Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Look here, Kipenji ! you do not have to expose your crude upbringing by using that sort of language to address me. I was not asking for a proposal from you for me personally. You criticized the proposal made by federalists and all I was asking of you was if you could come up with an alternative to theirs. But, as Rehema rightly pointed out, you are not in position even to do that. Its of no use turning your inability into anger. You are indeed a fake federalist. Kasangwawo From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:06:03 + (GMT) Kasangwawo,you do not fall within the ambits of those who warrant a proposal from me so fuck up. kipenji. = jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rehema, I somehow had a gut feeling that a proposal from Kipenji was not forthcoming. You were spot on - he is one of those who love to criticize (unconstructively) but are not ready to propose any solutions. They use trivial reasons to get out of the discussion but then keep jumping back in with snide remarks. Fake federalists is what I call them. Kasangwawo >From: Owor Kipenji >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji >Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:19:46 + (GMT) > >Mwatu Rehema,could you really tell me what it is you are trying to >extract from me? >Everybody has a choice on what they need to contribute to and not to >contribute to and there need not be any critical thinking about or on it. >As regards the Federal cause,visit the website and you'll get awash with >my contributions on it and as per my nature I do not subscribe to >regurgitations which is apparent is what you are trying to drive me to. >Please spare me your opinions on this and discuss with those who are >critical thinkers as per your definitions. >Thank you. >Alah'hamdi lillah!. >Kipenji. >== > >Rehema Mukooza wrote: >Yeah, rest your brain cells! Unconstructive criticizm always ends this >way! Let those who can think, scratch their brains out and figure this one >out. This is not about my opinion about you, but people of your character >(unconstructive critics) on such a subject! > >Owor Kipenji wrote: >Rehema,as for me and my mind/brain,I rested my case >and for that matter I grant you your opinion about >me.Wallow in it and Allah's will, will done. >Have a nice day. >Kipenji. >= >--- Rehema Mukooza wrote: > >Kipenji: > > > > Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some > > ways to solve or ways that may work better than what > > Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu > > and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of > > unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! > > Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a > > better solution, tells me that indeed you don't > > under the unitary system to its fullest nor > > federalism. > > > > Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not > > the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us > > your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make > > use of the same brain cells you used to question > > Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point > > out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate > > that same problem for a solution. You see, that is > > the difference between knowledge and wisdom! > > > > Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to > > come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's > > proposal, so you know where my support lies. > > > > > > Zakoomu R. > > > > Owor Kipenji wrote: > > According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to > > recognise > > one's baby and from that statement,that was very > > pregnant with > > meaning I rested my case. > > You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever > > units/names you > > wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded > > in those units > > at the your own peril. > > Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead. > > Thank you. > > Kipenji. > > >== > > > > jonah kasangwawo wrote: > > Mr. Kipenji, > > > > according to the UPC map (which I think has also > > been adopted by the NRM), > > Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not > > s
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Praises be to Allah! I'm not trying to extract anything from you. All I did was to ask you questions and definately you failed them. What's there to extract?? How can someone extract something from you that you don't have?? You have already proved to be unconstructive! There is nothing else to extract. Don't make me laugh.Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mwatu Rehema,could you really tell me what it is you are trying to extract from me? Everybody has a choice on what they need to contribute to and not to contribute to and there need not be any critical thinking about or on it. As regards the Federal cause,visit the website and you'll get awash with my contributions on it and as per my nature I do not subscribe to regurgitations which is apparent is what you are trying to drive me to. Please spare me your opinions on this and discuss with those who are critical thinkers as per your definitions. Thank you. Alah'hamdi lillah!. Kipenji. ==Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah, rest your brain cells! Unconstructive criticizm always ends this way! Let those who can think, scratch their brains out and figure this one out. This is not about my opinion about you, but people of your character (unconstructive critics) on such a subject!Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rehema,as for me and my mind/brain,I rested my caseand for that matter I grant you your opinion aboutme.Wallow in it and Allah's will, will done.Have a nice day.Kipenji.=--- Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >Kipenji:> > Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some> ways to solve or ways that may work better than what> Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu> and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of> unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! > Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a> better solution, tells me that indeed you don't > under the unitary system to its fullest nor> federalism. > > Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not> the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us> your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make> use of the same brain cells you used to question> Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point> out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate> that same problem for a solution. You see, that is> the difference between knowledge and wisdom!> > Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to> come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's> proposal, so you know where my support lies.> > > Zakoomu R.> > Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to> recognise> one's baby and from that statement,that was very> pregnant with> meaning I rested my case.> You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever> units/names you > wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded> in those units> at the your own peril.> Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead.> Thank you.> Kipenji.>==> > jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> Mr. Kipenji,> > according to the UPC map (which I think has also> been adopted by the NRM), > Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not> stopped federalists from > proposing Buganda as one of the federal states.> > If you have a problem with the proposal concerning> Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, > why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all> ears.> > Kasangwawo> > > >From: Owor Kipenji > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!> >Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT)> >> >So this time around,you did that very extensive> consultations and> >yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for> example can work> >together or better still Bukedi which you refer to> and yet that entity> >never exists anymore???.> >Th e taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I> will keep my ears> >to the ground.> >Thank you.> >Kipenji.>>=== Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Kasangwawo,you do not fall within the ambits of those who warrant a proposal from me so fuck up. kipenji. = jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rehema,I somehow had a gut feeling that a proposal from Kipenji was not forthcoming. You were spot on - he is one of those who love to criticize (unconstructively) but are not ready to propose any solutions. They use trivial reasons to get out of the discussion but then keep jumping back in with snide remarks. Fake federalists is what I call them.Kasangwawo>From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji>Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:19:46 + (GMT)>>Mwatu Rehema,could you really tell me what it is you are trying to>extract from me?>Everybody has a choice on what they need to contribute to and not to>contribute to and there need not be any critical thinking about or on it.>As regards the Federal cause,visit the website and you'll get awash with>my contributions on it and as per my nature I do not subscribe to >regurgitations which is apparent is what you are trying to drive me to.>Please spare me your opinions on this and discuss with those who are >critical thinkers as per your definitions.>Thank you.>Alah'hamdi lillah!.>Kipenji.>==>>Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>Yeah, rest your brain cells! Unconstructive criticizm always ends this >way! Let those who can think, scratch their brains out and figure this one >out. This is not about my opinion about you, but people of your character >(unconstructive critics) on such a subject!>>Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>Rehema,as for me and my mind/brain,I rested my case>and for that matter I grant you your opinion about>me.Wallow in it and Allah's will, will done.>Have a nice day.>Kipenji.>=>--- Rehema Mukooza wrote: >>Kipenji:> >> > Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some> > ways to solve or ways that may work better than what> > Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu> > and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of> > unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?!> > Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a> > better solution, tells me that indeed you don't> > under the unitary system to its fullest nor> > federalism.> >> > Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not> > the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us> > your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make> > use of the same brain cells you used to question> > Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point> > out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate> > that same problem for a solution. You see, that is> > the difference between knowledge and wisdom!> >> > Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to> > come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's> > proposal, so you know where my support lies.> >> >> > Zakoomu R.> >> > Owor Kipenji wrote:> > According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to> > recognise> > one's baby and from that statement,that was very> > pregnant with> > meaning I rested my case.> > You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever> > units/names you> > wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded> > in those units> > at the your own peril.> > Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead.> > Thank you.> > Kipenji.> >>==> >> > jonah kasangwawo wrote:> > Mr. Kipenji,> >> > according to the UPC map (which I think has also> > been adopted by the NRM),> > Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not> > stopped federalists from> > proposing Buganda as one of the federal states.> >> > If you have a problem with the proposal concerning> > Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi,> > why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all> > ears.> >> > Kasangwawo> >> >> > >From: Owor Kipenji> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!> > >Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT)> > >> > >So this time around,you did that very extensive> &g
