Thank you very much, Igietsime, for focusing on the essence of this matter. Boko Haram violence is described as beginning by being directed at fellow Muslims who did not share their narrow views on Islam. Boko Haram came to the attention of the government on account of such intra-Muslim violence, not because Boko Haram began by attacking govt agents. Boko Haram is openly associated with a drive to create a society modeled on strict Sharia and has not denied that association. Boko Haram describes its goal as that of supplanting the current Nigerian government particularly in Northern Nigeria, and to a lesser extent, in Nigeria as a whole, with an Islamic government. Boko Haram has pursued these goals by trying to create a unified Northern identity by demanding that all Christians and non-Northerners should leave the North, and Muslims and Northerners migrate from the South to the North. They set a deadline, after which they began killing Christians and Southerners in pursuit of their goal. Boko Haram did state that their goal was to avenge the killing of their leader but they have gone far beyond that initial mandate by waging an all out war within Northern Nigeria, killing large numbers of people. What are their clearly stated objectives? To use violence and terror in 1. Enforcing strict Sharia in Northern Nigeria 2. To create a homogenous Islamic identity in Northern Nigeria, eliminating Southerners and non-Muslims 3. To create an educational system that is totally Islamic. Islamic civilization may have given the world central components of Western education, but that does not make Islamic civilization and Islamic education identical with Western civilization and Western education. This culture of groundbreaking scholarship has declined in Islamic civilizations, a situation described by some scholars as due to the resurgence and eventual dominance of dogmatic Islam. Meanwhile, the West has integrated its Islamic, Arab and Persian heritage into a secular framework that eliminates religious dogma. Anybody who wants to catch up in the world of knowledge has to eliminate religious dogma. Muslim societies have not been able to do that and are still overly influenced and in some cases, dominated by an uncritical relationship with Islamic icons such as the Koran and the Prophet Muhammed. These icons are often contradictory to critical knowledge and need to be put in their place if knowledge is to truly grow. True, Muhammad is reputed as declaring ' Seek knowledge, even as far as China'. But to do that truly will imply seeking knowledge even in challenging the Koran and Muhammad. It will involve questions like challenging the validity of claims about the existence of Allah and the authority of Muhammad. Modern Western education is directly based on the overturning of Christian authority in the world of knowledge. Islamic societies have not reached that point. So, Western education is a totally different ball game from Islamic education. The West has traveled much farther in pursuit of the foundations of knowledge and Islamic fundamentalists and extremists of various shades, such as Islamic terrorists like Boko Haram or the feudal, Islamic fundamentalist govt of Saudi Arabia know that the essence of Western education is destructive to religious dogma, which is the essence of their power, and will do everything to fight it, like Saudi Arabia banning books and other acts of legitimized incarceration of its entire populace to open terrorists like Boko Haram burning schools. Boko Haram is described as beginning in an Islamic educational system set up by their leader, which expanded to become a radical and violent group. Part of the Sword of Damocles, the delayed reckoning, represented by Boko Haram is that prominent Northern figures, including online activists like Aliyu Tilde and Abba are refusing to address the core of Boko Haram terrorism in Islamic fundamentalism and instead focu on the after effects of the crises, such as the inadequacies of the Nigerian government in dealing with Boko Haram. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated y the fact that Northern Nigeria has been prone for decades to waves of religious and ethnic centred violence. Islamic terrorist groups like Maitasine and Boko Haram sprout there from time to time by beginning with terrorizing other Muslims before the govt engages with them as was done more successfully with Maitasine. The central problem, therefore, is Islamic fundamentalism. Added to this is a political dimension I am yet to read Northern critics respond to. Are we to dismiss the threats of Atiku and other Northern politicians threatening violence beceause a Northerner was not made President and after which BH violence escalated and outright politicization of its activities became more stark? Can we honestly avoid reading in the increased politicisation of Boko Haram a maneuver directed at 2015 and the implied threat that failing to accede to the demands of Northern politicians is equivalent to courting violence in Nigeria? These issues of Islamic fundamentalism and political implications of Boko Haram in relation to the stated ambitions of some Northern politicians and the role of these two in the relationship between Northern and Southern Nigeria are at the heart of the BH challenge. Yes. Boko Haram is condemned by many in Northern Nigeria. But prominent Northern figures insist that they have legitimate grievances and try to equate them with MEND. . Sanusi insists that they are the result of poverty emerging from skewed resource allocation. Northern govs and other Northern figures reinforced that view by shortly after that Sanusi declaration fighting for more money for the North. Boko Haram thus becomes a crusader for Northern interests. I would like to see a figure from the North examining the relationship of these crises of terrorist Islam to the nature of Islam and ways of interpreting Islam as well as the tendency for religions like Islam and Christianity to breed fanatics and fundamentalists, at times murderous fanatics. The Christian fundamentalists are more tame now but the Islamic extremists are still going strong. This culture of violent Islamic extremism is represented in contemporary times by Maitasine once in Nigeria Boko Haram now in Nigeria All Shabbab in Somalia Al Qaeda globally The Taliban in Afghanistan waging war against everything that did not fit their narrow view of Islam Muslims killing people who they think have insulted Islam The man who killed Van Gogh in the Netherlands for his film on Islam Murderous Muslim riots in Northern Nigeria because of the Danish anti-Muhammad cartoons, murderous Muslim riots in Northern Nigeria because of a beauty pageant, among other examples of the culture of anti-Southern and anti-Muslim pogrom culture of Northern Nigeria The death sentence of the Iranian Ayatollah against Salaman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses based on a true story in which Muhammed discredited some Koranic verses beceause he later believed they came from the Devil (See 'Satanic Verses' in Muhammed at Medina by Montgomery Watt and Google). Rushdie's book plays with the idea-who knows the source of the other verses, are they any more credible than the 'Satanic ones'? in the context of an imaginative exploration of Muhammed's alleged prophetic inspiration. The most prominent face of global Islam is irrational violence. From the Nigerian pants bomber Mutallab to the 9/11 terrorists. They all rationalize their resort to violence. Boko Haram speaks of avenging their leader and other Muslims, thereby justifying massive massacres in a campaign of terror that avenges their leader many times over while working towards inane social goals, like their brand of Sharia and threatening to destroy the Nigerian state and remake it in their own image Al Qaeda will mention fighting against Western imperialism and thereby massacring large numbers of innocent people. Individuals who kill in the name of Islam will focus on avenging the honour of their religion. The bottom line is while others try to address their differences through various means, the most prominent face of Islam is the resort to murderous violence. Meanwhile some like Abba are focusing on inadequacies of Nigerian govt in relation to BH. That has some significance but to exaggerate it, as Abba and other covert BH Haram apologists like Aliyu Tilde do is like pursuing a rat while the house is burning What house?- specifically Northern Nigeria and the corporate integrity of Islam. thanks toyin | Mar 19 (2 days ago)  | | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Toyin:
I would appreciate if you leave me out of your online discourse from now on...I do not interact with those whose sense of ethics are not beyond reproach (ie those who misrepresent others and circulate those misrepresentations beyond the original lists such discussions were conducted within). You may mean well, but I do not interact with people who do what you do.
Abba
3. 
Abba
| Mar 20 (1 day ago) | | ||
| ||||
I POSTED THE LAST SECTION BELOW THE CONCLUSION BY MISTAKE SO IT WAS NOT EDITED. I HAVE EDITED IT IN THIS VERSION
Abba,
You are confused.
You declared earlier that you want to influence Nigerian government policy by debating on Internet fora and you are now complaining that you are misrepresented on fora where you cannot defend yourself.
Is that not a contradiction?
By your own declaration, you are not in govt.
If your views travel to the corridors of govt as you stated you aspire to, will you be there to defend those views, particularly if they are not presented in ways that make you comfortable?
Can you guarantee that your views will be seen in exactly the ways that will make you happy?
In debating with you, I began by
QUOTING YOU ACCURATELY, VERBATIM, WORD FOR WORD,
before proceeding to
ANALYSE YOUR WORDS, LINE BY LINE.
A person who wants his ideas to travel beyond the limited space they are expressed should be honoured by that level of attention.
Since you wanted your ideas to travel far and wide, even to the attention of the govt, what better way to achieve that goal than through a critic who distributes them them far and wide?
I have done you a favour.
You ought to thank me for giving you such exposure in the first place. Seriously speaking.
But you dont understand because your motives might not be fully straightforward and you might be afraid that your hidden motives might come to light.
I had wanted to suggest a comprehensive posting of our exchange, posting your views and mine in detail but you do not really understand what is at stake and have chickened out.
My last response to you was a serious academic exercise, reinforced with references, from both online sources and printed books in various disciplines. The quality of attention I lavished on it makes it comparable to a Platonic dialogue.
My other responses to you constitute a series of essays that span the history of science from the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century to the present, also engaging with the philosophy of science. I had earlier posted them as parts of the threads where I responded to you but I will now post them as stand alone essays.
I have delayed publicly archiving my earlier responses to you but I will make sure I do so today, so people can compare our views, and make up their minds about whether or not I misrepresented you on Soyinka, plus examine your intellectual limitations on the arts, science and technology.
I will distribute my views and yours widely online-Facebook, blogger, Scribd, academia. edu.
I operate this way because I take what I do online with the utmost seriousness.
You could find a similar strategy useful in your future endeavors.
Next time you want to start talking in public about science and technology because you have some exposure there, read my detailed my detailed rebuttal to your narrow understanding of these fields, quoting the very scientists and engineers you challenged me to quote in support of my views.
Next time you want to comment on the arts, of which you know little, read my response to you on that subject.
Next time you want to comment on Boko Haram , making shallow comments that the goals of Boko Haram are not important to addressing their madness, read what I have written on this thread on the global pervasiveness of Islamic terrorism and the roots of Boko Haram in that problem.
When one of your celebrators declared that 'Abba is right again' in relation to the Minister of Education expressing an opinion that you both interpreted as coinciding with yours, you declared that it appears the govt is heeding your opinions.
You want your ideas to travel beyond these online fora and yet you are not ready to defend those ideas when vigorously challenged by a person ready to devote up to a week examining them in detail so as to refute them, as I did.
You run away, claiming righteous indignation because I refuse to agree that your words mean exactly what you claim, words uttered in public and therefore available to public analysis.
You cannot be be serious.
If your ideas are to travel beyond these fora, as you declare you aspire to, should you not expect a variety of perspectives on those ideas?
The problem is that you are too fearful.
You have not made up your mind on what you stand for.
You cannot in one moment engage in public debate because you want your ideas to travel far and wide and then try to dismiss someone who is actually helping you achieve your goal.
You are not bold enough to carry the weight of the endeavors you are heaping on yourself.
Get real, get serious or keep quiet.
Defend yourself on Soyinka or keep quiet.
Defend yourself in public on your views expressed in public or remain in your bedroom and talk only among your family and friends who dont argue with you.
On your views that the stated and implicit goals and ideological and operational history of Boko Haram are not relevant to addressing the threat they represent-
How do you convince Islamic terrorists that the Koran and Sharia can not address all or even most human problems?
How do you convince them that Islam and Sharia are products of an ancient age and need modernization?
Until you can convince them so, they are likely to continue to erupt in Northern Nigeria.
How do you convince those self understood defenders of interests of Northern Nigerian factions that the violence they wish on or have unleashed on Nigeria will only discredit them and their region and religion in the long run?
Abba, your region is burning. Your religion is discredited. Yet you pursue rats along the floor.
You need to look again at your views on Soyinka as stated in our last exchange and other sources, since you say your views on Soyinka are well known, meaning you have expressed them in other contexts. You need to separate the following
1. Your views on Soyinka as a public commentator and actor in public affairs, particularly in politics, those views that lead you to describe him as a 'tribalist of the highest order'
2. Your views on Soyinka as an artist and his relevance to Nigeria in that context, those views that lead you to describe him as a storyteller whose art is of little relevance to modern nation building.
3. Your views on the arts in relation to science and technology, those views that lead you to declare the fact that you dont know of up to two Nobel Prize winners in literature indicates that those prizes do not really matter because the arts and the sciences are not relevant in modern nation building unlike the centrality of science and technology.
4. The relationship of your views on arts vis a vis science and technology to realities and views of others over a broad geographical scope.
5. It would also be helpful to look into issues of implicit relationship between various aspects of what you write or speak, as between your comments on Soyinka as an artist, on the miniscule value of his Nobel Prize in Literature, the little value of the arts in nation building, comments made on the context of a thread addressing Soyinka's argument that Boko Haram is a child of Northern politicians and Northern Islamic fundamentalism. You did not directly address Soyinka's position on Boko Haram but you suggested that it has little value, on account of your dismissing him as a tribalist. Soyinka's focus was on an ethnic region, so is it far fetched for readers to conclude that you dismiss Soyinka's critical views in relation to a particular region, your region, the Northern region by describing him as a tribalist who rubbishing an ethnic group different from his own?
You would have served yourself better by critiquing Soyinka on his argument hut you chose to work through implication, and I unraveled those implication.
The problem with your comment that began our debate was that you tried to correlate these views, indirectly and at times directly.
thanks
toyin
Abba,
You are confused.
You declared earlier that you want to influence Nigerian government policy by debating on Internet fora and you are now complaining that you are misrepresented on fora where you cannot defend yourself.
Is that not a contradiction?
By your own declaration, you are not in govt.
If your views travel to the corridors of govt as you stated you aspire to, will you be there to defend those views, particularly if they are not presented in ways that make you comfortable?
Can you guarantee that your views will be seen in exactly the ways that will make you happy?
In debating with you, I began by
QUOTING YOU ACCURATELY, VERBATIM, WORD FOR WORD,
before proceeding to
ANALYSE YOUR WORDS, LINE BY LINE.
A person who wants his ideas to travel beyond the limited space they are expressed should be honoured by that level of attention.
Since you wanted your ideas to travel far and wide, even to the attention of the govt, what better way to achieve that goal than through a critic who distributes them them far and wide?
I have done you a favour.
You ought to thank me for giving you such exposure in the first place. Seriously speaking.
