Mary Fisher wrote:

Sorry, you switched me off several paras ago ... Pity really because I do
respect a lot of your knowledge and opinion.

For crying out loud, Mary! When you post about winged insects,
chicken-keeping, or whatever areas you have specialist knowledge on, we
make an effort to follow along: even - indeed, more so - when your
claims are contrary to first-blush perceived wisdom. Some of us might
even (gasp) Google for the odd unfamiliar term in your postings.

If you're not willing to follow along at a reading level a couple of
notches up from The Sun, why bother joining in at all? Saying 'oh, it's
all too complicated, but I'm sure it'll be all right' is itself
provocative. (Just because too many of our MPs prefer to be told what to
think doesn't excuse you doing it: your participation in the mini-debate
here is purely voluntary.)

More provocative is your dismisal of detailed arguments as 'speculations
of armchair experts'; for one, the political process is supposed to be
about *engaging* people, not keeping them fatdumbnappy; for two, it's
just possible some of the contributors know what they're on about (and
post under their Real Names wot can be Googled for).

Dismissing detail - as you did when someone posted the laundry-list of
personal data with which the National Identity Register is to be
initially populated - with a sarcastic 'My, we have been busy' is a
further aggravating anti-contribution to the debate. Why do you choose
to adopt this posture on this issue? You say you were 'passionate' about
the Iraq invasion - weren't there both technical and deep-policy issues
there? Why weren't you happy to leave the assessment of the legitimacy
of the invasion, and the approach to WMD, to The Appointed Experts in
that case?

Maybe it's just wind-up-a-geek-week for you. Enjoy.

Stefek