"Jobe",
Cut the crap and answer the question. You agreed that votes were indeed
bought but seem silly enough to forward  the weird argument that just because
it happens to be a few votes, it leaves the legitimacy questions attached to
elections  a non-issue. The point is: if we agree on the premise that any
illegal attempt at influencing the outcome of elections - no matter the
propensity and probabilistic degree the aforesaid tainted the said elections
- can we still maintain that Kiang East results represent the expressed will
of the people, given our agreement that votes were indeed bought? Forget the
degree to which votes were bought or sold; the gullibility of those who sold
their votes out of their own volition. The crux of the matter is the fact
that votes that were bought did constitute to being legally defined as
illegally influencing the outcome of an election, thus corroding their
legitimacy.

In the case you still don't get it - i know you get it but just playing the
sophist - i shall give this analogy, which hopefully will help people like
Gomez understand my drive. I assume you are a Muslim - a hypocritical Muslim,
no doubt - and when you pray you do perform ablution before you pray. Let us
say, you just performed ablution before going for your prayers and in the
event of going from the scene of where you performed the said ablution to the
mosques, stepped over stuff like urine, odure, ["Kosoh" or "Shobeh" in
Mandinka and Wollof respectively] etc, etc, that Islamic directive on what
despoils an ablution would render your ablution as tainted and thus vitiated.
Here we do not need to ascertain the degree to which your ablution is tainted
by urine/odure to pronounce it as vitiated. When we establishe the fact that
the ablution has been tainted, for it to be rendered vitiated, we don't need
to gauge probabilistic degrees and or propensity to vitiate the said
ablution. Exceptions, i believe and indeed grant apply to this. The exception
to this scenario is only on such extreme situations where water is not
readily available and it would be Herculean to go about it.

You also used  Darbo's lack of litigiousness in challenging the results of
the by-elections as a pointer towards the validity of the results. This is
another weird and silly stuff from you and grand manifestation of your warped
logic. Darbo's acceptance of the by-election results, challenge or lack
thereof in the discrepancies/abnormalities that cropped up during the said
by-elections might not only be a strategy thing but mainly premised on
practical rationale. Stuff is: litigiousness doesn't take one anywhere in
today's Gambia as lawlessness continues to grip the country and the
independence of the judiciary becomes a joke. Besides, why pile litigation
upon litigation when cases like the challenge to the illegal sacking of
Johnson et al have still not moved an inch? People like Darbo now know for a
fact that being litigious with Jammeh, ain't ever gonna get them no where.

"Jobe", to be very brutal with you, i'm hard pressed with patience vis-a-vis
this engagement and your sophistry in answering simple questions. You think
by throwing derogatory and silly stuff at people and maintaining this risible
persona of a meek and moderate subscriber interested in the truth - you going
at great lenghts in selling to the simple minded -  will work out for you.
Bullshit has a buck. If you want to engage people on the crucial issues,
please go ahead and address the questions and refrain from the vulgarity i
see your postings now choke full of.

Hamjatta Kanteh

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

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