This is all hand waving...no serious analysis here. Paper fails to show the transmission of US intervention. The sooner aluh reform the opposition, the better.

If it's coming from Django you know it's canned food from Congress Place. Don't open it much less eating it.

@DjangoThanks for posting this .   Maybe some of the trench crapo jagabats will read it to educate themselves.

@Trench_Crapo posted:

This is all hand waving...no serious analysis here. Paper fails to show the transmission of US intervention. The sooner aluh reform the opposition, the better.

Correct Trench_Crapo ...

The long, long, long-winded report is mambo jumbo; at best. 

It is simply the comments of a university individual projecting a personal perspective on the elections in 2020.

‘Nah tek yuh mattie eye fuh see’: U.S. Involvement in the 2020 Guyanese Election

@Trench_Crapo posted:

This is all hand waving...no serious analysis here. Paper fails to show the transmission of US intervention. The sooner aluh reform the opposition, the better.

The CJIL is a highly ranked journal.  It is ranked second among student edited law journals in the US. I believe the top ranked journal in this category is the Harvard Law Review that Obama once served as an editor.  How is this article hand waving?  It is a serious step by step analysis of what transpired against the relevant law.  The paper clearly shows American intervention and how it violated international law. BTW,  it missed the part played by US Ambassador Lynch.

@Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

If it's coming from Django you know it's canned food from Congress Place. Don't open it much less eating it.

The CJIL is an independent scholarly journal.  How is it linked to Congress Place?  If you are having trouble reading it try reading slowly and if you still have trouble I may be able to get someone to help you.

@Former Member posted:

Correct Trench_Crapo ...

The long, long, long-winded report is mambo jumbo; at best. 

It is simply the comments of a university individual projecting a personal perspective on the elections in 2020.

‘Nah tek yuh mattie eye fuh see’: U.S. Involvement in the 2020 Guyanese Election

Amber Symone Stewart -- Source -- https://cjil.uchicago.edu/publ...20-guyanese-election

What trash from Demerara Dude! Have you read the article? Do you understand it? Yours is typical PPP nonsense--what you don't understand may be mambo (sic) jumbo to you but not to better informed people.

@Former Member posted:

Correct Trench_Crapo ...

The long, long, long-winded report is mambo jumbo; at best. 

It is simply the comments of a university individual projecting a personal perspective on the elections in 2020.

‘Nah tek yuh mattie eye fuh see’: U.S. Involvement in the 2020 Guyanese Election

Amber Symone Stewart -- Source -- https://cjil.uchicago.edu/publ...20-guyanese-election

@Totaram posted:

What trash from Demerara Dude! Have you read the article? Do you understand it? Yours is typical PPP nonsense--what you don't understand may be mambo (sic) jumbo to you but not to better informed people.

Ooiiii TotaRamGoat ---

The report clearly stated .... "This Comment paints a different picture."

It is simply a comment by an individual from the University of Chicago.

Other individuals will always have quite differing or a few similar views expressed in the article.

@Former Member posted:

Ooiiii TotaRamGoat ---

The report clearly stated .... "This Comment paints a different picture."

It is simply a comment by an individual from the University of Chicago.

Other individuals will always have quite differing or a few similar views expressed in the article.

You obviously don't know the meaning of a "comment" in scholarly journal articles.   What you need to do is actually read the article and then say which part of it you agree or disagree with.  Until you do that you are simply spewing nonsense.

@Totaram posted:

You obviously don't know the meaning of a "comment" in scholarly journal articles.   What you need to do is actually read the article and then say which part of it you agree or disagree with.  Until you do that you are simply spewing nonsense.

== Comment ==

Meaning ....

-- statement which expresses a person's personal opinion or reaction to something --

@Former Member posted:

== Comment ==

Meaning ....

-- statement which expresses a person's personal opinion or reaction to something --

No, "comment" as in law journals.  It has very specific meaning when used by journals.  I read the article and is based on legal arguments not personal opinion. Read the article --it may put you to sleep but keep reading when you wake up and repeat until you get to the end. 

