Thaaraka said,

January 5, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

I don’t think he had paid for all this separately. It could be that he paid for something like google or yahoo adds. These site must be partners for those add providers. Usually adds are displayed selectively and may be only for hits from sri lanka. May be not very expensive in comparison to a color poster which cost at least 10 rupees. Only goats care to look at them.

The anti-nit picker said,

January 6, 2010 @ 2:13 am

he just advertised on adwords and it probably figured since you were sriankan it would be relevant. IIRC Obama did the same thing, in fact he did a lot more aggressive advertisement (in video games for example) and people never complained, in fact they hailed him for being so “innovative” to reach out the people.
(adwords.google.co.uk/)
I usually read the opinions on this blog expecting a lot of research and some intellectual critique, so Im quite glad you researched on this topic before-hand ::)

SomewhatDisgusted said,

January 6, 2010 @ 6:12 am

It’s amusing to see how these allegations and rumours evolve right in front of your eyes. Mr. Minority has made a web ad suddenly transform itself into a prime time ad on USA TV. Indi’s blog too has fallen prey to a similar issue, as pointed out in certain comments (http://indi.ca/2010/01/examples-of-corruption-and-waste/).

As long as it’s nearly impossible to separate the facts from the fiction, it’s very hard to make a rational decision, especially since both candidates have glaring faults of their own. Perhaps a prayer to your personal favourite deity and a coin toss is the way to go!

Observer said,

January 6, 2010 @ 11:00 am

“I applaud “Groundviews” for exposing such corruption. It is a sign of the times that such exposure can only be done electronically, the local media having been silenced indefinitely.”

HAHAHA Google AdWords is corruption now! Go checkout their rates…

https://adwords.google.com/select/AfpoFinder?currency=USD&country=LK

Cost per THOUSAND (1000) impressions is USD $0.25! (for displaying the add).

Only thing though, that rate maybe for text adds – I am not sure. Since this is a banner add add it maybe slightly more – still not outrageous. If you know how to, find out and tell me instead of speculating of an outrageous imaginary amount! Facts please. I challenge Groundviews (poster of this article) to contact Google and find out the rate for banner adds on the Google ad network since they have an obligations to back allegations with FACT! Not screenshots!

I have seen these adds on NY times etc and have accessed through a proxy and VPN outside SL. Then they don’t show up. So yes it’s only for Sri Lankan IPs. Again less cost there!

If you don’t believe they’re Google adds click on it and pay attention to the intermediate proxy domain which the request goes through.

googleadds.g.doubleclick.net

I’m sure MR has some kick ass media team (no doubt), those adds on TV are quite well made. But those Internet adds doesn’t require a first rate PR team.

One of my friend’s wife handles their Google adword account for their small business. It doesn’t cost a fortune as I have shown the rates above. I have heard it’s a quite cost effective way of getting traffic.

Internet advertising is the cheapest form of advertising. These ICT gurus ought to know that before picking on it. At least criticise the TV adds, which I also think is quite excessive!

Give the MR marketing team some credit for adopting non conventional (for SL standards) communication mediums for their campaign.

“How and why were these news media sites based in the UK, USA, India and Australia chosen? ”

Because the educated well informed in Sri Lanka go to these web sites to get their current affairs fix!

Observer said,

January 6, 2010 @ 11:12 am

I had a quick search and Google says the rates do not differ whether they be text or image adds. Which I found surprising.

http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=7687

Sleep easy boys

Observer said,

January 6, 2010 @ 11:28 am

“Does the incumbent believe that the handful of Sri Lankan voters who visit these sites from Sri Lanka are worth the significant amount spent to secure these banner ad placements?”

YES OF COURSE!

First of all, it’s not nice to say “handful”. Very condescending and you kind of assume a lot of Sri Lankans live in total darkness w/o access to the Internet. Do you have any idea of the penetration of broadband Internet in Sri Lanka now? And how cheap it is?

The purpose of the add is not to tell you MR is contending the elections and to tell you to vote for him. We all know that! The link redirects to his web site http://www.mahinda2010.lk/ which gives you information to make an informed decision. News of his campaign trail and policy manifestos.

Isn’t it encouraging that the president is going to a great length to invite the “informed” community of Sri Lanka to evaluate his campaign and to make an informed choice? Point is he’s not targeting the audience visiting playboy.com

Don’t these people go and advocate to others who may not have Internet access and cannot readily access this information? Isn’t it wise to reach out to these people?

