M L Touray,
I am sure something is wrong somewhere but what warrants such an out-burst?
Malanding
Muhammed Lamin Touray wrote:
>
> Yankuba Darbo, are you not that sick little kid from Kafuta found
> fucking your mother in 1999 and fathered a babe girl???? Is she your
> sister or daughter? We are interested to know how you referred to
> her: a daughter or a sister????? You are so sick that no sane person
> should entertain conversation with you. The media houses in the Gambia
> were fully aware of your dim-witted manners, but decided not to
> publish your sacrilegious act for the sake of the good people of the
> Gambia. She has just recently turned 10 years; I only hope that you
> are paying her school fees and providing her needs. We need to remind
> you about the responsibilities of parenthood, because your sickness is
> so severe that you don’t know anything about human decency.
>
> I know your mom misses you so much, because your father could not take
> the embarrassment and died miserably a few years ago. She is waiting
> for you! I think you need to regularize relations with your mom by
> marrying her. You do that, mother fucker.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:08:32 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
>
> ML Touray wrote:
>
> “Now can you please tell me your definition of legal positivism or is
> it what you tried to defend above?”
>
> ML Touray next time you want to know my definition of legal
> positivism, you better ask for me than try to lie about my definition
> of legal positivism!
>
> My definition of legal positivism which I would make it simple to
> prevent you from misquoting me again is the “study of man made laws”.
> And if you call that outdated then you must be outdated as well!
>
> As for your claim about my labelling of the Gambian people as subjects
> of the law, I think your troubles of reconciling with your colonial
> history has mislead you into objecting to every terminology once used
> by the colonial imperialist against our people. However, whether you
> know it or not when Austin used the term ‘subjects’ he did not
> envisage such a distinction as you are misinterpreting, he only meant
> subjects of the law, which include both the colonial imperialists as
> well as their African subjects. So ease off the rhetoric ML Touray,
> the Gambians are indeed subjects of the Gambian law and not the
> sovereign as you are misinterpreting.
>
> This is because you seemed confused about the meanings of the
> sections, you have quoted from the 1997 constitution of the Gambia .
>
> You quoted that subsection 1 (The Republic) (2) states that: “/The
> Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from
> whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name
> and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are to
> be exercised in accordance with this Constitution/
>
> Yet you misinterpreted that to mean that “(1) the Gambian people
> constitute the sovereign authority, not the president or any other
> organ of government;”
>
> That begs me to question how is the president excluded from the
> “Gambian people” or that of any organ of the government. In fact ML
> Touray, you are very confused! You gave a complete opposite
> interpretation to what this section of the constitution is stating.
>
> This section is merely explaining that any executive body in the
> Gambia by virtue of this section must derive its authority from the
> Gambian people and it is for the welfare and prosperity of the Gambian
> people that it should exercise its powers. That seems completely
> different to what you are claiming that the Gambian people have the
> executive power and authority, whilst the president and the government
> are non existent. That is the worst constitutional interpretation I’ve
> ever heard!
>
> You further analysed that the /“(2) the Constitution is the supreme
> law of the Gambia ; (3) and the Constitution legalizes free speech and
> expression. I conclude from this premise that the arrest, detention,
> prosecution, conviction and sentence of the six journalists are
> illegal. This is the crux of my contentions with UDP’s ill conceived
> statement”./
>
> Ok because the constitution of the Gambia has enshrined my right to
> freedom of speech means that I can stand and insult your mother, your
> father, and every one in your family! Or write and publish lies about
> you and your family. Or write on Gambian newspapers that Muhammed
> Lamin Touray is a “fxxxing bxxxxxrd!” his mum was this and that! Would
> you regard as exercising my constitutional right to freedom of speech
> and expression.
