      based not on outright condemnation of victims of oppression for not
>>organizing or even
>>      where they are forced into collaboration, rather it should be on a
>>mutual basis of morale
>>      boosting, logistic support and above all moral persuasion for
>>victims
>>to stand up to
>>      repression. Whether those on the grounds accept such gestures is
>>their prerogative. There
>>      is a reference is to bring to your attention. A similar moral
>>controversy erupted between the
>>      writer Hannah Arendt when she asserted in her 1962 book, Eichmann in
>>Jerusalem: A
>>      Report on the Banality of Evil, that the lack of resistance amongst
>>European Jews does
>>      bear a measure of responsibility for the Holocaust. This coming from
>>someone who during
>>      the war was perched in her relative comfort and peace of New York.
>>Her assertions
>>      infuriated the Jewish world, especially Isaiah Berlin, who had lost
>>some of his family in the
>>      Holocaust. In an unpublished conversation with Ramin Jahangbeloo,
>>Berlin decried
>>      Arendt's assertions as a "piece of monstrous moral conceit". He went
>>on further to note
>>      that: "No moral judgement whatsoever was possible from condition of
>>safety of human
>>      being in conditions. Even active collaboration could not be
>>condemned
>>outright." Whilst i
>>      agree with Berlin's judgement, i see sense in Arendt querying why
>>victims of Hitler never
>>      organized themselves against repression. Whilst it makes sense to
>>say
>>that Jews should
>>      have organized themselves, it becomes ridiculous when one looks at
>>the fact that Jews
>>      were at any rate minorities in Europe and cannot conceivably form a
>>credible bulwark
>>      against the Nazis. That however, is not the case in the Gambia. In
>>the Gambia the
>>      oppressors are a minority whilst the oppressed form  the majority. A
>>majority with a
>>      coaching from steely and pragmatic leadership can conceivably form a
>>credible bulwark
>>      against the repression of Jammeh.
>>    #Can you "empirically" prove that PDOIS' party strategy is not working
>>especially in relation
>>      to but not limited to the April massacres? Which variables did you
>>use?
>>    #I refer you to my introduction where i went out of my way to explain
>>the nomenclature
>>      "empiricism".
>>
>>I trust i have done justice to your questions. You might have observed an
>>exchange i had a one
>>Mr. Amadou Kanteh, whose uncharacteristic and exceptional impertinence
>>have
>>made me
>>remark that i will only be sending my reply to you in private since he was
>>threatening me with
>>deleting anything bearing my imprint if i don't answer you ASAP. I was
>>merely stating a point:
>>That none is under no obligation to respond to none or contribute
>>anything,
>>not especially to those
>>who are lurking and prowling in the corridors of Gambia-L, yet have no
>>positive contribution to
>>make here. They should either digest what comes in their mail boxes or
>>simply zip up if they don't
>>like what comes their way. And another thing. I have noticed also the
>>impatience of incorrigible
>>programmed fanatics like Samba Jow who simply would not desist from
>>reminding me that i have
>>a duty to answer your questions. Somehow, him and his ilk think you have
>>had me cornered and
>>there is no escape. So one hear them piping in posting after posting, "
>>come on answer the
>>questions." I can only snort out laugher after laughter. Talk about blind
>>fanaticism. Programmed
>>fanatics indeed!
>>Hamjatta Kanteh
>>
>>Hamjatta Kanteh
>>
>>
>>___________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>Get your free e-mail account with *unlimited* storage at
>>http://www.ftnetwork.com
>>
>>Visit the web site of the Financial Times at  http://www.ft.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
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>http://profiles.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
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------