Groundviews said,

January 6, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

The banner ads are unsurprisingly geo-targeted, which means that they only appear on these sites if the reader is in (or IP resolves to) Sri Lanka. This is what makes it even more bizarre that, for example, ads have been secured on British tabloids like the Daily Mail. Honestly, how many do you think visit the Daily Mail from Sri Lanka? What does the President of Sri Lanka stand to gain from an election campaign featured prominently next to drunk, semi-nude British celebrities and lascivious gossip?

Chaminda Weerawardhana said,

January 7, 2010 @ 6:03 am

Sanjana,

about your last comment: this brilliant idea must have been that of someone in His Majesty’s campaign bureau – maybe it was an idea of His brother (in charge of the campaign) or maybe was it from the young Crown Prince? anyway, once again, these boys have totally lost the plot.

Instead of limiting this to SL IP addresses, what if they thought of developing a new mechanism to enable all expatriate citizens to cast their vote (as all expat US citizens do during a presidential election – & the same happens in many a country – Zarkozy in 2007 was extremely conscious of getting the votes of the massive FR community in Britain) ? Govt servants abroad can cast their (postal) votes, and all other expats are totally deprived of their right to vote at a national election…this is very unjust because today’s Sri Lankan community is a globally distributed one.

If such a mechanism was put into practice, using e-ads for the campaign would have made loads of sense.

Jayawewa!

Groundviews said,

January 7, 2010 @ 7:25 am

@SomewhatDisgusted, if you clicked through all the links you’ve provided, please tell us where it is mentioned that the Daily Mail is part of Google’s AdWords scheme? Neither the news nor the entertainment categories of the Google Content Network in the UK sports the Daily Mail as one of the mediums covered, or in fact a number of other media located in the UK noted above.

Kshama said,

January 7, 2010 @ 8:12 am

Interesting, for a regime that vehemently opposes the West and sees an international conspiracy in everything!…….. paying the much maligned western media to be re-elected. what desperation!

Groundviews said,

January 7, 2010 @ 8:48 am

@Bardo – The confidence you have that whatever money spent is not public finances must come from somewhere. Please let us in on this authoritative source?

Observer said,

January 7, 2010 @ 8:59 am

“This is what makes it even more bizarre that, for example, ads have been secured on British tabloids like the Daily Mail. Honestly, how many do you think visit the Daily Mail from Sri Lanka?”

Well aren’t they all practicing tabloid journalism these days? Like our favorite Times Online? Emotional journalism with sensationalism as opposed to news pieces backed with verified facts. Point is Sri Lankans see all the UK news media as tabloids with the recent coverage of SL. So don’t blame us!

End of the day anyone, including you and me can afford to open a Google AdWord account. Unless you can link the Google checkout account used for this to public funds, then there is no story here. You’re better off bashing the TV adds and cut outs. Especially the Mervin one at Keleniya!

This is why all these corruption charges are sounding vastly exaggerated and comical now. I think they just over did it. Where is solid evidence? All I hear is speculation, speculation and more speculation. Like the chain email posted at indi.ca. Lol I knew since the age of 12 that chain email was not to be trusted! Is this the evidence of wide spread corruption?

I am not naive enough to think that these pollies who come into office don’t fatten their coffers. It happens in the West too. All over the world for that matter! If you think some of them US senators that passionately defend certain elements and views in the Senate aren’t in the pocket of big companies representing oil, weapons, pharmaceutical, etc, etc then go back to your nursery books and your care bear friends. Didn’t the UK labor government have a big brouhaha over misuse of public funds recently?

The coalition’s biggest charge is that corruption was over the top. Irony is some of the biggest horu in the country’s past are charging the current administration as horu. Why is that I have not seen a single document as proof of this? All I want is a deed, an accounts statement, etc. of an inappropriate asset or sum of money linking to the incumbent or his relatives, posies. I must have this to make up my mind as opposed to kata katha.

I’m sure you’re gonna say they hide it well, but at the level opposition is claiming you must be able to find evidence lying on the street!