I had wanted to suggest a comprehensive posting of our exchange, posting your views and mine in detail but you do not really understand what is at stake and have chickened out.
My last response to you was a serious academic exercise, reinforced with references, from both online sources and printed books in various disciplines. The quality of attention I lavished on it makes it comparable to a Platonic dialogue.
My other responses to you constitute a series of essays that span the history of science from the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century to the present, also engaging with the philosophy of science. I had earlier posted them as parts of the threads where I responded to you but I will now post them as stand alone essays.
I have delayed publicly archiving my earlier responses to you but I will make sure I do so today, so people can compare our views, and make up their minds about whether or not I misrepresented you on Soyinka, plus examine your intellectual limitations on the arts, science and technology.
I will distribute my views and yours widely online-Facebook, blogger, Scribd, academia. edu.
I operate this way because I take what I do online with the utmost seriousness.
You could find a similar strategy useful in your future endeavors.
Next time you want to start talking in public about science and technology because you have some exposure there, read my detailed my detailed rebuttal to your narrow understanding of these fields, quoting the very scientists and engineers you challenged me to quote in support of my views.
Next time you want to comment on the arts, of which you know little, read my response to you on that subject.
Next time you want to comment on Boko Haram , making shallow comments that the goals of Boko Haram are not important to addressing their madness, read what I have written on this thread on the global pervasiveness of Islamic terrorism and the roots of Boko Haram in that problem.
When one of your celebrators declared that 'Abba is right again' in relation to the Minister of Education expressing an opinion that you both interpreted as coinciding with yours, you declared that it appears the govt is heeding your opinions.
You want your ideas to travel beyond these online fora and yet you are not ready to defend those ideas when vigorously challenged by a person ready to devote up to a week examining them in detail so as to refute them, as I did.
You run away, claiming righteous indignation because I refuse to agree that your words mean exactly what you claim, words uttered in public and therefore available to public analysis.
You cannot be be serious.
If your ideas are to travel beyond these fora, as you declare you aspire to, should you not expect a variety of perspectives on those ideas?
The problem is that you are too fearful.
You have not made up your mind on what you stand for.
You cannot in one moment engage in public debate because you want your ideas to travel far and wide and then try to dismiss someone who is actually helping you achieve your goal.
You are not bold enough to carry the weight of the endeavors you are heaping on yourself.
Get real, get serious or keep quiet.
Defend yourself on Soyinka or keep quiet.
Defend yourself in public on your views expressed in public or remain in your bedroom and talk only among your family and friends who dont argue with you.
On your views that the stated and implicit goals and ideological and operational history of Boko Haram are not relevant to addressing the threat they represent-
How do you convince Islamic terrorists that the Koran and Sharia can not address all or even most human problems?
How do you convince them that Islam and Sharia are products of an ancient age and need modernization?
Until you can convince them so, they are likely to continue to erupt in Northern Nigeria.
How do you convince those self understood defenders of interests of Northern Nigerian factions that the violence they wish on or have unleashed on Nigeria will only discredit them and their region and religion in the long run?
Abba, your region is burning. Your religion is discredited. Yet you pursue rats along the floor.
1. Your views on Soyinka as a public commentator and actor in public affairs, particularly in politics, those views that lead you to describe him as a 'tribalist of the highest order'
2. Your views on Soyinka as an artist and his relevance to Nigeria in that context, those views that lead you to describe him as a storyteller whose art is of little relevance to modern nation building.
4. The relationship of your views on arts vis a vis science and technology to realities and views of others over a broad geographical scope.
You would have served yourself better by critiquing Soyinka on his argument hut you chose to work through implication, and I unraveled those implication.
The problem with your comment that began our debate was that you tried to correlate these views, indirectly and at times directly.
thanks
toyin
4.
Mar 20 (1 day ago) | | |||
| ||||
Toyin,
You got me to break my promise never to write to you by repeating another misrepresentation. When did I ever say to you (or anyone else) that I want to ``influence Nigerian government policy by debating on internet fora"? My interest is to share ideas with like-minded Nigerians (who uphold the highest standards of integrity, ethics and patriotism) with the hope of collectively making Nigeria forward. I care not what the government does or does not do. All I care about is how best to fix Nigeria.
I know what contradiction means, Toyin. My first year logic and set theory students can teach you about that.
What you did was wrong, and you would do well to learn from that. We teach our students to be ethical in everything they do. When you write about someone, and you have the intention make such writing in places where that someone does not have access to, the ethical thing to do is to
(i) seek the person's permission and (ii) ask the person to read and approve what you are saying about them.
I do not have any interest in engaging you in a negative way. That's not my style. I commended your initial writeups because you were respectful, ethical and detailed. Your last few writeups have let a lot to be desired of. As I teacher, I take it upon myself to try as much as possible to teach. You offered a ``teachable moment", which I cannot, in true conscience, overlook. Had you not done what you did, you and I would have had a great debate (and I am sure many would benefit from such).
I did not bother to read what you wrote below. You do not know for a bit, hence have no capacity to judge what I am thinking or not thinking. You drew conclusions that were wrong and used them as premise to draw bunch of other erroneous ones. My suggestion to you is to learn to ask questions...and get the truth about anything you are writing about...before attributing things to others. For instance, you do not my history vis-a-vis the Soyinka issue...you only rushed to judgement based on one or two emails you read (and read totally out of context). You could have saved yourself all these by simply asking questions. In anycase, my point is simply that it is terribly unethical for anyone to write and circulate stuff, based on clear misrepresentations and false premises against others, in places where the person being misrepresented does not have the opportunity to defend him/herself. You may choose to learn from this or keep to your ways. I have chosen never to interact with people who are challenged in the ethics department.
5.
| Mar 20 (1 day ago) | | ||
| ||||
Abba,
When you first objected to my restating and redistributing your views on Soyinka, you simply objected and gave your reasons. You urged me to correct the wrong impression of your views you described me as giving, particularly since I had distributed my essay widely online.
In that post, I simply summarized your views very briefly.
In my response to you, I then quoted you in full before critiquing you.
Then you refused to respond further, claiming righteous indignation.
Why did you respond to the first critique that did not quote you, thereby not giving a chance for readers to read you directly, and not to the second one that quoted you?
Because you see the uphill task it will take you to meet the challenge of the analysis of your words?
Also, since you like to argue on online fora, you seem to need some education about the Internet.
You are in a public space. This space is more public than being out on the street. Anything you say here is louder and escapes faster than shouting on the street. No one is obliged to refer back to you before repeating what you have stated ion the public street of cyber space. So, get real.
If you choose to run away anytime I show up to tear your shallow views apart, you will have nowhere to hide on Nigerian fora. So, that option might be available to you unless you admit your cowardice to yourself and leave the space to those who are serious.
Now, I am about to bring up the mail where you described your dreams of being a public intellectual who wants to influence govt policy by debating on online fora since members of govt or those who have their ears are on such fora.
Next time, like on Soyinka, you will learn to be careful when you communicate in public.
toyin
You dont get it.
You dont seem to know where you are.
You need an education in public communication.
As for your denial of your claim of wanting to influence govt policy, I will post the relevant emails in the next one hour at most.
