Posted by walter
on November 3, 2009, 12:57 am, in reply to "Re: Just before we draw the line under this"
It’s not like you to intervene with the referees cap on, while wearing the team colours underneath, Derek.
The BNP debate - you kind of need to get over it, not throw it in everywhere. As far as I can see, David responded here on the subject matter of John’s criticism. I believe David immediately owned up to concessions in the way of language (and pulling punches in the message). Probably quite annoying therefore, to have them listed and thrown back at him, as if John had just discovered them.
“David, John Hilley is a great writer, and thinker. I'd urge you to read some of his work before deciding you're going to attempt to crush him as well as D Edward and Cromwell in your attempt to assuage your guilt for appearing in the pages of the Guardian”
This is well OTT Derek. Not that John isn’t a great writer I mean, but your suggestion that David is out to crush people. As far as I remember, David is waiting for a response or two from the Eds on matters that had come to a head in the discussions. If I were him I’d be irritated at forgetful behaviour on the part of those criticizing him.
And why should John’s other output feature in David’s response (which as I say was on the subject matter)? He takes care in his blogs etc. but anyone can drop their standards in a hard-fought web-tussle.
David might be entitled to feel a little impatient at the reactions that grudgingly admit his article is useful but not, sadly, risqué - and therefore should not have been submitted. And while useful, David’s proposals are “all up for regular discussion”, “'reasoned' liberal argument is, again, welcomed by the Guardian” etc.
So how can his (on the one hand) humdrum leftie material simultaneously provide a fig leaf to protect the Guardian’s 'radical mantle' (a claim which I don’t think David has made anyway)? The fact that both conflicting criticisms are made by the same people at the same time does seem to suggest a certain lack of objectivity or prior intent.
Perhaps David can only take so much of this kind of heartfelt, but not very constructive, criticism?
Cheers
Walter