I have one request from the opposition. Please… if you can buy ministers from the government to jump sides, please do the voting public a favor, buy one of their accountants with some damning fudged statements and present to the public.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

January 7, 2010 @ 10:25 am

Dear Groundviews,

“For example, why do you think the campaign has chosen to advertise on British tabloids for ads that only appear on readers who visit them from Sri Lanka”

Perhaps I wasn’t clear with my explanation. Google Ads displays targeted ads on all partner sites. You do not need to specifically say which partner sites, Google has its own algorithm to decide that. Some of the factors that affect that decision are
1. Where the user’s IP originates from, in this case, Sri Lanka.
2. The content the article being viewed and whether the content matches the advertiser’s keywords
3. Additional criteria specified by the advertiser, such as specific sites, specific industries etc.

The whole idea is to make sure users see the Ads most relevant to them and advertisers reach their exact target audience. Therefore, there’s no surprise at all that partner sites, including international ones, are displaying Sri Lankan ads to Sri Lankan users. Keep in mind that few or nobody from Sri Lanka advertise using Google and also that it’s more advantageous for all concerned to show a Sri Lankan ad to a Sri Lankan user than say, a Burger King Ad to a Sri Lankan user. I think that more or less explains the phenomenon.

This is also why it’s a fruitless exercise to keep adding screenshots to the gallery above. At best, you will end up creating a catalogue of sites partnering with Google and carrying content relevant to Sri Lanka, not really sites that MR’s campaign has specifically paid for. I hope I’ve cleared that up.

“more importantly, the principled question of whether public finances have been used to fund this spree”

That’s true. Based on personal knowledge, MR doesn’t have too many qualms about using public property for his own campaign, I know this for a fact. However, as Observer has pointed out, that does not necessarily mean that the amount of corruption is equivalent to what’s carried in (grossly exaggerated?) chain-mail. The sad reality is that none of this comes as anything particularly new to a Sri Lankan and the piety of the opposition will only be for as long as it takes them to get their own grubby paws on a piece of the pie. That’s why we are better off knowing the real extent of the corruption instead of wild speculation and I more or less agree with Observer’s observations on this.

cheers!

SomewhatDisgusted said,

January 8, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

Dear Groundviews,

I noticed that you had made an edit on 6th January 2010 with additions to the list of websites participating in Google Adwords. However, given the influx of comments clarifying the situation from various posters, I see no similar addition with clarifications on the following points.

1. The supposed cost of these advertisements.
2. Why they appear on international media sites.
3. The allegation on it being outrageously senseless and wasteful, given the targeted nature of the ads.

The only valid critique here is the call to disclose the amount of money and the source of those funds. The rest of the article is just plain ill-researched and off the mark, giving it the appearance of a prejudiced propaganda piece than a valid critique on the incumbent . Further, given that tislanka.org carries this article verbatim (which raises questions as to how well researched its own articles are), as do a few other sites, I believe it would be a good idea to issue a correction, in the interests of journalistic integrity and towards the goal of directing the public’s attention to the real issues.

cheers!

SomewhatDisgusted said,

January 8, 2010 @ 8:47 pm

Dear Groundviews,

To take each of your points in turn.

1. I see that you’re following the doctrine of guilty until proven innocent, which may be acceptable, given that the govt. is dealing with public funds. However, given the nature of the Sri Lankan political climate, and the no-holds-barred mudslinging involved, it’s also unrealistic to expect responses to every random allegation published on every other forum. Did you contact the campaign and demand a response before publishing the article? If so, and no response was forthcoming, it may be reasonable to consider them guilty.

2. Such a question boils down to why there should be any advertising at all. After all, should anyone other than a neo-luddite be overly concerned that the Internet was used for advertising over TV?

3. As I said earlier, the only valid point boils down to questioning the source of the funding. The rest of it is irrelevant. For example, the main questions you had raised, to quote, are:

” we wonder why the incumbent feels the need to secure prime banner ad spots on these international websites? Does the incumbent believe that the handful of Sri Lankan voters who visit these sites from Sri Lanka are worth the significant amount spent to secure these banner ad placements? How and why were these news media sites based in the UK, USA, India and Australia chosen? Will the incumbent disclose the sum of money spent on these ads if demanded by a voter? Where did this money come from?”

Given that the cost to advertise on Google is extremely low, that the sites were not specifically chosen and the ads were targeted, all of the above questions have been answered, and are clearly irrelevant, except for the source of funding. So it certainly does not require much “chutzpah” to characterize it as being “ill-researched and off-the-mark”. On the other hand, your below-the-belt attempt to compare my concerns to a denial of a war crimes video may be more appropriately labelled “chutzpah”.