When you first objected to my restating and redistributing your views on Soyinka, you simply objected and gave your reasons. You urged me to correct the wrong impression of your views you described me as giving, particularly since I had distributed my essay widely online.
In that post, I simply summarized your views very briefly.
In my response to you, I then quoted you in full before critiquing you.
Then you refused to respond further, claiming righteous indignation.
Why did you respond to the first critique that did not quote you, thereby not giving a chance for readers to read you directly, and not to the second one that quoted you?
Because you see the uphill task it will take you to meet the challenge of the analysis of your words?
Also, since you like to argue on online fora, you seem to need some education about the Internet.
You are in a public space. This space is more public than being out on the street. Anything you say here is louder and escapes faster than shouting on the street. No one is obliged to refer back to you before repeating what you have stated ion the public street of cyber space. So, get real.
If you choose to run away anytime I show up to tear your shallow views apart, you will have nowhere to hide on Nigerian fora. So, that option might be available to you unless you admit your cowardice to yourself and leave the space to those who are serious.
Now, I am about to bring up the mail where you described your dreams of being a public intellectual who wants to influence govt policy by debating on online fora since members of govt or those who have their ears are on such fora.
Next time, like on Soyinka, you will learn to be careful when you communicate in public.
toyin
You dont get it.
You dont seem to know where you are.
You need an education in public communication.
As for your denial of your claim of wanting to influence govt policy, I will post the relevant emails in the next one hour at most.
6.
| Mar 20 (1 day ago) | | ||
| ||||
I KNEW I WOULD FIND IT.
Here are Abba's declarations about his aspiration to
INFLUENCE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT POLICY BY TAKING PART IN ONLINE DEBATES ON THESE FORA.
The standard sly response from Abba is to pretend not to have noticed when he has been caught out in his game.
According to Leye Ige "His arguments are shallow. It is quite possible to mock without exhibiting shallowness of thought. He usually "withdraws" when cornered, especially when he goes on about not disparaging others like Wole Soyinka and Prof Awojobi; which he does." ( Source : Nigerian World Forum Message #185347 on the thread "Ethnic envy and IDIOTIC TIRADE AGAINST WOLE SOYINKA.")
In his effort to discredit Soyinka by discrediting the arts, I proved him wrong by a survey of the history of science but he pretended not to notice.
He stated that I could not prove my assertions about his efforts to dismiss Soyinka on account of Soyinka's linking of Boko Haram to endemic Northern Nigerian Islamic extremism and the desperation of some Northern politicians. I proved it through a painstaking analysis of his words, quoting him verbatim and analysing his words line by line. He then claimed offense that I misrepresented him, and so he would not engage my meticulous analysis of his words.
He has now shouted to all that he never stated he wants to influence Nigerian government policy by debating in online fora, describing me as dishonest for stating that.
I now display his words stating exactly that, from two different emails and give links to those mails on the website of the Nigerian World Forum.
We are dealing here with a person pursuing an agenda of the more shallow kinds of pro-Northern agitation. He represents a generation that has misled Northern Nigeria for decades and his dangerous views must be vigorously countered
Northern Nigerian youth are beginning to realise that they have been shortchanged by people like Abba and those youth need to be assisted to break off the yoke foisted on them by the Abba faction, who are dedicated to a pursuit of a spurious pro-Northern agenda, while steadily avoiding Northern Nigeria's genuine problems.
In that spirit, Abba wants Nigerians to forget the Boko Haram is a child of Islamic extremism endemic in Northern Nigeria as well as being a manifestation of the aspirations of desperate Northern Nigerian politicians, since the escalation of the group's terror campaign followed their declaration of violence on Nigeria. That circumstantial evidence is enough for these Northern politicians to be prosecuted in a court of law. Instead, we have Northern Nigeria about to be offered 13 percent derivation on the basis of Boko Haram terror after Sanusi uncritically links Boko Haram and revenue derivation, failing to address the social structure of Northern Nigeria and the monumental greed of its elites that are designed in a way that militate against development in terms of a modern society.
Boko Haram therefore becomes a representative of the Northern Nigerian political establishment by default beceause it is being positioned as responding to the region's genuine grievances, when in fact, no amount of money will resolve problems emerging from the elite keeping the region in a feudal mindset, fueled by religious bigotry.
1.
SEE PARAGRAPH THREE, HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK BY ME
Abba
To verify the existence of this mail from Abba on the sites of the relevant groups, see the following link:
Nigerian World Forum Message #185459.
2.
Thanks.
Toyin
Here are Abba's declarations about his aspiration to
INFLUENCE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT POLICY BY TAKING PART IN ONLINE DEBATES ON THESE FORA.
The standard sly response from Abba is to pretend not to have noticed when he has been caught out in his game.
According to Leye Ige "His arguments are shallow. It is quite possible to mock without exhibiting shallowness of thought. He usually "withdraws" when cornered, especially when he goes on about not disparaging others like Wole Soyinka and Prof Awojobi; which he does." ( Source : Nigerian World Forum Message #185347 on the thread "Ethnic envy and IDIOTIC TIRADE AGAINST WOLE SOYINKA.")
In his effort to discredit Soyinka by discrediting the arts, I proved him wrong by a survey of the history of science but he pretended not to notice.
He stated that I could not prove my assertions about his efforts to dismiss Soyinka on account of Soyinka's linking of Boko Haram to endemic Northern Nigerian Islamic extremism and the desperation of some Northern politicians. I proved it through a painstaking analysis of his words, quoting him verbatim and analysing his words line by line. He then claimed offense that I misrepresented him, and so he would not engage my meticulous analysis of his words.
He has now shouted to all that he never stated he wants to influence Nigerian government policy by debating in online fora, describing me as dishonest for stating that.
I now display his words stating exactly that, from two different emails and give links to those mails on the website of the Nigerian World Forum.
We are dealing here with a person pursuing an agenda of the more shallow kinds of pro-Northern agitation. He represents a generation that has misled Northern Nigeria for decades and his dangerous views must be vigorously countered
Northern Nigerian youth are beginning to realise that they have been shortchanged by people like Abba and those youth need to be assisted to break off the yoke foisted on them by the Abba faction, who are dedicated to a pursuit of a spurious pro-Northern agenda, while steadily avoiding Northern Nigeria's genuine problems.
In that spirit, Abba wants Nigerians to forget the Boko Haram is a child of Islamic extremism endemic in Northern Nigeria as well as being a manifestation of the aspirations of desperate Northern Nigerian politicians, since the escalation of the group's terror campaign followed their declaration of violence on Nigeria. That circumstantial evidence is enough for these Northern politicians to be prosecuted in a court of law. Instead, we have Northern Nigeria about to be offered 13 percent derivation on the basis of Boko Haram terror after Sanusi uncritically links Boko Haram and revenue derivation, failing to address the social structure of Northern Nigeria and the monumental greed of its elites that are designed in a way that militate against development in terms of a modern society.
Boko Haram therefore becomes a representative of the Northern Nigerian political establishment by default beceause it is being positioned as responding to the region's genuine grievances, when in fact, no amount of money will resolve problems emerging from the elite keeping the region in a feudal mindset, fueled by religious bigotry.