>
> Certainly, ML Touray you will not agree with anyone that this is
> legalised by my constitutional right of freedom of speech. However, by
> your interpretation of this constitutional provision, I have every
> right to swear at your parents or write malicious stories about your
> family and publish them on newspapers. This is because, as you are
> interpreting there is no limit to my constitutional right to freedom
> of speech and expression under section 25 of the Gambian constitution.
>
> Surely, this cannot be right. I don’t know about you M L Touray, but
> if you were to write that about me I would certainly not agree with
> you that you have such an unlimited right to freedom to commit libel
> or slander against me.
>
> Therefore, every freedom right of a man has a limit. Where is that
> limit? They said it is where it reaches the other man’s freedom for
> something. That is to say; my freedom to free speech ends at where
> your freedom to privacy begins.
>
> However, it is difficult to tell or draw these limits, so where you
> would be claiming that I crossed the borderline, I would be claiming
> that I’m still within my bounds. How do we resolve this? You would
> agree with me that we need a third party’s opinion or judgement. To
> get that third party opinion, we needed someone that both of us can
> trust. If that trusted third party made a judgement in my favour
> though you can disagree with his judgement but you cannot say that he
> is not a trustworthy person. Imagine you won’t be saying that if he
> had made a favourable decision towards your favour. So therefore
> natural justice require that you don’t start calling him an evil man!
>
> From my analysis the courts are the 3^rd party here, we entrusted this
> courts to make just decisions between me and you, him and her, you and
> others, us and the government, etc. We need to keep the sanctity of
> that trust, we cannot let that trust be undermined. The consequence of
> undermining that trust will be to have no courts. A society without a
> court system, even if it has a constitution, it constitution will be
> open to abuse. This is because, where you would be interpreting the
> constitution to suit your interest, I would be interpreting it to suit
> my interest. Without a trusted third party, the weaker among us
> either physically or financially would always be the looser, a sort of
> jungle justice.
>
> The Gambian court has interpreted the law in relation to the charges
> brought against the six journalists, though we can express our dissent
> against the sentencing handed by the court, we cannot begin to
> challenge or undermine the court, as untrusting, lying or illegal, as
> you are stupidly calling, M L Touray.
>
> What would have been your reaction had the court acquitted the
> journalists from the charges?
>
> Even Mr Lamin Camara who represented the six journalists did not
> share your ill advised thoughts that you peddling here. This is
> because Mr Camara, just like the UDP statement and the rest of the
> Gambia , do not want to undermine the sanctity of their courts system.
> If the Americans can still trust the rulings of their courts, even
> though the same courts once used to find slavery as lawful and
> sentence people for challenging slavery to worst punishment; the
> Gambian courts have nothing to lose in trusting the legitimacy of the
> rulings of their, even is they agree with its ruling.
>
> Furthermore, if I’m correct about the case, the six journalists still
> have a right of appeal against the decision of the High Court and are
> appealing as I put these thoughts into words. Therefore, it will be
> inappropriate for the UDP to start making statements describing the
> High Court judgement as illegal or unlawful.
>
> Simply because, the UDP is not the supreme court of the Gambia to make
> that decision that the High Court had made an illegal decision nor is
> it appropriate for an opposition party vying to become the next
> government to start challenging or undermining the judiciary’s powers
> to make judgement based on its opinion of the law.
>
> So, you’re damned wrong M L Touray to label the UDP’s statement as
> ill-conceived. You can write whatever nonsense you want to write but
> will never justified your charges that the UDP’s statement is wrong,
> inappropriate of ill-conceived.
>
> And I hope you don’t share that dementia with Halifa, Sidia and the
> rest of PDOIS Mbai faals!
>
> I blatantly refused to comment on the rest your stupidity expressed in
> your email!
