I don’t think comments like these are in line with the groundviews guidelines – they personal attacks on others.

You say I stole a toffee…I claim I didn’t… the logical thing for me to do is empty the contents of my pocket. Only *one* of us is correct.

Bad example buddy, a person with a sweet tooth would eat it straight away. Then what? Your logic has big cheese holes. In a mathematical domain strict logic holds. Not in the real world. Unless you can account for all possible states that can arise from the situation. Which in most real world cases, approaches infinity. Hence why it is ludicrous to expect anyone to prove their innocence in most cases. If you have ever taken discrete maths, you’d understand why it is easier to disprove a hypothesis as opposed to prove it.

Probably the latter. If I don’t buy into suspect accusations then so be it!

The three COPE reports, even with your suspect English comprehension and intelligence, will make for interesting reading.

suspect English comprehension? English is a second language for me. So I’ll let you have that one.

suspect intelligence? again, what ever that means, if my logic has been formed in a way to require hard facts & evidence as opposed to speculation and accusation then so be it!

Finally if it takes personal insults to win your way, then SO BE IT!

Had a degree of humility and acknowledgment of valid points by others been exercised over this ceaseless display of arrogant puffery, I would not feel compelled to reply to your latest specious answer to Observer.

Never mind the fact that you avoided answering his pointed questions on how you would expect proof to be furnished for certain accusations, never mind the fact that the said “Right to Information” legislation has sadly not even been passed in Sri Lanka, let us for a moment, accept this idealized state of affairs you so ignorantly describe (with the remarkable irony of expecting learning from others) – I will pose the question you evaded earlier once again – did you contact the compaign and at least give them a chance to respond before concluding their guilt? These are basic journalistic ethics, and surely something that ought to be exercised by those commenting with snooty-nosed disdain on the “partisan piffle” of others, if for nothing but to prove one’s own impartiality.

Or are you under the impression that the accused body must, based on non-existent legislature, scour all the trumpery emanations from every other “citizen journalist” on the Internet and proactively furnish non-requested information?

As for the two “unanswerable” questions you raised, their absurdity is only eclipsed by their disingenuity. I’ve already answered the question “Why don’t you ask the campaign?” I just might, but that’s irrelevant. Since when is the onus on the reader to furnish the proof, even though what we’ve done so far is just that? As I mentioned earlier, even in the absence of legislature, I would consider it ethical to assume their guilt upon failure to furnish information, not otherwise. Whether the cost is neligible or not has already been at least partially answered, but the full answer requires inquiry from the campaign. Whether it runs off private donations or not I have no clue. As I’ve repeatedly acknowledged, it’s highly possible they come from ripping off public money, but again, with no inquiry from the campaign, were you expecting to divine an answer, or just join the bandwagon and sling mud?

And just what is it with the pointed refusal to properly acknowledge the findings as they stand now, in which case this entirely unpleasant confrontation could have been avoided? Not being a “poseur citizen” yourself, surely, it should not be difficult?

Last but not least, I don’t think you should persist in this Gotabaya Rajapakse style dichotomy of “MR Fan Club vs the world”, lest your own “churlishness” and binary mindset be irrevocably cemented in the perceptions of others. I believe my reply here, amongst others, (http://www.groundviews.org/2010/01/01/unsolicited-sms-messages-are-spam-please-desist-mr-president/#comment-12560) gives the lie to that style of misdirection.

Thank you!

I remain,

somewhat disgusted.

Did you know that the American President is forced to publicly declare his assets? I know that every time corruption is mentioned, your counter-argument will be something along the lines of “well, its much worse in the West… look what happened in 1812 and 1945…”… anyway, applying some of your logic, if the evil American President can declare his assets, why can’t your much vaunted man in SL do the same? How hard is it to clear one’s name? You say I stole a toffee…I claim I didn’t… the logical thing for me to do is empty the contents of my pocket. Only *one* of us is correct. Its the same way with public accountability. Reveal your assets, then no one can accuse you.

P.S: If you are interested, the above mentioned assets of the US President can be found using Google. The audit, of course, is correct because its done by the IRS, not the President’s friends.

groundviews, it is very, very easy to shatter my fragile self-delusion!

give me (whole of Sri Lanka) 1, just ONE document proving massive corruption. i’m talking order of millions here since the claim is boundless, massive corruption by the administration. i accept there are irregularities, not to the scale you claim though.

If I was in the MR fan club due to blind faith I won’t be requesting for 80 case files of corruption charges to be released to the public? Do you agree? I want all the dirt out in the open as opposed to kata katha that’s becoming comical now. So the confused public like my self can make up our minds. Sure they rob, but how much? That’s my big question. But I will not go with the wind and accept charges in the air.

Clearly you’ve not heard of Right to Information legislation, which goes to address your laborious and convoluted second point. Is it too much to ask for a degree of learning from commentators? Mahinda Rajapakse’s fan club clearly celebrates unbridled self-delusion, much like the man himself.

