© Copyright FrogenYozurt.Com
FrogenYozurt.com may generate ad income and accept advertising/ads and links. Paid entries are marked as “Paid Articles.” Entries describing a product (book reviews, etc.) may contain descriptions provided by the manufacturer or other sources (Amazon.Com, etc.).
All entries marked as "Satire" may refer to actual persons or events, however, the content is of a satirical nature based on the writers' personal views and should not be taken seriously. All other entries reflect personal opinions on various topics.
All entries marked as "Satire" may refer to actual persons or events, however, the content is of a satirical nature based on the writers' personal views and should not be taken seriously. All other entries reflect personal opinions on various topics.
All content on this website has been posted under the impression that they do not infringe any copyrights. However, if this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Should you suspect a copyright infringement or any other legal issues with posts on this website, please contact the editor through the contact form as indicated on the top navigation bar, and we will remove the post immediately. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Still waiting for a comment from you!!! Want to know where you established your ideas!!! Or are you scared of talking to me?!!
Hi Natalie,
First, see my response made on 23 October 2009, the same day you posted your comment (See bottom of the page at http://www.frogenyozurt.com/?p=287).
“My ideas” in regards to Julian ‘Tony’ Ball and Robert Nairac were not my ideas; I merely referred to articles written in the UK and Ireland.
I am not afraid talking to you, but, judging by your current tone, you are probably not in a condition to maintain a civilized conversation.
Let me also say yet again: If you can contribute any information that contradict my findings, please feel free to post them here.
Sincerely,
Wilfried
Natalie is right. Nothing that you’ve grubbed up, googled or just plain guessed at constitutes research in any meaningful sense. Trawling through blogs written by embittered ex-squaddies and republican sympathisers certainly doesn’t, nor does regurgitating damaging hearsay.
For your information, there is absolutely nothing that anyone has ever said or written which suggests that Nairac was abused as a child, at Ampleforth or anywhere else. Your assertion that abuse occurred at Ampleforth, and Nairac was at Ampleforth (although not at the time of the abuse), and therefore Nairac was abused is typically specious. Even an apprentice in his first week on a local newspaper would know that you can’t get away with that kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalisation. But then, I suspect, such a person would know a lot more about writing than you do.
Robert Nairac was a valiant soldier who died in tragic circumstances, and he and his long-suffering family deserve better than to have individuals like you making prurient, pseudo-psychological claims about his private life. Nor, for your information, do you have the moral right to distort the facts in the interest of your (presumably vanity-published) “novel”.
Following one of the links on this site, I note that you are putting together another masterwork, entitled American Male Prostitute. Might I suggest that you direct a little of that “research” towards yourself, and your own fantasy life?
It is funny, but every comment that does not agree with my view is harsh to a degree of unfairness, and they are usually rude, which indicates to me that the commenter is unable to contribute solid facts that would contradict my writings. The only solution out of their dilemma is plain rudeness. My research on the subject of Robert Nairac, even though he is not the central part of my novel, was thorough, and nobody who ever criticized my research has been able to prove me wrong.
I do encourage comments on my work, may they agree with my view or not, but I will not give in to unsubstantiated opinions.
Your “research” as you call it, is no more than a rehashing of other men’s work and (usually tendentious) opinions. Anyone who knows anything about this subject would recognise the sensationalist articles, no-check blogs, republican propaganda-pieces, and shameful would-be novelisations that you’ve drawn your conclusions from. There’s nothing remotely original about any of it. It’s not a question of not agreeing with your “view”, because the regurgitation of hearsay and rumour does not constitute a view.
There are two respectable sources on Nairac’s life, namely John Parker’s Death of a Hero and Martin Dillon’s The Dirty War. Both writers employ professional journalistic methodology. They have talked to primary sources, remained personally objective, and where facts cannot be established, they have said so. Learn from them.
Your blundering pseudo-psychology (Freddy Mercury? Elton John? Please) would be harmless if it didn’t involve real people and their families. Can’t you see how offensive your comments are? Are you surprised that people get angry when they see people like you, with their glib, shallow, second-hand opinions, trying to make a fast buck out of these tragic events?
Ray,
I have both books, that of John Parker and Martin Dillon, in my book shelf. I also own “War Without Honour: True Story of Military Intelligence in Northern Ireland” by Fred Holroyd and Nick Burbridge. Other sources I used were English and Irish newspapers.
Let me, for a moment, ignore your insulting tone and ask you: In what way are my comments offensive? I would like to learn your view on gay rights, because your comments point toward a despicable discrimination of homosexuals, and that may be the root of your anger.
Regards,
Wilfried
You should know that Fred Holroyd’s account of events in NI has long been discredited for more reasons than there are time to go into here.
I have absolutely no problem with gay people or gay rights, and if Nairac was gay (which Martin Dillon suggests, and which many people have believed for some time), then that’s fine by me too. As ever, your pseudo-psychology is a mile wide of the mark.
What I find offensive is your crude fixation with Nairac’s sexuality, and the way you use it to try and generate publicity for yourself and your “novel”. If you can’t see that a headline like “Robert Nairac – Hero, Butcher, Homosexual” is crass and sensationalist, then there’s no more to be said. For your information, no reputable source suggests that Nairac ever “butchered” anyone, and Dillon comprehensively refutes all such claims.
Ray,
I thank you for confirming that my assertion that Nairac was gay is valid. As to the reputation of Fred Holroyd let me state that my research activities do not exclude any sources that may not be pleasing to either side in the conflict. I engage into thorough research and when finished I form an opinion.
You have the right to disagree with my marketing techniques. I only wished you had expressed your concern a bit more to the point and, after all, I wished you kept a professional tone. You should be aware that your accusatory style only damages your credibility.
I consider this matter closed.
Regards,
Wilfried
If any of you bother to read ‘Bloodknots: A Memoir of Fishing and Friendship’ by Nairac’s friend Luke Jennings, you will find that Nairac was abused, not by monks but by a cabal of sadistic older boys at Ampleforth. The boys in question were monitors and had the right, which they abused, to cane junior boys. It was as a result of this traumatic experience that he learned to box; became lethally proficient with his fists (there is plenty of evidence for this); and was left alone after that. When he became Head of the School, he abolished the caning of boys by their contemporaries. As is well-known, he went on to captain the Oxford Union Amateur Boxing Club and was, as far as I know, undefeated.
I should add a plea to lower the temperature of this debate. I think that Robert Nairac, whom I encountered once, could have been gay. This does not in any way invalidate his intelligence, which was of a high order; his courage, which was likewise; his considerable leadership, learning, charisma and personal charm. He was a splendid man. Warrior, scholar, poet, man of action; what’s not to like? His sexuality is relevant, insofar as it sheds light on his actions and thoughts in the military context. His personal record is not deficient in bravery or honour and will stand for whatever time. He does not need intemperate, homophobic defenders; it speaks for itself.