>
> Nemesis Yanks!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:56:45 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Yanks wrote,
>
>
>
> /[Now tell me where in this passage did I qualify that this was the
> definition of legal positivism? And even if I did, how can this
> position be outdated. Is it a thing of the past that the sovereign
> states receive habitual obedience of their subjects in a political
> society? Or that the sovereign states are bound by the laws of their
> predecessors or have limits to what laws they can make? The answer
> here is a big no. /
>
> /ML Touray, you therefore cannot be correct in calling this position
> of legal positivism as outdated, regardless how you try to twist your
> words?] Yanks/
>
>
>
> Now can you please tell me your definition of legal positivism or is
> it what you tried to defend above? You also need to clarify what you
> mean by “their subjects in a political society,” because it appears
> that you are defending imperialism. European imperialists used to call
> the peoples of their colonies “subjects.” Gambians are no longer
> subjects, we are sovereign people! I hope you understand the
> distinction between “subjects” and “sovereign people,” if not there
> will be no need to continue this conversation. In 1997, the people of
> the Gambia overwhelmingly ratified the 1997 Republican Constitution as
> the supreme law of the land; in essence, it means that the Gambian
> people constitute the sovereign power, not the elected
> representatives. Any law that contravenes the Constitution is null and
> void, thus the draconian media laws imposed on the national assembly
> and used to “persecute” and sentence the six journalists are illegal,
> simply because they contradict the 1997 Republican Constitution.
>
>
>
> The following quotes from the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia support
> this position.
>
>
>
> Subsection 1 (The Republic) (2) states:
>
>
>
> /The Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia
> from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose
> name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are
> to be exercised in accordance with this Constitution /
>
> */ /*
>
> Subsection Chapter 2, subsection 4 (Supremacy of the Constitution) states:
>
>
>
> /This constitution is the supreme Law of The Gambia and any other law
> found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution
> shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void./
>
>
>
> Subsection 25 (Freedom of Speech) states:
>
>
>
> /(1) //Every person shall have the right to-/
>
> /(a) //Freedom of speech and expression, which shall
> include freedom of the press and other media;/
>
> /(b) //Freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which
> shall include academic;/
>
> /(c) //Freedom to practice any religion and to manifest
> such practice;/
>
> /(d) //Freedom of association, which shall include freedom
> to form and join associations and unions, including political parties
> and trade unions;/
>
> /(e) //Freedom to petition the Executive for redress of
> grievances and to resort to the Courts for protection of his or her
> rights. /
>
>
>
> These quotes above show that (1) the Gambian people constitute the
> sovereign authority, not the president or any other organ of
> government; (2) the Constitution is the supreme law of the Gambia; (3)
> and the Constitution legalizes free speech and expression. I conclude
> from this premise that the arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction
> and sentence of the six journalists are illegal. This is the crux of
> my contentions with UDP’s ill conceived statement.
>
>
>
> Here you go again; what do the Nazis War Crime Tribunal, the Iraq war,
> and World War II have to do with injustice in the Gambia? You seem to
> confuse national law and international law. We are talking about
> Gambian citizens who exercised their constitutional right of free
> speech and expression and found themselves convicted and sentenced for
> it. Remember that no one is saying that “everything in this world is
> just, except the Gambia.”* *I think you are the damn fool for trying
> to defend the indefensible.
>
> The fact that segregation laws existed in the US or that Mandela
> decided to setup a Truth and Reconciliation instead of a tribunal, do
> not in any way justify the travesty of justice in the Gambia.
> Furthermore, I don’t care whether China, Saudi Arabia, UK, or US are
> democracies; I care about entrenched rights of Gambians being trampled
> on by Jammeh and his thugs. Conscientious and informed Chinese,
> Saudis, and others, like their Gambians counterparts are everyday
> fighting for their human rights and justice. You and UDP may continue
> legitimizing blatant injustice and think that conscious people would
> listen to your nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself for making
> a bunch of irresponsible statements here.