@Totaram posted:

No, "comment" as in law journals.  It has very specific meaning when used by journals.  I read the article and is based on legal arguments not personal opinion. Read the article --it may put you to sleep but keep reading when you wake up and repeat until you get to the end.

"Comments" expressed in legals journals and publications simply provide a person's views and approaches to issues with extremely limited reviews by peers, literature, other scholars, etc..

================

Of note ...

The learned and esteemed Amber Symone Stewart has a Bachelor in Art in 2015 and a J.D. Candidate -- Juris Doctor -- in 2022.

================

Source -- https://cjil.uchicago.edu/publ...20-guyanese-election

@Former Member posted:

"Comments" expressed in legals journals and publications simply provide a person's views and approaches to issues with extremely limited reviews by peers, literature, other scholars, etc..

================

Of note ...

The learned and esteemed Amber Symone Stewart has a Bachelor in Art in 2015 and a J.D. Candidate -- Juris Doctor -- in 2022.

================

Amber Symone Stewart

A.B. 2015, Princeton University; J.D. Candidate 2022, The University of Chicago Law School.

The author would like to thank her family and partner for being her steadfast supporters. She would also like to thank the entire staff of the Chicago Journal of International Law, the CJIL Online team, Professor Aziz Huq, and Claire Parins.

Source -- https://cjil.uchicago.edu/publ...20-guyanese-election

"Notes or Comments are works of legal scholarship written by law students, generally during their 2L year and the first year they are a member of a law journal. A Note or Comment may be selected for publication in the law journal for which the author is a member. Articles, in contrast, typically are written by non-students, such as law professors or experts in certain subject areas.

Law schools differ in what they consider to be a Note versus a Comment. Law journals at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law view Notes as works of legal scholarship that primarily analyze recent court decisions, whereas they define Comments as works of legal scholarship that "more broadly consider an issue of law."

Other law journals, such as the Yale Law Journal, defines a Note as a work of legal scholarship that "should advance a particular area of legal scholarship beyond its current state, make a detailed argument, and provide persuasive evidence for each of its conclusions" and defines a Comment as a piece of legal scholarship that "should present a concise yet still original argument and have minimal literature review. Comments often (but need not necessarily) respond to a recent development in the law, such as cases, legislation, law review articles, lawsuits, administrative rulings, and executive orders."

Your Note or Comment must follow your law journal's formatting specifications regarding margins, spacing, font, font size, and number of required pages."

Source -- https://library.law.northweste...du/writingforjournal

@Former Member Have you read the article?  Like a typical PPP propagandist you are now questioning the qualifications of the author.  Read the article and then comment on its arguments.  Until you do that you are simply spewing nonsense.  Articles in scholarly journals are subject to a review process and the University of Chicago law school is highly rated.  What qualifies you to question either Ms. Stewart's qualifications or the quality of her article?

================

Note

Source of reference included to the article.

Demerara_Guy -- Moderator

@Totaram posted:

"Notes or Comments are works of legal scholarship written by law students, generally during their 2L year and the first year they are a member of a law journal. A Note or Comment may be selected for publication in the law journal for which the author is a member. Articles, in contrast, typically are written by non-students, such as law professors or experts in certain subject areas.

Law schools differ in what they consider to be a Note versus a Comment. Law journals at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law view Notes as works of legal scholarship that primarily analyze recent court decisions, whereas they define Comments as works of legal scholarship that "more broadly consider an issue of law."

Other law journals, such as the Yale Law Journal, defines a Note as a work of legal scholarship that "should advance a particular area of legal scholarship beyond its current state, make a detailed argument, and provide persuasive evidence for each of its conclusions" and defines a Comment as a piece of legal scholarship that "should present a concise yet still original argument and have minimal literature review. Comments often (but need not necessarily) respond to a recent development in the law, such as cases, legislation, law review articles, lawsuits, administrative rulings, and executive orders."

Your Note or Comment must follow your law journal's formatting specifications regarding margins, spacing, font, font size, and number of required pages."
@Former Member Have you read the article?  Like a typical PPP propagandist you are now questioning the qualifications of the author.  Read the article and then comment on its arguments.  Until you do that you are simply spewing nonsense.  Articles in scholarly journals are subject to a review process and the University of Chicago law school is highly rated.  What qualifies you to question either Ms. Stewart's qualifications or the quality of her article?

