Rejoinder

I am vain enough to believe that the reference in the 1946 "Spike" editorial to "an article by one of our graduates expressing the idea that for him and his fellows New Zealand held no future" related to a piece of literary baroque written by me and published in the "Listener." And I am also astute enough to appreciate the honour bestowed upon me by the Debating Society, which seems to have impliedly rebuked me only a few weeks after it had rebuked the Soviet Union.

But I feel bound to point out that the Editor of "Spike" has done me wrong. I just didn't say in my unfortunate article either what he says I said, or what he says the Debating Society said I said. I don't object to discussions on whether "New Zealand provides ample scope for creative intelligence," but I do object to being employed as a stalking-horse in such discussions, and also to being forced to break a resolution of many years' standing that I should never again kick up a fuss in "Salient."

May I say, once and for all, that I fully agree with the resolution passed by the Debating Society. And I also believe that New Zealand "holds a future" even for people who are apparently incapable of making a reasonably accurate epitome of an intelligent argument.