1.
SEE PARAGRAPH THREE, HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK BY ME
| from: | Abba abba2007@gmail.com via yahoogroups.com | ||
| reply-to: | NIgerianWorldForum@ | ||
| to: | NIgerianWorldForum@ | ||
| cc: | Dandalin Siyasa <dandalin-siyasa@yahoogroups. naijapolitics <NaijaPolitics@yahoogroups.com Nigerian Observer group <naijaobserver@yahoogroups.com Ra'ayi Riga <raayiriga@yahoogroups.com> |
Kunle,
I do not, and can never,see the connection between arts and science. Like I said before (thanks Joe), just look around you: the spoons, the TV, the cellphone, the car, the laptop etc. Art has absolutely zero role
in the invention of these gadgets. I do science every day. Not once has ``arts" being relevant in what I do.
Kunle: modern nations are built based on one thing and one thing only: advances in science and technology.
I am taking time to relentlessly partake in this discussion because I know a number of people with the ears of the President (including some Ministers) are on this list. It is
extremely important that those in the pro-arts vanguard do not confuse our already very confused Commander-in-Chief into diminishing the singular role of science and technology
in transforming Nigeria. What has Soyinka's story-telling and plays got to do with national development? Tell me, Kunle.
Arts has its roles in society. Building the much-needed knowledge-based economy rooted in excellence in science and technology is NOT (and can never be) one of them.
To verify the existence of this mail from Abba on the sites of the relevant groups, see the following link:
Nigerian World Forum Message #185459.
2.
| from: | Abba abba2007@gmail.com via returns.groups.yahoo.com | ||
| reply-to: | NIgerianWorldForum@ | ||
| to: | NIgerianWorldForum@ | ||
| date: | Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:58 AM | ||
| subject: | Re: [NIgerianWorldForum] ABBA VINDICATED AGAIN: No Progress Without Sound Mathematics – Minister | ||
| mailing list: | <NIgerianWorldForum. |
Dear Muhammad,
I am glad the Minister is listening to our words of wisdom. This is a right step in the right direction.
Abba
To verify the existence of this mail from Abba on the sites of the relevant groups, see the following link:
Nigerian World Forum : Message #187865
Abba was responding to the post
....
Source : Nigerian World Forum Message #187862
3. Response of Valentine Ojo highlighting the implications of Abba's claim that the Minister of Education is 'listening to his words of wisdom'
Source : Nigerian World Forum : Message #187948
To verify the existence of this mail from Abba on the sites of the relevant groups, see the following link:
Nigerian World Forum : Message #187865
Abba was responding to the post
[NIgerianWorldForum] ABBA VINDICATED AGAIN: No Progress Without Sound Mathematics – Minister
by| from: | Muhammad muhd. muhd.muhammad@yahoo.com | ||
| reply-to: | NIgerianWorldForum@ | ||
| to: | "NIgerianWorldForum@ | ||
| date: | Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:52 AM | ||
| subject: | [NIgerianWorldForum] ABBA VINDICATED AGAIN: No Progress Without Sound Mathematics – Minister |
Sun, 04/03/2012 - 2:50am | KUNI TYESSI
The Minister of Education, Professor Ruqayyatu Rufai yesterday said there can be no progress without sound education in mathematics and the sciences while declaring the readiness of the Federal government to support unwaveringly, any effort aimed at enhancing the performance of students in Mathematics and the revamping of the teaching and learning of the subject at all levels of the educational strata in Nigeria.
....
Source : Nigerian World Forum Message #187862
3. Response of Valentine Ojo highlighting the implications of Abba's claim that the Minister of Education is 'listening to his words of wisdom'
| from: | Valentine Ojo elewuoye@gmail.com via returns.groups.yahoo.com | ||
| reply-to: | nigeria360@yahoogroups.com | ||
| to: | Yan Arewa <yanarewa@yahoogroups.com> |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
'Abba Gumel, the Minister - being an Hausa like you - is not only "listening to your words of wisdom", she reads EVERYTHING that you post on these forums.
That is where she gets her idea how to run her ministry!
And once we succeed in "the revamping of the teaching and learning of the subject [Maths] at all levels of the educational strata in Nigeria", Nigeria will begin to see signs of 'National Development'!
Let us now wait and see how Abba Gumel and "the Minister of Education, Professor Ruqayyatu Rufai" will use "the revamping of the teaching and learning of the subject [Maths] at all levels of the educational strata in Nigeria" to "develop" Northern Nigeria to catch up with the rest of Nigeria!!'
Source : Nigerian World Forum : Message #187948
Thanks.
Toyin
7.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Abba <abba2007@gmail.com> wrote:
8.
12.
Abba
13.
Abba
14.
Abba
15.
Abba's attitude to being defeated in debate is dishonest. Anytime he is pushed into a corner he tries to change the rules.
He declared that I cant prove my arguments about his attitude to Soyinka. I took time to prove your argument, then he insists that he wont comment further because he has been misrepresented and is unhappy that I posted his words and my analysis of them in places where he cant defend himself.
I respond that I am actually helping him spread his ideas since he had earlier stated that he wants top influence the govt through online debate. He denies he ever stated that. He again makes much song and dance about being misrepresented.
I produce the emails where he stated exactly that and then he says no, you did not mean that when his words clearly state otherwise.
He declares-
'If I accused anyone of saying something that I quote clearly, I will provide a direct and clear quote that matches what I said verbatim.'
Since he is pretending that I did not quite him verbatim, I reproduce the relevant quotes from his emails in the post below. I will also make sure I blog this debate to avoid a persomn wating to deny in broad dayl;ight what they stated in public.
He then tries to describe me as maligning him when I simply work on the logic of his own words.
Therefore, I describe him as dishonest.
He needs help.
He has a personality problem.
On Abba Struggling to Deny His Own Words
Abba stated:
Or to take them to the kitchen of ideas of the government and use them?
If you dont want such " people with the ears of the President (including some Ministers) are on this list' to use your ideas, then why do you state, in response to the thread
'Abba Vindicated Again-No Progress Without Sound Mathematics-Minister [of Education]. '
that
Clearly, Abba, you need a course in those very arts you so despise.
You need a course in how to interpret yourself to the world. The course is called rhetoric, semiotics, linguistics-semantics,. discourse analysis. A first year student in languages would not try to deny the facts of their own words like you are struggling to do.
As I stated, Abba, you need to define who you really are to yourself and the world.
I would have advised what to do in all sincerity because it is as clear to me as daylight but you have chosen to alienate me so I will let you go your way.
What we observe in your self contradiction here is a confusion of self image. Such issues are dealt with in psychology and philosophy. Some guidance in these areas would benefit you so you dont come here and generate self denying claims.
Your attitude to being defeated is dishonest. Anytime you are pushed into a corner you try to change the rules.
You declared that I cant prove my arguments about your attitude to Soyinka. I took time to prove your argument, then you argued that you wont conment further beceause you are misreprrsentredf.
You declared that you never stated you want to influence govt policy through online debate, making much song and dance about your new claim that I was misrepresenting you on that.
I produce the emails where you stated exactly that and then you say no, you did not mean that when your words clearly state otherwise.