>
> The following quote of yours shows your true nature:
>
> /[Be advised that even in the United Kingdom there are immoral laws,
> such as the Inheritance Tax. I mean, how immoral can it be to tax the
> dead? But you will be surprised to note that it is the law that exists
> in the UK.] Yanks/
>
> Who are you to judge the Inheritance Tax law of the United Kingdom as
> immoral? Do you even know the reason for the inheritance tax laws? The
> US has a similar law but only less than one percent of the population
> is affected by it. You need to think before you lip. Moral relativists
> would sue you at Jammeh’s kangaroo court for your cultural
> insensitivity. Moreover, morality of UK Inheritance Tax has nothing to
> do with the illegal conviction of the journalists.
>
> /[It means; if I agree with what you are claiming that the law in the
> Gambia is bad law and that law states that Gambians should not kill
> each other, and no one is killing each other, at present, means that
> Gambians are obeying that bad law of Yahya Jammeh. If not they would
> be killing each other. That is the impression you give when you start
> challenging the legal system of the Gambia as simply illegal.] Yanks/
>
> Are you saying that Gambians are blood tasty killers who are only
> restrained by Jammeh’s laws from killing one another? Are you saying
> that without Jammeh’s laws Gambians would be killing one other? Or are
> you saying that Jammeh and his government are licensed to kill,
> torture, detain, and harass Gambians so as to restrain us from
> annihilating one other? This paragraph of yours still needs
> clarification. Gambians are well known for our tolerance,
> peacefulness, and civility. Jammeh and thugs exploit this peaceful
> nature of Gambians and effectively instituted a police state and
> overthrow our Constitution.
>
> I hope you are not speaking for the UDP. The party needs to distance
> itself from your irresponsible statements here. You don’t seem to know
> what you are talking about. I am done with this topic, for I have
> already made my point clear for conscience readers. My conviction is
> that the arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment
> of the six gallant journalists are illegal and immoral.
>
> ML Touray
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:43:52 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
>
> M L Touray wrote:
>
> “/I never said that Legal Positivism is outdated; what I said is that
> your definition of the philosophy is primordial. Contemporary scholars
> of Legal Positivism do qualify the sovereign authority, while earlier
> versions do not.” /
>
> If I remember very well, this was what I stated in my email of the 13
> August 2009, which you misinterpreted as my definition of legal
> positivism, just as you twisted the UDP passage. This was what I stated:
>
> /“the position of the legal positivists, which John Austin, one of the
> proponents of that school of jurisprudence, explained about positivism
> of law and the sovereign powers. He accepted that the sovereign might
> not be a person who by divine or natural right could tell us what we
> ought to obey, but he is identified by the fact that he is obeyed and
> his commands are in fact what we call laws. Therefore, he stated that
> the sovereign is he who receives habitual obedience within a political
> society. He further added that the sovereign could not be bound by
> laws promulgated by previous sovereigns and his powers to make laws
> could not be limited”./
>
>
>
> Now tell me where in this passage did I qualify that this was the
> definition of legal positivism? And even if I did, how can this
> position be outdated. Is it a thing of the past that the sovereign
> states receive habitual obedience of their subjects in a political
> society? Or that the sovereign states are bound by the laws of their
> predecessors or have limits to what laws they can make? The answer
> here is a big no.
>
>
>
> ML Touray, you therefore cannot be correct in calling this position of
> legal positivism as outdated, regardless how you try to twist your words?
>
>
>
> As for your claim that based on my:
>
> /“definition, the primordial definition, apartheid laws and Mandela’s
> 27 years of incarceration would be legal because they were formed by a
> sovereign nation. In the same vein, the holocaust would be considered
> legal because it was formed by a sovereign nation.” /ML Touray
>
> Firstly, I rebut your claim that what I explained above is my
> definition of legal positivism and it does not sanction the laws of
> the Nazis or that of the apartheid regime of South Africa as morally
> justifiable laws.
>
> Secondly, what you failed to understand is that no philosopher will
> support your supposition that the laws of the Nazis were not legal in
> the context of the German law, at the time of Hitler. What was argued
> later, was that they were morally unlawful laws, that ought not to
> have been enforced.