1.  If your statement above  @Former Member is from a source, GNI/GCF requires that you make appropriate reference to the source.

2.  Perhaps you do not know what you do not know to state ..."What qualifies you to question either Ms. Stewart's qualifications or the quality of her article?"

@Former Member posted:

1.  If your statement above  @Former Member is from a source, GNI/GCF requires that you make appropriate reference to the source.

2.  Perhaps you do not know what you do not know to state ..."What qualifies you to question either Ms. Stewart's qualifications or the quality of her article?"

What kind of gobbledygook is this?  Have you read the article or do you keep falling asleep and wake up just to spew more crap? 

As stated earlier --- Quote the reference source; required by GNI/GCF; if the above-noted the statement is not your personal words/expression.

@Former Member posted:

As stated earlier --- Quote the reference source; required by GNI/GCF; if the above-noted the statement is not your personal words/expression.

OK...here's the source at the Pritzker School of Law: https://library.law.northweste...du/writingforjournal

Now you have more reading but if you keep falling asleep don't blame me.  Back to Ms. Stewart's paper:  Have you read it?  If you haven't then stop spewing crap. 

1.  Hopefully, you will ensure that references are always placed with the quoted statements

2.   The noted article was already read and stored in my reference source.

3.  Amber Symone Stewart's article was indeed already read and hence my comments.

@Former Member posted:

1.  Hopefully, you will ensure that references are always placed with the quoted statements

2.   The noted article was already read and stored in my reference source.

3.  Amber Symone Stewart's article was indeed already read and hence my comments.

If you read the article by Amber Stewart then let us know what aspect of it you disagree with and stay away from attacking her personally.  Looking forward to your critique of the article.

Perhaps, if you take the time to read carefully, you will note that my comments are stated about the article.

@Former Member posted:

Perhaps, if you take the time to read carefully, you will note that my comments are stated about the article.

Calling an academic piece mumbo jumbo is not analysis.  It means that you simply haven't read the paper and are reverting to well known PPP propagandist tactics or you don't understand what you read.

Oh rant DG...I hear dem boys say..is steady steady so you fallin asleep. I feel is like you need fo go on a regime of Ferrol compound or some Beef Iron and Wine tonic fo give your parts a lil boost.

@Totaram posted:

The CJIL is a highly ranked journal.  It is ranked second among student edited law journals in the US. I believe the top ranked journal in this category is the Harvard Law Review that Obama once served as an editor.  How is this article hand waving?  It is a serious step by step analysis of what transpired against the relevant law.  The paper clearly shows American intervention and how it violated international law. BTW,  it missed the part played by US Ambassador Lynch.

Why should I be impressed by Harvard Law Review? Do they have anything to speak about our condition? Anyway, this is how it works...Many academic journals have invited commentaries. These are clearly distinguished from those which were peer-reviewed. It is also unethical to include in one's CV an invited commentary as peer-reviewed. One has to have separate section for invited articles. Of course, those in the know will discount such work for the purpose of promotion. The big mule in de room is the alleged election rigging. No one has proven that whatever illegalities that took place in 2020 were sufficient to overturn the election. And I am aware that Jadgoe and his bais planted the fake SOPs back in 2015. It was not enough to overturn the election that Granger won. In any case, it could not overturn a decentralized election where votes are counted at the pooling station. Aluh just barking up de wrong trees...all de time...instead of searching deep inside why aluh lost de election to a rankly stained PPP.

Going back to the article...it's nonsensical to claim that the perceived intervention of 2020 is equal to when the CIA removed Cheddi. USA was also involved in 1992 via President Carter. Cheddi was not getting back into power without Carter. USA gave out lots of visas that perhaps reduced the Indo vote in 2015 to allow Granger to win (perceived...but no one has made a systematic connection). Qualitative hand waving...it's a big problem for the academy.

@cain posted:

Oh rant DG...I hear dem boys say..is steady steady so you fallin asleep. I feel is like you need fo go on a regime of Ferrol compound or some Beef Iron and Wine tonic fo give your parts a lil boost.