You then go and try to describe me as maligning you when I simply work on the logic of your own words.
Therefore, I describe you as dishonest.
You need help.
thanks
toyin
Toyin:This is my last response to you...and is meant to correct one more misrepresentation.No one is afraid of anyone or anything. I do not know whether they are teaching you ethics at the institution you are studying at, but it is unethical for anyone to do the sort of thing you did (misrepresenting someone and widely circulating such misrepresentations...to lists where the person you misrepresented does not have the chance to defend him/herself).I usually do not say this, but it is clear that you are not in my league. The people who teach you probably are. It was a mistake engaging you in the first place (you did entice me with your good manners at the beginning, but it is clear now what your true colours are).Abba
8.
| Mar 20 (1 day ago) | | ||
| ||||
Abba,
You are confused.
You declared earlier that you want to influence Nigerian government policy by debating on Internet fora and you are now complaining that you are misrepresented on fora where you cannot defend yourself.
Is that not a contradiction?
By your own declaration, you are not in govt.
If your views travel to the corridors of govt as you stated you aspire to, will you be there to defend those views, particularly if they are not presented in ways that make you comfortable?
Can you guarantee that your views will be seen in exactly the ways that will make you happy?
In debating with you, I began by
QUOTING YOU ACCURATELY, VERBATIM, WORD FOR WORD,
before proceeding to
ANALYSE YOUR WORDS, LINE BY LINE.
A person who wants his ideas to travel beyond the limited space they are expressed should be honoured by that level of attention.
Since you wanted your ideas to travel far and wide, even to the attention of the govt, what better way to achieve that goal than through a critic who distributes them them far and wide?
I have done you a favour.
You ought to thank me for giving you such exposure in the first place. Seriously speaking.
But you dont understand becesuase your motives might not be fully straightforward and you might be afraid that your hidden motives might come to light.
I had wanted to suggest a comprehensive posting of our exchange, posting your views and mine in detail but you do not really understand what is at stake and have chickened out.
My last response to you was a serious academic exercise, reinforced with references, from both online sources and printed books in various disciplines. The quality of attention I lavished on it makes it comparable to a Platonic dialogue.
My other responses to you constitute a series of essays that span the history of science from the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century to the present, also engaging with the philosophy of science. I had earlier posted them as parts of the threads where I responded to you but I will now post them as stand alone essays.
I have delayed publicly archiving my earlier responses to you but I will make sure I do so today, so people can compare our views, and make up their minds about whether or not I misrepresented you on Soyinka, plus examine your intellectual limitations on the arts, science and technology.
I will distribute my views and yours widely online-Facebook, blogger, Scribd, academia. edu.
I operate this way because I take what I do online with the utmost seriousness.
You could find a similar strategy useful in your future endeavors.
Next time you want to start talking in public about science and technology because you have some exposure there, read my detailed my detailed rebuttal to your narrow understanding of these fields, quoting the very scientists and engineers you challenged me to quote in support of my views.
Next time you want to comment on the arts, of which you know little, read my response to you on that subject.
Next time you want to comment on Boko Haram , making shallow comments that the goals of Boko Haram are not important to addressing their madness, read what I have written on this thread on the global pervasiveness of Islamic terrorism and the roots of Boko Haram in that problem.
When one of your celebrators declared that 'Abba is right again' in relation to the Minister of Education expressing an opinion that you both interpreted as coinciding with yours, you declared that it appears the govt is heeding your opinions.
You want your ideas to travel beyond these online fora and yet you are not ready to defend those ideas when vigorously challenged by a person ready to devote up to a week examining them in detail so as to refute them, as I did.
You run away, claiming righteous indignation because I refuse to agree that your words mean exactly what you claim, words uttered in public and therefore available to public analysis.
You cannot be be serious.
If your ideas are to travel beyond these fora, as you declare you aspire to, should you not expect a variety of perspectives on those ideas?
The problem is that you are too fearful.
You have not made up your mind on what you stand for.
You cannot in one moment engage in public debate because you want your ideas to travel far and wide and then try to dismiss someone who is actually helping you achieve your goal.
You are not bold enough to carry the weight of the endeavors you are heaping on yourself.
Get real, get serious or keep quiet.
Defend yourself on Soyinka or keep quiet.
Defend yourself in public on your views expressed in public or remain in your bedroom and talk only among your family and friends who dont argue with you.
On your views that the stated and implicit goals and ideological and operational history of Boko Haram are not relevant to addressing the threat they represent-
How do you convince Islamic terrorists that the Koran and Sharia can not address all or even most human problems?
How do you convince them that Islam and Sharia are products of an ancient age and need modernization?
Until you can convince them so, they are likely to continue to erupt in Northern Nigeria.
How do you convince those self understood defenders of interests of Northern Nigerian factions that the violence they wish on or have unleashed on Nigeria will only discredit them and their region and religion in the long run?
Abba, your region is burning. Your religion is discredited. Yet you pursue rats along the floor.
Toyin
I will try to help you on that.
You need to look again at your views on Soyinka as stated in that exchange and othyer sources, since you say your views on Soyinka are well known, meaning you have expressed them in other contexts. You need to sepraste the following
1. Your views on Soyinka as a public commentator and actor in public affairs, particularly in politics, those views that lead you to describe him as a 'tribalist of the highest order'
2. Your views on Soyinka as an artist and his relevance to Nigeria in that context, those views that lead you to describe him as a storyteller whose art is of little relevance to modern nation building.
3. Your views on the arts in relation to science and technology, those views that lead you to declare the fact that you dont know of up to two Nobel Prize winnerts in literature indiucates that tyhose pruzes do not really matter beceause the arts and the sciences are not relevant in modern nation bvuilding unlike the centrality of science and tecxh nology.
4. The relationship of your views on arts vis a vis science and technology to realities and views of others over a broad geographical scope.
5. It would also be helpful to lok into issues of implict relationship between varius aspects of what you write or speak, as between your comments on Sopyinka as an attist, on the miniscule value of his Nobel Prtize in Liotetature, the littkle value of the arts in nmatuional building, coments made on the context of a thread afessing Sotuinka's argument that Boko Haram is a child of Noprthern ploticians and Northern Islamic fundametalism. You did not directly adress Soyinka's poisition on Boko Haram but you suggested that it has little bval;ue, on account of your dismissing hiom as a trbliost. Sotyinkas focus was onm an etnioc rerfgion, so is it far fecxtyed for rexewrs tio conckude that you duisnissing Soyinas crical views in rel;ation to a particular region, your rergion, the Nothern region?
You wpuld have srved yoyrself better by criquiung Soyinka gead on o hios asrguyment hut you chose top work thtough implication, and I unravelled tose im,p;licvatyons. Reneer, I told the respodent who desryvbed you sa smal oded amd hypocrtyical that he should not inult you and that i will adfrss you on Soyinka in good time.
The problem with your coment that began ouyr debate was that you tried to collreate these virews, indirectky and at times directly.
9. On 20 March 2012 06:24, Abba <abba2007@gmail.com> wrote:
You are confused.