>
> Even that justification, was not without its critics. The war trials
> of the Nazis war criminals in Nuremburg and Tokyo was criticised by J.
> N Shklar, as a pretence of legalism, which was a mere sham. She stated
> that “it would have been more frank to recognise them as the
> elimination of enemies, justified on political grounds.”
>
> And she indeed has a point. Even not just from the political
> perspective, but on the legal perspective, which is that it
> contradicts the legal doctrine that law cannot have retrospective
> effect. The Nazis argued that they acted within the laws of their land
> at the time, but it was adjudicated that those were bad laws and the
> good laws which were existing at the time of the trial could sentence
> them for those crime. That was a retrospective application of the law.
> Just like making a law today to persecute those who took part in the
> slave trade!
>
> From the political perspective, it was only the Nazis who were
> prosecuted for the Holocaust, but the Americans were not prosecuted
> for using the nuclear bomb on the two Japanese cities, or for their
> part in the slavery, which were as brutal as the holocaust? And if the
> trials had further set a legal precedent, why was George Bush and Tony
> Blair not prosecuted for the fake war in Iraq , and why has no Israeli
> ever been prosecuted for the killings of innocent Palestinians?
>
> But it seems that the effect of that tribunals’ legal precedent is
> mainly for Africa and Africans, with the exception of certain Baltic
> States . It cannot apply to the US soldier, as the tribunal lacks
> jurisdiction of the US soldiers. Do you have an answer to this
> discrimination? This is a question you can’t answer.
>
> Therefore, you will be a damned fool to think that every thing in this
> world is just, except the Gambia .
>
> You further mentioned Nelson Mandela and the apartheid laws. Do you
> even know a similar law existed in the mighty United States called
> Segregation? Mandela was a legal scholar, shortly after his release,
> he did not set up a tribunal to prosecute the apartheid regime, but
> set up a truth and reconciliation commission. We cannot ponder on the
> legitimacy of the law locked him for such a long time, as no one was
> tried for its crimes; just like no one was tried in the United State
> for similar crimes.
>
> But this still does not justify the immorality of such laws! And if
> I’m right, such laws have now been repealed in the constitutions of
> both South Africa and the United States .
>
> Therefore, ML Touray, make no mistake, every law is legal at its time.
> They ceased to be law once repealed. If we detest the laws of Yahya
> Jammeh regime, we have to change him and then repeal his laws. At that
> time we can make laws that are morally acceptable to us. Until then it
> would be wronged to question the legality of his laws.
>
> As for your question about “why do we need human right laws, African
> Charter, and others? There are fundamental human rights, such as the
> right to life, free speech, association, and many others that cannot
> be denied by any sovereign nation. Therefore sovereign nations cannot
> form arbitrary laws just to punish a certain section of society or
> contravene their National Constitutions”.
>
> The question I want to ask you is that, what will you do, if the
> sovereign’s breach their conventional obligations. The simply answer
> is nothing. Simply because what you failed to understand is that all
> these conventions, you are referring to, were all craftily drafted;
> such that they are all subjected to the condition of none interference
> with the sovereignty rights of a contracting state.
>
> You still seem oblivion to the concept of sovereignty. No state
> bargains its sovereignty!
>
> As for your further claim that I defended Yahya Jammeh, I think even
> in Jammeh’s sweetest dream, he will not see me his defending him. I
> guess that’s one of your cheap charges.
>
> As for the claim that I call Gambia a democratic society, well that is
> what it’s meant to be. However, I can accept that my choice of phrase
> was a bit inappropriate. Only that I seriously, don’t believe that the
> Gambia is in fact a democratic society. However, I also don’t believe
> that China , is democratic society, nor do I believe Iran to be
> democratic society, or North Korea , or even Saudi Arabia . However, I
> do not believe that democracy is a prerequisite for a sovereign’s
> right to make legal laws for its subject, whether moral or immoral.
