THIS letter was sent to KN but was not published in response to Freddie Kissoon’s column (Aug 5) again attacking my NACTA polls as he did so often in the past.
I have not done or published a poll in Guyana since November.  Yet Freddie attacks me and my poll. I am in New Zealand conducting research on immigrant communities with limited time to respond to Freddie’s calumnies. Thus, I am unable to pen a detailed response to his idiotic column. Freddie makes allegations about the NACTA poll and its findings, but like virtually all of his writings he makes claims without offering any evidence to substantiate them.
Freddie’s topic (as per the heading) in that column is supposed to be on Mr. Nigel Hughes, whom Freddie loves, but for some inexplicable reason my polls findings pop up in the prose.  The poll or its findings bear no relationship with anything else that is the subject of discussion in the column – it is a strange piece of writing for someone in academia where researchers’ writings are supposed to substantiate the topic and irrelevancies excluded.  But not so for Freddie who cannot differentiate between academics and ignorance. It raises serious questions about his academic training and how he was able to get away with such poor academics and writings for so long.
I was in Guyana only days ago spending almost three weeks conducting a NACTA poll. Everywhere I went people praised my writings and the NACTA polls. They urged me not to pay heed to Freddie or respond to his idiotic arguments in his columns.  Most of them (lawyers, doctors, professionals, university students, business people, and even ordinary folk, etc.)  stated that they read Freddie for entertainment. They view him as a comic who is not well informed about topics and who seeks to impress people with name and topic droppings with which he is not familiar. They urged me to ignore him.
I have decided to heed their advice.  But I feel constrained to respond to his latest attack on my surveys to correct the record.  For the umpteenth time for Freddie’s benefit, my polls are professionally conducted and most of the findings on elections correspond with actual results and they reflect the views of people. If Freddie has evidence or contrary findings, he should present them to the public.  That is how academic works. It is a pity Freddie does not understand academia.
Freddie claims that the polls are bogus and fictional.  His bone of contention is that the polls showed the PPP to be popular and as such they are bogus.  If the polls had shown the PPP as unpopular, then there would be no contention about their credibility.  All Freddie has to do is conduct his own polls and release their fndings to the public.
If Freddie can provide any evidence to substantiate his claims that the polls are bogus, I will desist from conducting further polls or writings in the media.  In addition, I shall fund polls to be conducted by Freddie.
If Freddie cannot prove his allegations, then he should terminate his columns and letter writings and compensate me for my work on opinion polling. I await his response to this simple challenge. Something is not right about Freddie.  The man is obsessed with me.  Maybe he has failed with Nigel, Mark, Adam, etc and feels I am his type.  I am not.