I’m delighted to have received my first blog comment. It has made my otherwise miserable day somewhat more meaningful and I have to admit i’m somewhat excited to have gained a person’s attention.
So excited in fact I’m posting it here as a Q&A!
Firstly the question from someone calling them self ‘Peter’:
Nice publication, but how come you know so much about this man if are not a member of this cult and secondly I noticed you have hidden your identity and that shows that you have not guts.
Freedom of speech is not an avenue for you to discredit people while hiding in the dark. This publication holds no water if you cannot come out the closet and you also are a member.
Now for my answer to ‘Peter’s’ question:
Hi Peter, how delighted I am that I have grabbed your interest irrespective of the fact you seem greatly unimpressed by my view, the medium upon which i have voiced it and the way i have chosen to carry it out.
I note you are unimpressed but you are clearly in two minds and somewhat impressed too. I’m really not sure but then if you are not sure yourself then how can I be? Anyway the level of how impressed you are or how unimpressed you are or how impressed and unimpressed you are could baffle me all day so I will move on…..
One thing which you are unimpressed about and yet not impressed at the same time is that I haven’t signed my name as identifying myself as the author. Let me tell you that in a time before WordPress, the internet itself and even the printing press authors have chosen for one reason or another to write certain works anonymously. Works of literature, observations, views, opinions and statements of one kind or another have been intentionally unsigned by their authors as far back as Mesopotamian times (3500 BC).
It is not uncommon and since those early examples there are many pieces of writing that have remained unsigned due to it been seen as a right for an author to choose not to name himself. After authors in Mesopotamian times chose to exercise their right to anonymity… authors in Ancient Egypt exercised that right too… and following that in every century since there have been authors who have continued to exercise that right.
I imagine if this was something you didn’t know then this possibly could invoke another occurrence of you been impressed and unimpressed at the same time.
More often than purely leaving a peace of work unsigned a writer often uses a pen name. I have opted, if only to give you or others something to call me, to go along this route too. This I fear will not leave you either impressed and unimpressed at the same time or indeed positively unimpressed only. However I cant impress everyone all of the time. I’m sure you understand.
Anyway to cut a long story short I will sign this piece at the bottom and will continue to sign my work using my ‘pen name’ I have chosen.
As a side-note this will most certainly impress my wife who, like everyone in our country, is all too aware of the Black Axe’s murderous tendencies. A topic you’ll be delighted to know will be the subject and focus of my next article. After reading it perhaps you would like to reappraise the statement that my excising my right to protect myself and family “shows that I have not guts”
Now we have addressed the small matter of my not signing my work lets move onto to your next point.
Next the point that left me momentarily disgruntled. You state I “discredit” Mr Eyeoyibo. Let me assure you that Mr Eyeoyibo demonstrates very well the ability to “discredit” himself without any help whatsoever from me. I would suggest when he presses ‘send’ on the 419 emails he sends that is the moment he is ‘discredited’ and not as you suggest when I delineate any such action.
You ask “how come you know so much about this man if are not a member of this cult?” You are clearly impressed at my knowledge and I cordially thank you. Also in the same breath you state the work so far “holds no water”. By this I presume you mean that you do not believe any word of it. So as well as been impressed and unimpressed (though not in equal measure I can only presume) you also believe and do not believe what has been written. Firstly I concluded that you believe some of it and do not believe other bits. I’d express an interest in which parts you believe and which parts you do not believe but I know what I have written so far (and will endevour to continue to do) to be 100% accurate so therefore what you believe and do not believe is of little relevance to me. Plus, frankly, I’m keeping an open mind that certain parts you possibly may believe and not believe simultaneously. There is also the added dimension of the possibility that you do believe it but refuse to believe it (commonly called ‘self denial’).
What you believe and/or do not believe, the question of whether you are possibly believing and not believing at the same time and the matter of whether you want or not to believe but possibly do or dont… we will put to one side.
Back to the actual question: “how come you know so much about this man if are not a member of this cult?”. The question implied to me you were asking how i knew this information despite my not been a member. Indicating you believed I was not a member of the Black Axe.
Further down your comment right at the end however I see you make the statement “you also are a member”. Forgive me if I am wrong but this shows you think I am concurrently both a member and also not a member. This part had me rubbing my chin some time then I resigned myself to the idea that despite believing I knew what you meant I didn’t believe I knew at all. I shall be quick to point out though with great certainty that at no time did I both believe I knew and believe I didn’t know at the same time. That would be strange. One was followed by the other.