Isn't this condition called narcolepsy?

@Trench_Crapo posted:

Why should I be impressed by Harvard Law Review? Do they have anything to speak about our condition? Anyway, this is how it works...Many academic journals have invited commentaries. These are clearly distinguished from those which were peer-reviewed. It is also unethical to include in one's CV an invited commentary as peer-reviewed. One has to have separate section for invited articles. Of course, those in the know will discount such work for the purpose of promotion. The big mule in de room is the alleged election rigging. No one has proven that whatever illegalities that took place in 2020 were sufficient to overturn the election. And I am aware that Jadgoe and his bais planted the fake SOPs back in 2015. It was not enough to overturn the election that Granger won. In any case, it could not overturn a decentralized election where votes are counted at the pooling station. Aluh just barking up de wrong trees...all de time...instead of searching deep inside why aluh lost de election to a rankly stained PPP.

Going back to the article...it's nonsensical to claim that the perceived intervention of 2020 is equal to when the CIA removed Cheddi. USA was also involved in 1992 via President Carter. Cheddi was not getting back into power without Carter. USA gave out lots of visas that perhaps reduced the Indo vote in 2015 to allow Granger to win (perceived...but no one has made a systematic connection). Qualitative hand waving...it's a big problem for the academy.

I am a bit distracted by Easter celebrations but I must respond to you.  I am impressed by excellence and the Harvard Law Review is about excellence.  Just have a look at what past editors of the HLR have done and then decide if it speaks about our condition.  "Anyway this is how it works.."   You are telling me?  I know how it works .  Comments in law journals are peer reviewed.  They are not like comments in some social science journals.  And, BTW, why would you assume that I don't know about how academic papers are evaluated in the promotion and tenure process?   

Ms. Stewart's paper is not only about Guyana. She uses the 2020 elections to demonstrate how the US illegally interfered in the elections .  For example, Pompeo in imposing sanctions on some unidentified officials interfered in a process that was still in progress.

"Alyuh barking up the wrong tree?" Who is alyuh? And finally, qualitative hand waving may be a problem in some parts of the academy but a peer reviewed article in a reputable law is unlikely to be in that category. 

^ I really don't have the inclination to argue about law journals. That said, I find the article unconvincing. The US did not interfere in 2020. CIA overthrow of Cheddi was interference. Hackers stealing data and releasing them to determine voting preference is interference. Using Facebook and unwitting idiots to organize riots between proud boys and BLM is interference...

I just don't find legalistic mumbo jumbo as proof that the PPP rigged the election. The question you guys should answer in your journal of excellence, is why the rancid and slimy PPP was able to win the election in 2020. That will certainly help the the PNC and AFC to regroup.

@Trench_Crapo posted:

^ I really don't have the inclination to argue about law journals. That said, I find the article unconvincing. The US did not interfere in 2020. CIA overthrow of Cheddi was interference. Hackers stealing data and releasing them to determine voting preference is interference. Using Facebook and unwitting idiots to organize riots between proud boys and BLM is interference...

I just don't find legalistic mumbo jumbo as proof that the PPP rigged the election.

The question you guys should answer in your journal of excellence, is why the rancid and slimy PPP was able to win the election in 2020. That will certainly help the the PNC and AFC to regroup.

That's not rocket science when parsing data .GECOM hide the detailed elections data from 2011 which was found ,using that year as benchmark and the 2015 , 2020 which are in the open revealed what happened with the two elections. Perhaps the two parties have the information to use as guidelines to plan ahead.

@cain posted:

Oh rant DG...I hear dem boys say..is steady steady so you fallin asleep. I feel is like you need fo go on a regime of Ferrol compound or some Beef Iron and Wine tonic fo give your parts a lil boost.

@Mitwah posted:

Isn't this condition called narcolepsy?

Eh-eh Mitwah ...

You know quite well about your special condition. 

Oooiiiiii Cain ---

Seems like you get lots of Ferrol Compound plus Beef Iron and Wine Tonic waaay up in the North Pole.