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Rehema, I somehow had a gut feeling that a proposal from Kipenji was not forthcoming. You were spot on - he is one of those who love to criticize (unconstructively) but are not ready to propose any solutions. They use trivial reasons to get out of the discussion but then keep jumping back in with snide remarks. Fake federalists is what I call them. Kasangwawo From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:19:46 + (GMT) Mwatu Rehema,could you really tell me what it is you are trying to extract from me? Everybody has a choice on what they need to contribute to and not to contribute to and there need not be any critical thinking about or on it. As regards the Federal cause,visit the website and you'll get awash with my contributions on it and as per my nature I do not subscribe to regurgitations which is apparent is what you are trying to drive me to. Please spare me your opinions on this and discuss with those who are critical thinkers as per your definitions. Thank you. Alah'hamdi lillah!. Kipenji. == Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah, rest your brain cells! Unconstructive criticizm always ends this way! Let those who can think, scratch their brains out and figure this one out. This is not about my opinion about you, but people of your character (unconstructive critics) on such a subject! Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rehema,as for me and my mind/brain,I rested my case and for that matter I grant you your opinion about me.Wallow in it and Allah's will, will done. Have a nice day. Kipenji. = --- Rehema Mukooza wrote: > Kipenji: > > Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some > ways to solve or ways that may work better than what > Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu > and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of > unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! > Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a > better solution, tells me that indeed you don't > under the unitary system to its fullest nor > federalism. > > Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not > the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us > your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make > use of the same brain cells you used to question > Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point > out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate > that same problem for a solution. You see, that is > the difference between knowledge and wisdom! > > Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to > come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's > proposal, so you know where my support lies. > > > Zakoomu R. > > Owor Kipenji wrote: > According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to > recognise > one's baby and from that statement,that was very > pregnant with > meaning I rested my case. > You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever > units/names you > wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded > in those units > at the your own peril. > Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead. > Thank you. > Kipenji. > == > > jonah kasangwawo wrote: > Mr. Kipenji, > > according to the UPC map (which I think has also > been adopted by the NRM), > Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not > stopped federalists from > proposing Buganda as one of the federal states. > > If you have a problem with the proposal concerning > Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, > why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all > ears. > > Kasangwawo > > > >From: Owor Kipenji > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! > >Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT) > > > >So this time around,you did that very extensive > consultations and > >yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for > example can work > >together or better still Bukedi which you refer to > and yet that entity > >never exists anymore???. > >Th e taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I > will keep my ears > >to the ground. > >Thank you. > >Kipenji. > >=== - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. - Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Mwatu Rehema,could you really tell me what it is you are trying to extract from me? Everybody has a choice on what they need to contribute to and not to contribute to and there need not be any critical thinking about or on it. As regards the Federal cause,visit the website and you'll get awash with my contributions on it and as per my nature I do not subscribe to regurgitations which is apparent is what you are trying to drive me to. Please spare me your opinions on this and discuss with those who are critical thinkers as per your definitions. Thank you. Alah'hamdi lillah!. Kipenji. ==Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah, rest your brain cells! Unconstructive criticizm always ends this way! Let those who can think, scratch their brains out and figure this one out. This is not about my opinion about you, but people of your character (unconstructive critics) on such a subject!Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rehema,as for me and my mind/brain,I rested my caseand for that matter I grant you your opinion aboutme.Wallow in it and Allah's will, will done.Have a nice day.Kipenji.=--- Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >Kipenji:> > Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some> ways to solve or ways that may work better than what> Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu> and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of> unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! > Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a> better solution, tells me that indeed you don't > under the unitary system to its fullest nor> federalism. > > Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not> the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us> your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make> use of the same brain cells you used to question> Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point> out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate> that same problem for a solution. You see, that is> the difference between knowledge and wisdom!> > Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to> come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's> proposal, so you know where my support lies.> > > Zakoomu R.> > Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to> recognise> one's baby and from that statement,that was very> pregnant with> meaning I rested my case.> You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever> units/names you > wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded> in those units> at the your own peril.> Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead.> Thank you.> Kipenji.>==> > jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> Mr. Kipenji,> > according to the UPC map (which I think has also> been adopted by the NRM), > Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not> stopped federalists from > proposing Buganda as one of the federal states.> > If you have a problem with the proposal concerning> Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, > why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all> ears.> > Kasangwawo> > > >From: Owor Kipenji > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!> >Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT)> >> >So this time around,you did that very extensive> consultations and> >yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for> example can work> >together or better still Bukedi which you refer to> and yet that entity> >never exists anymore???.> >Th e taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I> will keep my ears> >to the ground.> >Thank you.> >Kipenji.>>=== Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Yeah, rest your brain cells! Unconstructive criticizm always ends this way! Let those who can think, scratch their brains out and figure this one out. This is not about my opinion about you, but people of your character (unconstructive critics) on such a subject!Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rehema,as for me and my mind/brain,I rested my caseand for that matter I grant you your opinion aboutme.Wallow in it and Allah's will, will done.Have a nice day.Kipenji.=--- Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >Kipenji:> > Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some> ways to solve or ways that may work better than what> Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu> and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of> unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! > Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a> better solution, tells me that indeed you don't > under the unitary system to its fullest nor> federalism. > > Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not> the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us> your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make> use of the same brain cells you used to question> Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point> out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate> that same problem for a solution. You see, that is> the difference between knowledge and wisdom!> > Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to> come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's> proposal, so you know where my support lies.> > > Zakoomu R.> > Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to> recognise> one's baby and from that statement,that was very> pregnant with> meaning I rested my case.> You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever> units/names you > wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded> in those units> at the your own peril.> Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead.> Thank you.> Kipenji.>==> > jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> Mr. Kipenji,> > according to the UPC map (which I think has also> been adopted by the NRM), > Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not> stopped federalists from > proposing Buganda as one of the federal states.> > If you have a problem with the proposal concerning> Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, > why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all> ears.> > Kasangwawo> > > >From: Owor Kipenji > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!> >Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT)> >> >So this time around,you did that very extensive> consultations and> >yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for> example can work> >together or better still Bukedi which you refer to> and yet that entity> >never exists anymore???.> >Th e taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I> will keep my ears> >to the ground.> >Thank you.> >Kipenji.>>=== Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Muko,which of your toes did I surreptitiously tread on so that you remind me of my role on Federalism?. Do you think my position has changed an iota?. Many times the children of a revolution are eaten by their revolution and hence my earnest desire to see what is being discussed anew on the Federo front. When I suggest revisting and fine tunning what was stated earlier,it does not tantamount to being in opposition!. I was at the centre of Federalism,now I am near to the periphery so as to get a birds' eye view of the situation and put it in their right perspective. Does that help unclog the labyrinth of ambiguity that is gaining currency in your quarters? Thank you. Kipenji. --- Lugemwa FN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Omuko Kipenyi: > > For some strange reason, I do not get a lot of > messages from Ugandanet. Sometimes I do not even > get my own messages ! ! > > Back to the baby thing. > > You are one of the architects of the federo > document @ > http://www.federo.com/Pages/FedsNet%20Federal%20Proposals.htm > > and you must have read it several times. It is very > different from the 1962 doc.--someone else's baby. > http://www.federo.com/Pages/Uganda_Constitution_1962.htm > which had districts, territories and federal > states. In 'your ' proposal you are advocating > self-determination and equal power to all 13 > economically viable states. > > FN Lugemwa > > > > > Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kipenji: > > Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some > ways to solve or ways that may work better than what > Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu > and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of > unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! > Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a > better solution, tells me that indeed you don't > under the unitary system to its fullest nor > federalism. > > Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not > the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us > your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make > use of the same brain cells you used to question > Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point > out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate > that same problem for a solution. You see, that is > the difference between knowledge and wisdom! > > Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to > come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's > proposal, so you know