I’m very thankful at one point in my morning I was graced by the presence of my 4th Son. I will leave his name out of the matter regardless of how impressed, unimpressed or both you are at this or whether you either believe or disbelieve I have a son or indeed of course both.
Moving quickly on to the point I was trying to make. He is a 3rd year psychology student and i was delighted at his presence to help me understand what on earth you meant and what you didn’t mean in your comment. He looked over the comment several time and rubbed his chin for a little while (like Father like Son!). Ultimately I’m afraid to say he too was more than a little baffled and after speculating you may or may not suffer with various disorders (perhaps he suggests having both suffered and not suffered with one or two during the course of writing your comment) he lastly, before leaving to school, suggested I try “get into your head”.
This I then attempted to do.
I looked at myself trying to do so as you must have done whilst reading my blog. In order to not over complicate things I felt it necessary to presume, although I presume this might be incorrect, that at the time of reading you were not subject to any mental disorder or disturbance and this only occurred only during the writing of your comment. I must hasten to add that I did not both presume (you were not subject to any mental disorder or disturbance) and not presume at the same time. This too would be strange. I chose to adopt the presumption only for the sake of making the exercise more simple.
Anyway…. I looked back at what i’d written. Trying to find things I’d written for you to conclude that I wasn’t a member of the NBM. Then also I looked for things I’d written that might support your alternative conclusion that I was.
I see I pointed out the NBM is “an illegal and banned organisation under Nigerian law”. I was unsure if this would lead you to believe either way I was or wasn’t. Therefore, knowing you, I surmised this potentially led you to believe I both am and aren’t. That is of course not taking into consideration whether or not you believe or do not believe they are an illegal organisation.
I also see I pointed out the fact NBM members conduct frequent acts of “violence, robbery, rape, murder and thuggery” and “cybercrime, drug trafficking and people smuggling”. I was unsure too if this would lead you to believe either way I was or wasn’t a current member. Maybe this disturbed me as a member and/or disturbed me as a decent member of the public appalled at this behavior?
I see I pointed out my displeasure at Mr Eyeoyibo’s intent to register the NBM as an NGO purely “to boost zonal and individual member’s finances” and that of the movement. This I thought most certainly identified me as a non-member in your eyes but then I see I went on to complain about the organisations widespread “embezzlement and corruption”. Which could be interpreted that although I would support in theory Mr Eyeoyibo’s promise to milk money from wherever he could I might not be convinced I would in fact see any of it. Therefore I see how this was ambiguous too and not provide a clear indication either way.
I expressed annoyance too at Mr Eyeoyibo “frequently circulating job opportunities to NBM members, mostly within our country’s financial institutions, that were open only to NBM members”. Again this made me both believe you could see me as a non-member and also not believe. Not at the same time did I hold both of those beliefs! Retarded I am not. Firstly I believed you could see me as a non-member due to this part then I read my inclusion in brackets: “more specifically open only to fully paid up members”. Which could indicate jealously perhaps on my part if was behind in my due payments. Certainly ambiguous I admit.
Reflecting on all of the above I find it hard to imagine which side of the fence I would sit if asked to choose if i thought myself to be a member or non-member.
Furthermore when taking into consideration there is in fact a third possibility also you didn’t mention I find it near on impossible to see how you were able to claim so confidently that I was a member and also wasn’t.
The third possibility of course been: I was a member but no longer am (please note the chronological dimension of time would not allow me to exist in both states at once).
Not really been sure which of three possibilities you would like me to confirm or deny. I guess I am only left to assure you that I can be classified by one of the following (though i also assure you only one of them!)
1. I am a member of the NBM
2. I am not a member of the NBM
3. I was a member but no longer am
As my final point you elude to my right for “free speech”. I’m sure you recognise this is a freedom given by God to all men. Yet you suggest that my right to exercise anonymity and my God given right to exercise free speech are not mutually inclusive? These my friend finally are two things that are things that can exist simultaneously.
What it is highly important to bare in mind though when ‘exercising free speech’ is that it is a crime to print misleading, libelous and harmful untruths and although at any one moment it is possible to say anything you wish those effected may have right to seek punishment on the author as a result.
I assure you this is always considered when I write and Mr Eyeoyibo is very aware everything written here is true and for that reason there is nothing in even his power to make the truth disappear. The truth will always wins Peter. Always.