You declared earlier that you want to influence Nigerian government policy by debating on Internet fora and you are now complaining that you are misrepresented on fora where you cannot defend yourself.
Is that not a contradiction?
By your own declaration, you are not in govt.
If your views travel to the corridors of govt as you stated you aspire to, will you be there to defend those views, particularly if they are not presented in ways that make you comfortable?
Can you guarantee that your views will be seen in exactly the ways that will make you happy?
In debating with you, I began by
QUOTING YOU ACCURATELY, VERBATIM, WORD FOR WORD,
before proceeding to
ANALYSE YOUR WORDS, LINE BY LINE.
A person who wants his ideas to travel beyond the limited space they are expressed should be honoured by that level of attention.
Since you wanted your ideas to travel far and wide, even to the attention of the govt, what better way to achieve that goal than through a critic who distributes them them far and wide?
I have done you a favour.
You ought to thank me for giving you such exposure in the first place. Seriously speaking.
But you dont understand becesuase your motives might not be fully straightforward and you might be afraid that your hidden motives might come to light.
I had wanted to suggest a comprehensive posting of our exchange, posting your views and mine in detail but you do not really understand what is at stake and have chickened out.
My last response to you was a serious academic exercise, reinforced with references, from both online sources and printed books in various disciplines. The quality of attention I lavished on it makes it comparable to a Platonic dialogue.
My other responses to you constitute a series of essays that span the history of science from the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century to the present, also engaging with the philosophy of science. I had earlier posted them as parts of the threads where I responded to you but I will now post them as stand alone essays.
I have delayed publicly archiving my earlier responses to you but I will make sure I do so today, so people can compare our views, and make up their minds about whether or not I misrepresented you on Soyinka, plus examine your intellectual limitations on the arts, science and technology.
I will distribute my views and yours widely online-Facebook, blogger, Scribd, academia. edu.
I operate this way because I take what I do online with the utmost seriousness.
You could find a similar strategy useful in your future endeavors.
Next time you want to start talking in public about science and technology because you have some exposure there, read my detailed my detailed rebuttal to your narrow understanding of these fields, quoting the very scientists and engineers you challenged me to quote in support of my views.
Next time you want to comment on the arts, of which you know little, read my response to you on that subject.
Next time you want to comment on Boko Haram , making shallow comments that the goals of Boko Haram are not important to addressing their madness, read what I have written on this thread on the global pervasiveness of Islamic terrorism and the roots of Boko Haram in that problem.
When one of your celebrators declared that 'Abba is right again' in relation to the Minister of Education expressing an opinion that you both interpreted as coinciding with yours, you declared that it appears the govt is heeding your opinions.
You want your ideas to travel beyond these online fora and yet you are not ready to defend those ideas when vigorously challenged by a person ready to devote up to a week examining them in detail so as to refute them, as I did.
You run away, claiming righteous indignation because I refuse to agree that your words mean exactly what you claim, words uttered in public and therefore available to public analysis.
You cannot be be serious.
If your ideas are to travel beyond these fora, as you declare you aspire to, should you not expect a variety of perspectives on those ideas?
The problem is that you are too fearful.
You have not made up your mind on what you stand for.
You cannot in one moment engage in public debate because you want your ideas to travel far and wide and then try to dismiss someone who is actually helping you achieve your goal.
You are not bold enough to carry the weight of the endeavors you are heaping on yourself.
Get real, get serious or keep quiet.
Defend yourself on Soyinka or keep quiet.
Defend yourself in public on your views expressed in public or remain in your bedroom and talk only among your family and friends who dont argue with you.
On your views that the stated and implicit goals and ideological and operational history of Boko Haram are not relevant to addressing the threat they represent-
How do you convince Islamic terrorists that the Koran and Sharia can not address all or even most human problems?
How do you convince them that Islam and Sharia are products of an ancient age and need modernization?
Until you can convince them so, they are likely to continue to erupt in Northern Nigeria.
How do you convince those self understood defenders of interests of Northern Nigerian factions that the violence they wish on or have unleashed on Nigeria will only discredit them and their region and religion in the long run?
Abba, your region is burning. Your religion is discredited. Yet you pursue rats along the floor.
Toyin
I will try to help you on that.
You need to look again at your views on Soyinka as stated in that exchange and othyer sources, since you say your views on Soyinka are well known, meaning you have expressed them in other contexts. You need to sepraste the following
1. Your views on Soyinka as a public commentator and actor in public affairs, particularly in politics, those views that lead you to describe him as a 'tribalist of the highest order'
2. Your views on Soyinka as an artist and his relevance to Nigeria in that context, those views that lead you to describe him as a storyteller whose art is of little relevance to modern nation building.
3. Your views on the arts in relation to science and technology, those views that lead you to declare the fact that you dont know of up to two Nobel Prize winnerts in literature indiucates that tyhose pruzes do not really matter beceause the arts and the sciences are not relevant in modern nation bvuilding unlike the centrality of science and tecxh nology.
4. The relationship of your views on arts vis a vis science and technology to realities and views of others over a broad geographical scope.
5. It would also be helpful to lok into issues of implict relationship between varius aspects of what you write or speak, as between your comments on Sopyinka as an attist, on the miniscule value of his Nobel Prtize in Liotetature, the littkle value of the arts in nmatuional building, coments made on the context of a thread afessing Sotuinka's argument that Boko Haram is a child of Noprthern ploticians and Northern Islamic fundametalism. You did not directly adress Soyinka's poisition on Boko Haram but you suggested that it has little bval;ue, on account of your dismissing hiom as a trbliost. Sotyinkas focus was onm an etnioc rerfgion, so is it far fecxtyed for rexewrs tio conckude that you duisnissing Soyinas crical views in rel;ation to a particular region, your rergion, the Nothern region?
You wpuld have srved yoyrself better by criquiung Soyinka gead on o hios asrguyment hut you chose top work thtough implication, and I unravelled tose im,p;licvatyons. Reneer, I told the respodent who desryvbed you sa smal oded amd hypocrtyical that he should not inult you and that i will adfrss you on Soyinka in good time.
The problem with your coment that began ouyr debate was that you tried to collreate these virews, indirectky and at times directly.
9. On 20 March 2012 06:24, Abba <abba2007@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Stevek,
I made a mistake by actually engaging someone I thought was refined. It later emerged that I was totally wrong, and his true uncultured culture emerged.
He claims I said my ``dream" was to ``influence public policy" by my ``internet dabates" on ``these fora". No one on earth can find a statement from me to that effect. The statements saying ``we do not want an already confused President to be further confused" and saluting a Minister for ``listening to our words of wisdom" do not, in any way, constitute a ``dream to influence public policy" in/on any issue. If my ``dream" or aimis to influence public policy, I will say so emphatically. This is the sort of mischaracterizition, misrepresentation and misinterpretation some (mostly inconsequential) folks around here use in their desperation to score points on others. Men and women of integrity and conscience do not stoop that low. If I accused anyone of saying something that I quote clearly, I will provide a direct and clear quote that matches what I said verbatim. This is what we (as scientists) are trained to do. It is really sad to see the younger ones (those in grad schools) demonstrating this level of lack of ethics and integrity. Nigeria's problems are far more profound than some of us actually imagined.