where my support lies. > > > Zakoomu R. > > Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to > recognise > one's baby and from that statement,that was very > pregnant with > meaning I rested my case. > You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever > units/names you > wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded > in those units > at the your own peril. > Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead. > Thank you. > Kipenji. > == > > jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Kipenji, > > according to the UPC map (which I think has also > been adopted by the NRM), > Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not > stopped federalists from > proposing Buganda as one of the federal states. > > If you have a problem with the proposal concerning > Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, > why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all > ears. > > Kasangwawo > > > >From: Owor Kipenji > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! > >Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT) > > > >So this time around,you did that very extensive > consultations and > >yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for > example can work > >together or better still Bukedi which you refer to > and yet that entity > >never exists anymore???. > >Th e taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I > will keep my ears > >to the ground. > >Thank you. > >Kipenji. > >=== > > - > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. > > > - > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. ___ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Rehema,as for me and my mind/brain,I rested my case and for that matter I grant you your opinion about me.Wallow in it and Allah's will, will done. Have a nice day. Kipenji. = --- Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kipenji: > > Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some > ways to solve or ways that may work better than what > Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu > and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of > unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! > Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a > better solution, tells me that indeed you don't > under the unitary system to its fullest nor > federalism. > > Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not > the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us > your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make > use of the same brain cells you used to question > Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point > out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate > that same problem for a solution. You see, that is > the difference between knowledge and wisdom! > > Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to > come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's > proposal, so you know where my support lies. > > > Zakoomu R. > > Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to > recognise > one's baby and from that statement,that was very > pregnant with > meaning I rested my case. > You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever > units/names you > wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded > in those units > at the your own peril. > Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead. > Thank you. > Kipenji. > == > > jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Kipenji, > > according to the UPC map (which I think has also > been adopted by the NRM), > Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not > stopped federalists from > proposing Buganda as one of the federal states. > > If you have a problem with the proposal concerning > Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, > why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all > ears. > > Kasangwawo > > > >From: Owor Kipenji > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! > >Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT) > > > >So this time around,you did that very extensive > consultations and > >yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for > example can work > >together or better still Bukedi which you refer to > and yet that entity > >never exists anymore???. > >Th e taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I > will keep my ears > >to the ground. > >Thank you. > >Kipenji. > >=== > > - > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. ___ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Omuko Kipenyi: For some strange reason, I do not get a lot of messages from Ugandanet. Sometimes I do not even get my own messages ! ! Back to the baby thing. You are one of the architects of the federo document @ http://www.federo.com/Pages/FedsNet%20Federal%20Proposals.htm and you must have read it several times. It is very different from the 1962 doc.--someone else's baby. http://www.federo.com/Pages/Uganda_Constitution_1962.htm which had districts, territories and federal states. In 'your ' proposal you are advocating self-determination and equal power to all 13 economically viable states. FN Lugemwa Rehema Mukooza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kipenji: Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some ways to solve or ways that may work better than what Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a better solution, tells me that indeed you don't under the unitary system to its fullest nor federalism. Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make use of the same brain cells you used to question Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate that same problem for a solution. You see, that is the difference between knowledge and wisdom! Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's proposal, so you know where my support lies. Zakoomu R.Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to recognise one's baby and from that statement,that was very pregnant with meaning I rested my case. You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever units/names you wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded in those units at the your own peril. Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead. Thank you. Kipenji. ==jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mr. Kipenji,according to the UPC map (which I think has also been adopted by the NRM), Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not stopped federalists from proposing Buganda as one of the federal states.If you have a problem with the proposal concerning Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all ears.Kasangwawo>From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT)>>So this time around,you did that very extensive consultations and>yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for example can work>together or better still Bukedi which you refer to and yet that entity>never exists anymore???.>Th e taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I will keep my ears>to the ground.>Thank you.>Kipenji.>=== Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! - Kipenji
