Mr Sinister, as promised, I made an associative diagram to show the illogical inference you derive from the EXTENSION.

[Gubbet]

As noted here;

https://www.somalinet.com/forums/viewto ... 5#p5006534

I’m not saying this because he’s my Inadeer but Gubbet’s original theory of the extension being a precursor that ended all of the Mucaarad’s game is beyond valid. The Mucaarad achieved absolutely zero, and N&N came out in a more advantageous position if you are following the election news.

That said I agree with your overall premise ciyaar waa gelin danbe. Not going to waste 4 more months in suspense. We’ll see what happens

I’m trying to bring a little levity here. People can have political differences without taking it too personal.

No offence to Gubbet but his theory is only valid if Farmajo is re elected. It’s not really analysis as there is no evidence that there was any strategy behind the failed extension. Sahal attempts real analysis based on changing political landscape. Anyone can say ‘this was the plan’ all along when things don’t go your way. I consider myself a realist and will concede that farmajo is not out when by all accounts he should be. But we shall see in due time. If NN ends up winning despite all of the obstacles thrown at farmajo, then my hats off.

No offense to you, but you have a logic problem---and I have said this before.

Do you want to read that again, maybe even 2X or more to see how illogical it sounds?

The next time I check this topic, maybe I will use a simple ASSOCIATION GRAPH to show how disparate your inference is from the associations of the factors.

Here you go;

[Gubbet]

The theory about the purpose of Extensions IS even "directly" informed by the "outcome" of the Elections.

EXTENSION STRATEGY SAYS;

1. Extension was designed to break Deni and Madoobe obstruction to signing September Agreement
   • Within a Month,, Deni and Madoobe signed September Agreement after 10 months
     
     • Election OUTCOME has no direct relationship with actions specifically taken to even HAVE an Election.
2. It is like saying a guy's actions.designed to get a girl to marriage is determined by whether they end up having a KID.
   
   • No, the outcome of the marriage has no direct relationship with steps taken to get to marriage
3. It would be "nice" and would make it all worth it if the person won the election or ended up having their dream kid, but the outcome has no DIRECT relationship with disparate actions designed for a different purpose.

If you are a techie, another way to look at this is. ELEMENT, ROOT, NODE for formatting.

<Extension Strategy>
<September Agreement Signatures>
<Election />
</September Agreement Signatures>
</Extension Strategy>

[MrSinister]

This is what’s called confirmation bias. You want everyone to ignore the fact that farmajo took a major gamble with the extension and it was not just politically opposed but militarily opposed. Do you think if he was capable of exerting his authority on Mogadishu and the rest of country, he would go back to the negotiating table. The only one thing I will admit is the opposition let him off the hook when they had the upper hand.

[Gubbet]

This is what’s called confirmation bias. You want everyone to ignore the fact that farmajo took a major gamble with the extension and it was not just politically opposed but militarily opposed. Do you think if he was capable of exerting his authority on Mogadishu and the rest of country, he would go back to the negotiating table. The only one thing I will admit is the opposition let him off the hook when they had the upper hand.

Excuse me brother, but you are "mistaken" about the factors involved here.

"Opinion" is not a factor.

This is pure logic.

Factor A: "Extension Strategy" (WHATEVER IT WAS FOR)

Factor B: "September Agreement" missing 2 Key Signatures.

Factor C: An "Election" that can ONLY be carried out through the September Agreement

• A -> C -> B ERROR : FACTOR B "SEPTEMBER AGREEMENT" HAS TO COME BEFORE FACTOR C "ELECTION;"
  
  ERROR: THE RULES FOR "ELECTION" CLEARLY SAY CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT BY SEPTEMBER AGREEMENT.
  
  
  
  • B -> C ->A ERROR : FACTOR A "EXTENSION STRATEGY" CANNOT FOLLOW FACTOR C "ELECTION."
  
  ERROR: "ELECTION" IS IN THE FUTURE WHILE "EXTENSION STRATEGY" IS IN THE PAST.
  
  
  
  
  
  • A -> B -> C✓ PERFECT LOGICAL SEQUENCE

[Gubbet]

You see "Election Outcome" to "Extension Strategy" is CHILD TO PARENT scientifically and mathematically speaking.

CAUSATION CANNOT FLOW BACKWARDS BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD.

IT HAS TO GO: PARENT -> CHILD.

ANY INFERENCE DRAWN FROM "CHILD" IS DISPARATE CAUSATION WISE TO PARENT.

THE ELECTION "OUTCOME" HAS 0% MATHEMATICAL (LOGICAL) CAUSATIVE INFERENCE TO "EXTENSION STRATEGY" BECAUSE BETWEEN THE TWO THERE HAS TO BE IN EXISTENXE "SIGNED SEPTEMBER AGREEMENT."

LOGICALLY SPEAKING MY EXTENSION STRATEGY IS A MATHEMATICAL POSSIBILITY BUT YOURS CANNOT EVEN BE A POSSIBILITY EVEN AT 1% BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THE EXISTENCE OF A SIGNED AND CHECKED OFF SEPTEMBER AGREEMENT FOR THE DIRECT CAUSATIVE INFERENCE OF THE ELECTION OUTCOME TO INFORM ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE EXTENSION STRATEGY.

THIS IS WHY THE EXTENSION STRATEGY SAYS EXTENSION WAS DISGNED TO BREAK THE STALEMATE AND COMPEL SIGNATURE COMPLETION OF THE SEPTEMBER AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO FINALLY GO A HEAD AND FINALIZE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

I mean this is ALL using the mathematical tools of logic without even using qualitative evidence like the fact, the Federal Govt, Southwest, Galmudug, Hirshabelle, and Benadir Region even went a head and unilaterally declared elections back in January after becoming quickly fed up with Deni and Madoobe.



Honestly, I didn't even start this topic as a debate or argument, because I don't think there is one; I started it so I could literally show you that Logically you should think a little bit more and control for others perspectives when you are making a logical inference.

[Gubbet]

I just reread what I wrote and realized more than 2/3 of regular people walking on a London or NYC street would just bert stare at someone if they said "mathematically causative inference" and "associatively disparate factors sequentially" so imagine anyone who randomly read it on an discussion forum. MR. SINISTER I do value clear communication as much as I like sharing and gaining knowledge so do let me know if I could explain myself better.