As for your call for me to apply the same high principles, it is well received and I one would certainly hope to aim for such a laudable goal. However, given that I’m not a journalist, and that I did not write any article for or against the incumbent, it seems a curious twist of logic that I should be as concerned about it. I have, in fact, acknowledged in my previous post that there are instances known to me personally of the incumbent’s misuse of public property, but my aim is to establish the real extent of that misuse, as opposed to imaginative or fictitious accounts of it.

cheers!

Dhiraj said,

January 8, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

“Honestly, how many do you think visit the Daily Mail from Sri Lanka? ”

Well, you seem to have visited it… so why wouldn’t other Sri Lankans.

Groundviews said,

January 8, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

The point has been made before, and is extraneous to the thrust of the article.

Reader said,

January 9, 2010 @ 1:40 am

Using public funds (tsunami money) for personal use

Using public funds to take large numbers of individuals on overseas visits

Using public funds for failed investments, e.g. Mihin Airlines

Using public funds for banquets

Using public funds (200 lakhs) to send the son overseas for naval training

Using public funds to build palaces for family members

Using public funds for campaign advertising

This guy is almost as bad as CBK! (At least she left and her dynasty is gone for good)

Lanka Encounters the Third Kind said,

January 9, 2010 @ 3:48 am

Groundviews says: “This is a citizen journalism site. If you are neither a citizen nor admittedly a journalist, we can safely assume you are one of those curious solipsistic creatures who engage in polemics only because you have nothing to say, but insist on saying it.”

Groundviews, thank you for revealing your true stand on ‘citizen journalism’. People, you’ve been warned!

Groundviews said,

January 9, 2010 @ 7:05 am

The commentator’s credentials as a citizen are questioned because he / she does not feel the need to hold a regime, so steeped in corruption, accountable for their actions during the election campaign. The commentator’s credentials as a journalist are, by his / her own admission, not applicable. As we have noted, this is a citizen journalism site, set up to debate ideas from the mutually strengthening perspectives of citizenship or investigative, independent journalism . If you are by self-admission or through a lack of interest and commitment, neither, you are not welcome. As we have noted over three years, there are plenty of other websites for rants of a partisan, petty, mindless or vituperative nature.

We encourage you read Transparency International’s report, referenced repeatedly on Groundviews and in other traditional media in Sri Lanka, before any more attempts to suggest the election campaign of the incumbent is being paid for by private coffers. We did not say the amount was miniscule. We said that it COULD be in comparison to what has been noted as campaign spending in terrestrial TV broadcasts by the incumbents.

You say “As responsible citizen journalists you cannot allege that funds for the on-line campaign have come from the misuse of public finances, without evidence to prove this.” We say that as a responsible citizen journalists site we will point to where funding is suspect, and that as public officials who are accountable to us, those in power can and must respond with clarifications.

That they do not, or will not, to us, suggests there is much to hide.

Humanist said,

January 9, 2010 @ 8:13 am

Groundviews,

I have no disagreement with the points you have made in paragraphs 2,3 and 4.

However, I do disagree that you relegate SomewhatDigusted’s discussion to the category of “rants of partisan, petty, mindless or vituperative nature”. In my view, all s/he is saying is that there are more important issues to hold the regime and incumbent responsible for than this one. I think s/he is entitled to that opinion and I would hate to see her/him disappear to some other website.

It does not take much to be a little bit less adversarial and a bit more gracious.

Groundviews said,

January 9, 2010 @ 10:33 am

You really need to improve your comprehension of both English and politics. Till such time, please desist from commenting. Thank you.

Observer said,

January 9, 2010 @ 10:35 am

@Observer, the point about the partisan and unverified nature of the allegations of outrageous corruption by the incumbents is well taken, and well put. There are however a number of concerns over the gross misuse of State property and public finances documented in the first report by Transparency International that have gone unanswered by the government and its supporters.

It is in this larger context of the misuse of public finances, and the lack of transparency over campaign funding in general, that the questions over the nature of the ads in international media are placed.

Do you know how scary the rationale of your argument is to me. You’re using a collection of allegations (non proven) to substantiate another allegation to the list. Kind of a slippery slope. As Colbert would put it, add some truthiness to it. Gosh I thought you guys were better!

By the way that TIS report was one of the only reports I have read recently that had no verified references to it (quite common practice in report writing). I’m sure some of it is true, but you need some evidence attached in an appendix of sorts, because not all of it is TRUE either. So the reader needs verifiable information to sort fact from fiction.

For instance those license plates of the buses used, why not add an appendix to the report and attach their vehicle registration certificates to it? How is the reader to verify indeed that vehicle number plates belongs to the state and it was used for the said purpose. Leaving that to the reader is poor reporting. It is really your word against someone else’s isn’t it? Provide me some log book data for god sake!

Those public servants supposedly used for various tasks. Name, rank, testimonies, etc. Where is it??? Saying 10 people were used for this and that doesn’t tickle my brain all that much.

Example:
650 people have been recruited from Matara District for the Railway Department as temporary labourers.
Does it hurt to publish 50 names of these 650?? I’d believe you more if you did.

Am I supposed to just swallow what’s written in there just because the author says I’m Transparency International SL?

You guys need to work on how to provide credible evidence… I’m trying to help you here…

Groundviews said,

January 9, 2010 @ 10:48 am

To reiterate, and this is getting tedious, you and the plethora of other Rajapakse apologists on this forum and thread in particular are of the belief that this international ad campaign (a) runs off private donations (b) has a negligible cost. Where are YOUR sources? We are posing questions, in search of answers from elected representatives. We do not need the furnish the burden of proof given what are, for example, COPE reports tabled in Parliament that have contributed to the large measure of public perception of monumental govt. corruption. The burden of proof, thus, must come from our elected representatives to prove they have not abused our money. No one asks you to “swallow” this version, or the TISL report, as the sole truth. What we strongly encourage yet rarely see is govt. in Sri Lanka (and not just this one) is transparency and accountability. If it is in the clear, it must prove it is. Citizens have a right to demand this of govt. Thanks for the offer of help – but perhaps you can help yourself by asking govt the same questions, if only to prove us wrong?

Humanist said,

January 9, 2010 @ 11:07 am

Groundviews,
Your role and that of commentators on this website are somewhat different. Hence, my comments are directed to you because you are supposed to be the non-partisan facilitators of this website.

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.

Observer said,

January 9, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

Of course, your approach drives away people who don’t necessarily agree with you and invites those on the other side. Think of what that creates. I’m not sure that’s what a blog that encourages debate should practice. Long as it’s the king and their happy followers right?

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.

Groundviews said,

January 9, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

@SomewhatDisgusted, the accusations now of being disingenuous, dishonest et al must surely stem from the fact that questions repeatedly posed by us here and again here are unanswerable, and therefore worth any spin to divert attention away from.

Observer said,

January 9, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

The burden of proof, thus, must come from our elected representatives to prove they have not abused our money.

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!

Observer said,

January 10, 2010 @ 9:02 am

It’s sad that Sri Lanka does not have right to information legislation. I accept that. You can’t blame one party for that. Even then some of the accusations are not possible to prove innocent of. That’s my point! Hence my reasons for saying it’s not reasonable to expect the government to prove it’s innocence against all the mud that’s being thrown at it. Mud that’s unsurprisingly snow balling close to a presidential election. There should be a greater responsibility by those who make the accusations to provide credible evidence. Copies of damning documents would be a good start.. or testimonies by those who assisted wrong doing.

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.

Groundviews said,

January 10, 2010 @ 10:33 am

Seriously, are you being disingenuous or are you actually so ill-educated? The three COPE reports, even with your suspect English comprehension and intelligence, will make for interesting reading. Groundviews has also published an article based on it – The Rajapakse regime: Rewarding the corrupt and sheltering the criminal? The scale of corruption is not what WE alone claim, it is what has been tabled in Parliament. And this is not even counting the reports in traditional media, including most recently this article by Rajpal Abeynayake (Negative Attributes of Mahinda Rajapaksa: Candid assessment of Presidential Candidates – 1), who is by no stretch of imagination a supporter of the opposition, a fan of Groundviews or partial to NGOs.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

January 10, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

Dear Groundviews,

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.

Observer said,

January 10, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

Seriously, are you being disingenuous or are you actually so ill-educated?

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!

Dhiraj said,

January 10, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

“The three COPE reports, even with your suspect English comprehension and intelligence”

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

Justitia said,

January 13, 2010 @ 11:41 am

Who paid for the hoarding near the Odel roundabout? ICTA?