Kipenji: Come on, man! Be a critical thinker. Think of some ways to solve or ways that may work better than what Lugemwa offered concerning the federating of Bugisu and Sebei or Bukedi. You are a classical example of unconstructive criticizm! How bad can things get?! Criticizing and yet you can not come up with a better solution, tells me that indeed you don't under the unitary system to its fullest nor federalism. Giving up when the thinking got tough on you, is not the easy way out. Challenge Lugemwa and show us your plans and ideas for the issues at hand. Make use of the same brain cells you used to question Lugemwa's proposal. I wonder how someone can point out a "problem" and yet he (you) can not manipulate that same problem for a solution. You see, that is the difference between knowledge and wisdom! Oh Allah, how I was waiting for your solution to come. And I'm still waiting. I stick to Lugemwa's proposal, so you know where my support lies. Zakoomu R.Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to recognise one's baby and from that statement,that was very pregnant with meaning I rested my case. You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever units/names you wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded in those units at the your own peril. Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead. Thank you. Kipenji. ==jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mr. Kipenji,according to the UPC map (which I think has also been adopted by the NRM), Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not stopped federalists from proposing Buganda as one of the federal states.If you have a problem with the proposal concerning Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all ears.Kasangwawo>From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT)>>So this time around,you did that very extensive consultations and>yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for example can work>together or better still Bukedi which you refer to and yet that entity>never exists anymore???.>Th e taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I will keep my ears>to the ground.>Thank you.>Kipenji.>=== Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
According to Professor Lugemwa one has to be able to recognise one's baby and from that statement,that was very pregnant with meaning I rested my case. You are at liberty to continue proposing whatever units/names you wish to ignoring the subtle idiosyncrasies embedded in those units at the your own peril. Thank you and have more wonderful discussions ahead. Thank you. Kipenji. ==jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mr. Kipenji,according to the UPC map (which I think has also been adopted by the NRM), Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not stopped federalists from proposing Buganda as one of the federal states.If you have a problem with the proposal concerning Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all ears.Kasangwawo>From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT)>>So this time around,you did that very extensive consultations and>yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for example can work>together or better still Bukedi which you refer to and yet that entity>never exists anymore???.>The taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I will keep my ears>to the ground.>Thank you.>Kipenji.>>>>-> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! >Download Messenger Now_STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailThis service is hosted on the Infocom networkhttp://www.infocom.co.ug Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
Listers Please find candid answers to some federo questions @ http://www.federo.com/Pages/faq.htm Obusingye FN Lugemwa Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
RE: SV: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
Mr. Bwanika, federo does not claim to be a remedy for all human character flaws. Even in the most developed democracies, you will find thieves, conmen, etc. All federo can try to do is to put up checks for these human excesses. This is not going to be easy especially with the way morals have been eroded over the years in our motherland. Kasangwawo From: "dbbwanika db" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SV: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:59:52 +0100 Mw. Kasangwawo Unfortunately I happen to agree to small entities call them districts or federal entities for matter or organisational and managerial reasons. They are easy to monitor and run by us in Uganda. However just a few months ago I forwarded a proposal in such one district in Buganda for the development of that districts towns this is a personal effort exactly as we have done since 1996. I met with the so-called engineer who actually happens to be the district town planner I went through the entire plan and how the project was to be financed, executed and how the district was to benefit. Luckily the man had had some idea about what I was talking about and loved the idea so much. That was the last time I saw the district town engineer planner despite a month of trial to get the man take up the proposal to a higher level for action and implementation! Last time I read in the papers that he and others were being investigated by IGG for misappropriation of district funds. End. FEDERO As of the above I have heard and seen with my own eyes similar stories and things how will federo solve these and other deeply rooted human pervasive behaviourism and I also what to know FEDEROs solution to such problems and how they will be solved? bwanika. Kipenji, why don't you compare the two and find out for yourself? The 1962 constitution (main excerpts) is at: http://www.federo.com/Pages/Uganda_Constitution_1962.htm while the federal proposal is at: http://www.federo.com/Pages/FedsNet%20Federal%20Proposals.htm Kasangwawo __ bwanika url: www.idr.co.ug Logon & Join in ug-academicsdb discussion list http://www.coollist.com/subcribe.html List ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your Email address: ~~ ~~ url: http://uhpl.uganda.co.ug http://pub59.ezboard.com/fugandamanufacturersassociationfrm1 _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