>
> Be advised that even in the United Kingdom there are immoral laws,
> such as the Inheritance Tax. I mean, how immoral can it be to tax the
> dead? But you will be surprised to note that it is the law that exists
> in the UK .
>
> As for my quote below:
>
> [/If we say the law in the Gambia is corrupted as you are supposing,
> then even the mere fact that people don’t kill each other in the
> Gambia is wrong. Because by them not killing each other they are
> obeying the illegal laws of Yahya Jammeh or Gambia government. Laws
> are to be obeyed for the good of every one; and it is through the
> obedience of law that we identify the bad ones.]/ Yanks
>
> It means; if I agree with what you are claiming that the law in the
> Gambia is bad law and that law states that Gambians should not kill
> each other, and no one is killing each other, at present, means that
> Gambians are obeying that bad law of Yahya Jammeh. If not they would
> be killing each other. That is the impression you give when you start
> challenging the legal system of the Gambia as simply illegal.
>
> On that note I reiterate again that the sentencing of the six
> journalists is morally wrong, which the UDP statement condemned. The
> UDP further calls for it to be repealed and I believe if it ever wins
> election in the Gambia , it will repeal that law, so that no
> journalist will ever be prosecuted for it again. However, as long is
> not repealed it remains the law, whether morally right or not.
>
> Nemesis Yanks
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:25:03 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Yanks,
>
> I never said that Legal Positivism is outdated; what I said is that
> your definition of the philosophy is primordial. Contemporary scholars
> of Legal Positivism do qualify the sovereign authority, while earlier
> versions do not. Based on your definition, the primordial definition,
> apartheid laws and Mandela’s 27 years of incarceration would be legal
> because they were formed by a sovereign nation. In the same vein, the
> holocaust would be considered legal because it was formed by a
> sovereign nation. We don’t think like that anymore in the 21^st
> century. If legality of laws was just based on being formed by a
> sovereign authority, why do we need human right laws, African Charter,
> and others? There are fundamental human rights, such as the right to
> life, free speech, association, and many others that cannot be denied
> by any sovereign nation. Therefore sovereign nations cannot form
> arbitrary laws just to punish a certain section of society or
> contravene their National Constitutions.
>
>
>
> Moreover, you defense of Yahya Jammeh and the APRC is exceptionally
> good; I have not seen a better defense of this rotten regime. I cannot
> believe you said the following about the Jammeh regime:
>
>
>
> [/The Gambia is further a democratic society. Jammeh was elected by
> the majority, though difficult to verify, but that is what we were
> told by the electoral commission. /*/The Gambian people empowered him
> to make laws./*/ Who is the UDP or we to deny the people’s choice from
> making laws for them?]/ Yanks
>
>
>
> How many innocent Gambias and UDP supporters are still languishing in
> prison? And you dare to say that the Gambia is a democratic state. How
> and When? In fact right after the last presidential election, UDP/NRP
> filed a complaint at the High Court accusing APRC of election
> malpractice. Furthermore, who empowers Jammeh to make laws? I thought
> the legislature is responsible for making laws, not the executive?
>
>
>
> Please help me to understand what you mean by the following quote.
>
>
>
> [/If we say the law in the Gambia is corrupted as you are supposing,
> then even the mere fact that people don’t kill each other in the
> Gambia is wrong. Because by them not killing each other they are
> obeying the illegal laws of Yahya Jammeh or Gambia government. Laws
> are to be obeyed for the good of every one; and it is through the
> obedience of law that we identify the bad ones.]/ Yanks
>
>
>
> ML Touray
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and
> emoticons. Get Them Now
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
> ����������������������������������������������������������
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Internet Explorer 8 - accelerate your Hotmail. Download Internet
> Explorer 8 <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/>
>
> ���������������������������������������������������������� 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]
|
