THIS serves as a reply to an article published in Kaieteur News of December 17, 2012 by one ‘Seema Chatterdeo (Mrs, I presume), if indeed that is her name, which I seriously doubt. Although her article is less worthy of my response than other more recent articles, I will spare just a half-hour of my valuable time to reply to her absurdity.

No detailed reading or analysis of her article is necessary, for a mere glance at her dribbling drivel underscores, quite simply, that she is akin to a drowning man clutching at straws. I confess to, and stand by my exhibited “arrogance and disdain” in my recently published article. My “arrogance and disdain” however were specifically directed and served the precise purpose of responding solely to a lesser qualified singular individual who was questioning my qualifications. My response referenced no other individual or class thereof whatsoever.
Her profligate, over-reaching attempted extension to classify my “arrogance and disdain towards those lesser qualified than [myself]” in general, is thus misconstrued, specious and speculative at best. Let me make clear that I place myself on no pedestal, but will always greet those who are lesser qualified than I, who question my qualifications, with “arrogance and disdain.”
So my fellow Guyanese, please understand the bounds of my article and disregard “Mrs. Chatterdeo’s” propagandistic vitriol.
“Mrs. Chatterdeo’s” use of the word “puffing,” is misapplied and out of context. “Puffery” or “puffing” is a legal term of art that connotes the use of promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views—it serves to “puff up” an exaggerated image of what is being described. In the article she was responding to, I itemised an objective, precise list of my actual qualifications and achievements—not subjective, exaggerations or half-truths, which would be “puffery” or “puffing.” I thus implore her to refrain from the use of specialised terminology she is observably unacquainted with.
I must admit I was quite amused by her reference to “someone of such small stature,” but ultimately, such frolicsome mention underscores her own lack of self-worth. The pen, for the information of my big-statured friend, is much mightier than the sword! Guess which one I am armed with!
With reference to her point about being the “butt of many jokes…and…ridicule, now on a national stage,” it is obvious that she is out of touch with reality and/or is interested only in the views of those who share her own, the latter demonstrating only her inflexible and biased character.
From the overwhelming majority of the feedback I have garnered (admittedly there was some negative feedback), including the opinions of numerous high-ranking, prestigious and prominent professionals and entrepreneurs, wholly disconnected from the political arena, I am the clear victor, by a land-slide. So, for the information of “Mrs. Chatterdeo” and those sharing her view, it seems that the joke is on her, so I urge her to laugh it up as I do every day!
How, as “Mrs. Chatterdeo” claims, I implied that I am better qualified than every licensed attorney in Guyana, I have yet to understand, as I do not hold this sentiment; and I have stated several times that I am not fully licensed to practise law in Guyana nor the U.S.A. I do understand that at this point, being on the ‘losing side’, her need to vilely attempt to invoke some sort of sham thespian outcry from legal practitioners in Guyana by purposefully and persistently misrepresenting and distorting my article and/or attaching her own words and thoughts to me. When all else fails she descends to filth, scum and grime, to whit: distortions and lies about my article, which is rather unfortunate, but typical.
Readers, I urge that you do not fall prey to “Mrs. Chatterdeo” and her cohorts’ venomous tactics, as they seek merely to insulate and mitigate their recent defeat at my hands.
It is clear that from “Mrs Chatterdeo’s” numbered paragraph 4, she does not understand what a rhetorical question is. My question concerning Juris Doctors in Guyana was not posed to solicit a response, it was rhetorical silly one, the point of which was meant to illustrate that there are only a ‘few,’ only ‘some’, only a ‘handful,” of Juris Doctors residing on a full-time basis in Guyana. Your description of “multiple” is misleading to readers and does not highlight the reality of the fact that U.S. trained Juris Doctors in Guyana are extremely limited.
This is a nice attempted cover-up on “Mrs. Chatterdeo’s part,” but ultimately unavailing.
The most pervasive and explicit illustration of “Mrs. Chatterdeo’s” lies, distortions and misrepresentations come in her numbered paragraph 5. Her uncreative attempt to extend my article as speaking to “the average hard-working decent Guyanese,” is indeed reprehensible and intolerable. “Mrs. Chatterdeo” is an insignificant quantity in the very best of circumstances. Her journalistic integrity is dangerously defective and her moral character is profusely undignified.
As aforementioned, my article was specifically directed and served the precise purpose of responding solely to a lesser qualified singular individual who was questioning my qualifications—not the “average hardworking decent Guyanese,” whom I hold very close to my heart and are the people whose ultimate betterment, in line with the visions of Dr. and Mrs. Cheddi Berret Jagan, prompted my immediate return home to Guyana upon graduating as an attorney in the U.S.A.
Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinions, but I find it disturbing that she feels the need to create her own version of my article to serve her own disgraceful purposes; so I urge “Mrs. Chatterdeo” to stop the tom foolery!