Mr. Kipenji, according to the UPC map (which I think has also been adopted by the NRM), Buganda does not appear as an entity. This has not stopped federalists from proposing Buganda as one of the federal states. If you have a problem with the proposal concerning Bugisu, Sebei or Bukedi, why don't you propose an alternative ? We are all ears. Kasangwawo From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:25:34 + (GMT) So this time around,you did that very extensive consultations and yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for example can work together or better still Bukedi which you refer to and yet that entity never exists anymore???. The taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I will keep my ears to the ground. Thank you. Kipenji. - Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
Musawo Kipenyi: Thou shall know the difference between your baby and someone else's baby. FN Lugemwa : [EMAIL PROTECTED]jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kipenji,why don't you compare the two and find out for yourself?The 1962 constitution (main excerpts) is at:http://www.federo.com/Pages/Uganda_Constitution_1962.htmwhile the federal proposal is at:http://www.federo.com/Pages/FedsNet%20Federal%20Proposals.htmKasangwawo>From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:40:02 + (GMT)>>Apart from the naming of the proposed 13 states,is there anything>fundamentally different from the 1962 unworkable arrangement?>Just wondering aloud.>Kipenji.>===>>>-> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! >Download Messenger Now_The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailThis service is hosted on the Infocom networkhttp://www.infocom.co.ug Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
SV: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
Mw. Kasangwawo Unfortunately I happen to agree to small entities call them districts or federal entities for matter or organisational and managerial reasons. They are easy to monitor and run by us in Uganda. However just a few months ago I forwarded a proposal in such one district in Buganda for the development of that districts towns this is a personal effort exactly as we have done since 1996. I met with the so-called engineer who actually happens to be the district town planner I went through the entire plan and how the project was to be financed, executed and how the district was to benefit. Luckily the man had had some idea about what I was talking about and loved the idea so much. That was the last time I saw the district town engineer planner despite a month of trial to get the man take up the proposal to a higher level for action and implementation! Last time I read in the papers that he and others were being investigated by IGG for misappropriation of district funds. End. FEDERO As of the above I have heard and seen with my own eyes similar stories and things how will federo solve these and other deeply rooted human pervasive behaviourism and I also what to know FEDEROs solution to such problems and how they will be solved? bwanika. Kipenji, why don't you compare the two and find out for yourself? The 1962 constitution (main excerpts) is at: http://www.federo.com/Pages/Uganda_Constitution_1962.htm while the federal proposal is at: http://www.federo.com/Pages/FedsNet%20Federal%20Proposals.htm Kasangwawo __ bwanika url: www.idr.co.ug Logon & Join in ug-academicsdb discussion list http://www.coollist.com/subcribe.html List ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your Email address: ~~ ~~ url: http://uhpl.uganda.co.ug http://pub59.ezboard.com/fugandamanufacturersassociationfrm1
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
So this time around,you did that very extensive consultations and yo!,you discovered that Bugisu and Sebei for example can work together or better still Bukedi which you refer to and yet that entity never exists anymore???. The taste of the pudding is in the eating and so I will keep my ears to the ground. Thank you. Kipenji. Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
Kipenji, why don't you compare the two and find out for yourself? The 1962 constitution (main excerpts) is at: http://www.federo.com/Pages/Uganda_Constitution_1962.htm while the federal proposal is at: http://www.federo.com/Pages/FedsNet%20Federal%20Proposals.htm Kasangwawo From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:40:02 + (GMT) Apart from the naming of the proposed 13 states,is there anything fundamentally different from the 1962 unworkable arrangement? Just wondering aloud. Kipenji. === - Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
Owor Yes there are differences. Many nationalities \ districts did not have a chance to determine what they want in terms of power; with whom to merge to have a viable state; etc. This lead to some nationalities feeling "left out" by not having similar powers. J. Ssenyange - -- From: Owor Kipenji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement! Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:40:02 + (GMT) Apart from the naming of the proposed 13 states,is there anything fundamentally different from the 1962 unworkable arrangement? Just wondering aloud. Kipenji. === - Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
Re: ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
Apart from the naming of the proposed 13 states,is there anything fundamentally different from the 1962 unworkable arrangement? Just wondering aloud. Kipenji. === Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
ugnet_: 1962 unworkable arrangement!
From the 1962 Constitution: (1) Uganda consists of Federal States, Districts and the territory of Busoga. (2) The Federal States are the Kingdom of Buganda, the Kingdom of Ankole, the Kingdom of Bunyoro, the Kingdom of Toro and the territory of Busoga. (3) The Districts are the Districts of Acholi, Bugisu, Bukedi, Karamoja, Kigezi, Lango, Madi, Sebei, Teso and West Nile 2004 Fedsnet's 13 States model for an 'all-inclusive' Federal system Acholi Ankole Buganda Bugisu/Sebei Bukedi Bunyoro Busoga Karamoja Kigezi Lango Teso Toro West Nile www.federo.com FN Lugemwa Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