There is a universal acceptance in all sane legal systems that even serial killers are assumed innocent until proven guilty with good reason – to stop sending innocent to the gallows. But you seem to think the inverse applies to corruption charges.

we believe in the principle that the misappropriation of public funds bears zero tolerance – whether it is 80 million or a single cent.

The only practical way to prove non-irregularities with public funds is the budget statement and income tax records. Which I believe is accessible to the public.

Given the charge sheet by the TISL some of the allegations are virtually impossible to prove innocent of.

Example 1:
Say X amount of gov staff were asked to perform the Y task. The only possible way to disprove this is to ask all the X staff to issue statements saying they did not do the Y task. Do you agree? Even then I’m sure you won’t be satisfied. So how in the world is the government to disprove this?

Example 2:
Say Z amount of buses were used for transporting supporters of gov to a political rally. Unless these buses had GPS tracking devices that logged all of its travels then it’s impossible to prove it was not used for the alleged purpose.

If you don’t get this here is a different sort of an example. I accuse you of frequenting brothels. And the onus is on you to disprove me. How would you go about it?
A. Visit all the known brothels and get statements from the pimps stating you did not visit the brothels ever.
B. You provide alibis for your entire life.

Do you see why your expectations are so silly, ridiculous and ludicrous? Therefore no one can ever expect anyone to prove their innocence unless it’s very straightforward. Even then it shouldn’t be a must! There are even laws that prohibit giving evidence against one self. The onus is on the accuser to provide irrefutable evidence!

It is stated in the TISL report that:

“By 30th December 2009, the Programme for the Protection of Public Resources of TISL has received more than eighty (80) complaints from the public and its investigators about various abuses of public property and election laws/guidelines by the candidates.
Thus far relevant verified instances are mentioned below:”

So why not provide information on who made the complaints and how you verified it? Don’t you think that would be a core part of the report? Why not make available all of those 80 case files if you truly want action to be taken?

“@Observer, we admit that our content and policies tend drive away those who are poseur citizens. Like those who don’t want to even ask, leave aside answer, the questions posed in our article and in subsequent comments, because they are inconvenient and incompatible with what is essentially a loyalty to a corrupt regime.”

What I said before groundviews, is the inconvenient truth! If I had a loyalty to a corrupt regime I wouldn’t be asking for what I have. I’d stay silent. Sure I’ll probably vote for MR. That’s because no one has made a credible case for not voting for him. He did deliver his promise. War finished. Thank you!

But to shift the debate away from a reductionist thrust and parry of our comments, why not engage with the incisive observations and interesting ideas in <em>Online election campaigns in Sri Lanka: The way forward?

Thank you for intervening and not allowing the editor to bully his way out of this dishonest representation of facts. He may have decreed by fiat that we “consider this comment thread as ended” but it’s unlikely that such a move will somehow invalidate the facts.

Dear Groundviews,

“Nearly four years moderating over well over one million words in over ten thousand comments,…”

And I have in the past commended you for your efforts (http://www.groundviews.org/2009/12/20/groundviews-wins-prestigious-manthan-south-asia-award/#comment-12148). You may however, impress others even further should you desist from throwing childish temper tantrums at the first challenge to your own “ground views” and form a rational response to what were essentially benign suggestions from others.

“… who don’t ask the same questions we do, not because we are biased against the incumbents, but because this is what citizenship demands, what we stand for.”

And as has been repeated ad nauseum, no one is questioning your right to do so, and therefore, this disingenuous display of confusion over the real issue is getting just as tedious. I would draw your attention to the fact that characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as “Rajapakse apologists” is entirely reminiscent of the “churlish Gotabaya Rajapakse” whose stance of “if you are not with us, you are against us”, was the very kind of binary logic you proceeded to lambast just yesterday (http://www.groundviews.org/2010/01/08/one-year-later-a-murder-unresolved-a-government-unashamed/).

In any case, I don’t intend to argue with you any further and you may take the suggestions made by several commentators on board (or not), as you please.

cheers!

I am happy to not comment here the day you remove the word citizen from this blog’s tag line! That inclusion of me makes me very uncomfortable. Especially when you claims to voice my opinion and not let me voice my concerns. Make it CPA views or what ever and I promise not to come here.

Thank you.

Neither SomewhatDisgusted’s or Observer’s comments here can be classified as “partisan piffle” – both are trying to come to terms with the fact that in the upcoming election the only apparent choice for the electorate is “between Scylla and Charybdis” – in other words, an unscrupulous crook and a Jekyll-and-Hyde despot. We all seem to agree that the incumbent is corrupt, nepotistic and incompetent. Hence, I tend to agree that it is better to focus on his bigger abuses, than the lesser ones. However, it is fine to disagree on that without throwing insults at one another. Nobody has so far produced any evidence that the contender would also not be corrupt, nepotistic and incompetent. In fact, there is sufficient evidence of his nefarious activities in the past – one journalist aptly termed him as “rae Daniel, daval Miguel”.

Your arrogance is both sad and pointless. If your approach is to drive people away from your website rather than make it a conducive space for debate to take place, so be it. I, for one, am seriously disappointed.