Thursday 18 March 2010

It's not November - a response

Having been challenged over my blog entry (the opportunity for dialogue being gratefully received) I have the following response:
     
Simon,
     
Having previously attempted to engage with JB over the material broadcast or published and having no success I have written as I have. I’m sorry that you choose to condemn what I have written as seeking to humiliate anyone by means of maliciously making false statements and regarding the ‘sarcasm’, I think you’ll find I apply it to myself more that I did to JB, perhaps this merely indicates that he takes himself a little too seriously?
    
As this blog is merely my musing, venting my spleen or laying down internal dialogue with myself, the only 'tribal' element would be that relating to my own multiple personalities I’m afraid. I speak for no others and to be honest, writing as I did to answer a question, I’m astounded to find that other people actually read the thing! I haven’t engaged with any other person or group to make a stand against Ekklesia and to find that I’m part of a wider group is surprising, but not a surprise. But I am still an individual and neither wish to take up pitchfork and tumbrel nor rabble-rouse, just put my own views. 
    
I’m not sure what you imagine my writings are supposed to ‘stand for’, this is an interesting take I’m sure. Read the label and you’ll understand that this blog is exactly what have said it is (and JB read the blog entries and you'll see your words fall hollow and, once more, incorrectly to the ground).
    
Regarding caricature and Remembrance, I’m sure that you didn’t intend to “offend veterans,” but the reality is that you did and not only that but the ‘new’ report made in 2009 seemed very much like the same stuff dragged out again, albeit with the Harry patch reference and the ‘telling it like it is’ additions. Add to this the continued condemnation of those who flew or supported Bomber Command (which today would see us looking at LOAC and the Conventions of war, proportionality being way up there as an issue along with 'protected status') personnel, who did as they were ordered.
    
Would that all those engaged in times of conflict had decided not to engage the enemy or that the women, Lysistrata like, had kept their underwear on. But of course this is not the case and a great many men and women, airborne and in uniform and civilian and on the ground died. We don’t need to lionise or gloss over but we do need to recognise that many of this, however unhappy at the command, obeyed their orders because this is what members of the forces are taught to do.
    
I have written my own piece and taken my own position and this was not meant to offend either, it was merely tongue in cheek. Mind you, it seems that my causing offence is real to you in the same way that causing offence to veterans (and service personnel) is unreal (for which I am indeed sorry). Just because some have written endorsing your words does not mean that all do and neither does it confer rightness, after all, if this were the case, then the BNP could claim the intellectual and moral right with much of their writings. I work with both past and current members of our armed services and I found no voices to support your position, must just have been unlucky I guess?
    
I have to point out I didn’t include the DT quote and have not endorsed it so any problem you have with him is solely yours.  I do seek to engage with people in a positive manner and I laugh at what I find funny (and that includes me a lot of the time). Please don’t think you’ve been maliciously singled out, but looking at it from my side, I don’t think I’ve been that unfair either - merely written in my own style, which is at least consistent and honest.
    
That said, I am grateful for the opportunity to dialogue and it has at least made me think that there are some positives to be gleaned in that at least you engaged whereas others merely continued as I'd have expected! Mind you, Ekklesia assigns itself a rather high billing which, sadly, appears not to be achieved, but if your goal is to get people talking and thinking then this blog is obviously what you desired. If you were hoping for universal acceptance and general applause I think you're in for a long wait - mind you I'm sure those who love you will continue to love you and as for me, I weigh each offering as it comes. I do agree with the "love, courtesy and justice," stance and at least you have embodied that!
   
I rush in, get up, go to bed or whatever and use the blog to merely, as I have said, focus and at times internally dialogue whilst externally scratchpadding. Take a look at what I have generally written and you’ll see loads of love (pity JB can’t see that, but merely confirms my fears regarding the man I'm afraid).
    
Don’t actually have time to read any of your stuff at this time, but I will when  it hits my consciousness (I promise), neither do I have time to write more (taken twelve minutes to dash this off and I only had ten to start with ).
    
Again, Simon thank you for the engagement, I look forward to more discussion at a later date,
    
Pax
    
A postscript.
    
Be honest, if JB wasn’t your friend I suspect you’d probably recognise the pointed toes in the 2009 broadcast as such!
  
Excuse the typos which I am sure will exist - busy Thursday ahead and rushing!

No comments: