"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
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!

....

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?

Well, I was reacting to something posted in reply to me. People can choose
to read or reply, there's no need to get wound up about my insignificant
opinions. I don't expect replies to anything I post, I suppose I don't even
notice when there isn't one unless I've instigated a post. But when it gets
too deep for my poor old grey head I have to say so. Perhaps I don't do it
in the most gentle way but that's my style - and I don't intend to be
offensive in doing it.

Saying 'oh, it's all too complicated, but I'm sure it'll be all right' is
itself provocative.

It wasn't intended to be. If someone rises to imagined bait that's his/her
problem, not mine. The same applies if I respond to something someone else
says.

(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.)

You think I think what I'm told to think? No, exactly the opposite.

More provocative is your dismisal of detailed arguments as 'speculations
of armchair experts';

When posters state that such and such will happen with no evidence provided
suggests to me that s/he is an armchair expert. S/he MIGHT be proved right
but I question how anyone can foretell the future.

for one, the political process is supposed to be about *engaging* people,

Eh? I've tried engaging politicians at all levels for years and they always
back off.

not keeping them fatdumbnappy; for two, it's just possible some of the
contributors know what they're on about

Perhaps they do but very many don't give any evidence to back up their
predictions.

(and post under their Real Names wot can be Googled for).

Well, according to some, that's a dangerous practice!

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.

Perhaps it was.

Why do you choose to adopt this posture on this issue?

I can't say, I can't remember when I said it or what the other circumstances
were. Perhaps I was bored, perhaps I was cynical, perhaps I'd had too much
to drink, perhaps I was tired, there could be all sorts of reasons. I'm
sorry if I've touched a raw nerve in you.

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?

I had no option, none of the anti-invasion opinions were considered, I
believe. I believe (but of course can't state as a fact, as many have done)
that it was decided by Bush many months before the invasion.

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

No, I do know that I wind people up but perhaps I make some people think
that there are other valid opinions - as I do. I learn a lot from Usenet.

Thanks for your post, would that everyone was as polite.

Mary