You didn't address my post. You went off on a tangent. You stated that one had to invade prior to realizing "aikido". Why? Here in this post, you seem to back track and state that one shouldn't invade for "aikido".
I find from your posts that you are really having a hard time putting into words exactly how you define aikido. First, it's invade prior to aikido, then it's don't invade prior to aikido, then it's people don't understand aikido, then it's aikido is harmony, loving protection (which is really just mimicking other people's words), then it's this and then it's that. You dance about with your ideas like a marionette on a pogo stick being chased by circus ponies. I've yet to see some solid ideas from you about aikido.
If you're trying to seem like a teacher, perhaps a suggestion ... solidify your ideas and definitions of aikido such that people can understand them. As it is, I think a lot of us are just shaking our heads ... trying to figure out where you stand, what you believe, how you define aikido, etc.
And writing things like, "There is a way which is both harmonious and effective yet is not invasion. Because 'we' are not wise enough to see it merely shows how much 'we' don't know" and "Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido" don't help as they are perceived as a type of backhanded insult. Maybe you don't mean them that way, maybe you do. I don't know. But, a more, clear, and concise posting style from you would help in a lot of ways.
Mark. You say I stated that. I did not. If that is your take on what I said then it is in that one passage you are referring to that the misunderstanding lies. I shall reread it and see if it says what you say it does.
I have found that what I say can be construed as a backhanded insult when it isn't so yes that leads to learning how to present better. It also has another side. Some are just plain not willing to accept I could know more than them in this expansive art. How to address those is quite a challenge, enjoyable, yet challenging.