Abba
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 7:54 AM
To: AVATAR
Cc: NIgerianWorldForum@
Subject: Re: [NIgerianWorldForum] Re: [edo-nationality] RE: Setback In Peace Talks With Boko Haram - Dr Ibrahim Datti Ahmad backs out
To: AVATAR
Cc: NIgerianWorldForum@
Subject: Re: [NIgerianWorldForum] Re: [edo-nationality] RE: Setback In Peace Talks With Boko Haram - Dr Ibrahim Datti Ahmad backs out
Stevek,
I forgot to add that I absolutely never, for one second, consider Soyinka's achievement as anything to write home about (with all due respect to him) or consider him to be any better (or even as good) as myself professionally. We work in different areas. While he makes a living telling stories and writing plays, I make my living expousing the virtue of a monumentally-important subject over 90% of the world's population are scared to even attempt to study it...talkless of making a career out of it (so, there is even no basis for comparison). Most of the noisemakers and inconsequential elements around here studied things (if at all) that are irrelevant...and yet they feel qualified to abuse and disrespect people of real quality and stature.
Abba
11. On 20 March 2012 10:42, Igietseme, Joseph (CDC/OID/NCEZID) <jbi8@cdc.gov> wrote:
But why is Wole Soyinka an issue in this matter. We all lay claim to the Nobel Laureate and his Nobel achievement do us PROUD. We cant trivialize it because of internal regional debates. It is WRONG! Besides, irrespective of our own professional biases, we have to take the higher road in evaluating Academic achievement. To me, academic achievement in any field is meritorious! Shikiena!! Take care. JUI
4:25 PM (20 hours ago) | | |||
| ||||
Joe,
True that ``acdemic achievement in any field is meritorious". No one (except, perhaps, in Nigeria gets any academic recognition unless he/she merits it). Nonetheless, academic achievements in certains fields are far more respectable than in others. I will salute anyone who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Chemistry of Physics far higher (anyday) than one who won the equivalent in literature. Both deserve some applause...but I will reserve my highest decibel crescendo for those who won in areas that truly matter in grand scheme of things.
13.
Mar 19 (2 days ago) | | |||
| ||||
Joe,
I am not sure I understand what you meant by your first sentence. Toyin misrepresented me (during our debate re Soyinka) and advertised such misrepresentations to wider lists (wider than the original mailing lists). What's your problem here?
In anycase, I didn't bother to seriously read what Toyin wrote...I schemed through it to ensure that it had nothing to do with me (and lo and behold he had my name all over the place). People like him I do not interact with (I interact only with people whose integrity and sense of ethics I respect).
14.
Mar 20 (1 day ago) | | |||
| ||||
Dear Stevek,
I made a mistake by actually engaging someone I thought was refined. It later emerged that I was totally wrong, and his true uncultured culture emerged.
He claims I said my ``dream" was to ``influence public policy" by my ``internet dabates" on ``these fora". No one on earth can find a statement from me to that effect. The statements saying ``we do not want an already confused President to be further confused" and saluting a Minister for ``listening to our words of wisdom" do not, in any way, constitute a ``dream to influence public policy" in/on any issue. If my ``dream" or aimis to influence public policy, I will say so emphatically. This is the sort of mischaracterizition, misrepresentation and misinterpretation some (mostly inconsequential) folks around here use in their desperation to score points on others. Men and women of integrity and conscience do not stoop that low. If I accused anyone of saying something that I quote clearly, I will provide a direct and clear quote that matches what I said verbatim. This is what we (as scientists) are trained to do. It is really sad to see the younger ones (those in grad schools) demonstrating this level of lack of ethics and integrity. Nigeria's problems are far more profound than some of us actually imagined.
15.
| 6:54 PM (18 hours ago) | | ||
| ||||
Abba's attitude to being defeated in debate is dishonest. Anytime he is pushed into a corner he tries to change the rules.
He declared that I cant prove my arguments about his attitude to Soyinka. I took time to prove your argument, then he insists that he wont comment further because he has been misrepresented and is unhappy that I posted his words and my analysis of them in places where he cant defend himself.
I respond that I am actually helping him spread his ideas since he had earlier stated that he wants top influence the govt through online debate. He denies he ever stated that. He again makes much song and dance about being misrepresented.
I produce the emails where he stated exactly that and then he says no, you did not mean that when his words clearly state otherwise.
He declares-
'If I accused anyone of saying something that I quote clearly, I will provide a direct and clear quote that matches what I said verbatim.'
Since he is pretending that I did not quite him verbatim, I reproduce the relevant quotes from his emails in the post below. I will also make sure I blog this debate to avoid a persomn wating to deny in broad dayl;ight what they stated in public.
He then tries to describe me as maligning him when I simply work on the logic of his own words.
Therefore, I describe him as dishonest.
He needs help.
He has a personality problem.
On Abba Struggling to Deny His Own Words
Abba stated:
"I am taking time to relentlessly partake in this discussion because I know a number of people with the ears of the President (including some Ministers) are on this list. It is
extremely important that those in the pro-arts vanguard do not confuse our already very confused Commander-in-Chief into diminishing the singular role of science and technology
in transforming Nigeria. What has Soyinka's story-telling and plays got to do with national development? Tell me, Kunle."
If you dont want your statements to influence those " people with the ears of the President (including some Ministers) ... on this list' then why state the following:"I am taking time to relentlessly partake in this discussion because I know a number of people with the ears of the President (including some Ministers) are on this list."
What are these 'people with the ears of the President (including some Ministers)' to do with your words? To take them to their domestic kitchens and cook soup with them? Or to take them to the kitchen of ideas of the government and use them?
If you dont want such " people with the ears of the President (including some Ministers) are on this list' to use your ideas, then why do you state, in response to the thread
'Abba Vindicated Again-No Progress Without Sound Mathematics-Minister [of Education]. '
that
"I am glad the Minister is listening to our words of wisdom. This is a right step in the right direction."
You need a course in how to interpret yourself to the world. The course is called rhetoric, semiotics, linguistics-semantics,. discourse analysis. A first year student in languages would not try to deny the facts of their own words like you are struggling to do.
As I stated, Abba, you need to define who you really are to yourself and the world.
I would have advised what to do in all sincerity because it is as clear to me as daylight but you have chosen to alienate me so I will let you go your way.
What we observe in your self contradiction here is a confusion of self image. Such issues are dealt with in psychology and philosophy. Some guidance in these areas would benefit you so you dont come here and generate self denying claims.
Your attitude to being defeated is dishonest. Anytime you are pushed into a corner you try to change the rules.
You declared that I cant prove my arguments about your attitude to Soyinka. I took time to prove your argument, then you argued that you wont conment further beceause you are misreprrsentredf.
You declared that you never stated you want to influence govt policy through online debate, making much song and dance about your new claim that I was misrepresenting you on that.
I produce the emails where you stated exactly that and then you say no, you did not mean that when your words clearly state otherwise.
You then go and try to describe me as maligning you when I simply work on the logic of your own words.
Therefore, I describe you as dishonest.
You need help.
thanks
toyin
No comments:
Post a Comment