So WHO are all these people who demonstrate?


I think your subsequent sentence:-

trade union demonstrators, animal
rights activists, environmentalists etc

gives the answer you were seeking, i.e. the usual rent-a-mob suspects.

People are demonstrating all the time about all manner of things,

Really?

I bet you if you asked around your friends, you might be surprised.


I have already stated that, amongst my friends, NONE of them has ever been on a
demonstration. Now that I think of it, the same applies to my neighbours - the
ones that I know.

they, like
me, are just getting on with their own lives and doing the best they can to
create a secure future for their families.

You think demonstrators don't do that as well?

Not at the same time that they are demonstrating!
Which is why I started commenting on this thread: these people are most likely
going to cost me a day's pay on the day them demonstrate.


But I do agree with
their right to demonstrate, and I believe far more people are exercising
that right than you suppose.

A 100,000 or even a million or so - hardly a significant number when compared
with the population as a whole. Try as you will, all the hype against Bush and
the war cannot change the basic facts.

I also believe that they can make a difference.
Like the one that's going to happen this week.

I believe in fairies too!

The difference between caring enough and not caring enough is a world of
a difference.

Well, perhaps those of us who supported the war and wish to welcome Bush should
take a day off work and demonstrate our support for the war and him. I care
passionately about the World in which I live. The anti-Bush and anti-war
brigade do not have an exclusive on this subject.

And people who don't care enough shouldn't complain should their smug
existences ever get tossed upside down -- because it will have happened
in THEIR names.

The war did happen "in my name", which is why I take exception to those "not in
my name" twits. Just because we don't take to the streets with "in my name"
banners etc. does not mean our views are invalid or that we don't care about
the World.

Those who say "not in my name" legitimately represent nobody but themselves and
they are exaggerating their own self-importance if they claim to be speaking on
behalf of anyone else.

Marc.

In
Mait001 wrote:

I've been around for 43 years now and know no-one who has ever been on any
kind of mass demonstration.

Indeed, that's exactly my feeling.

I'm not interested in your feelings.

When I asked Stimpy to account for all the demonstrations that
I cited by way of example, he said he didn't know, and didn't care.

What say you? Feelings?

--
kedron

(a) not anything like the "majority" of the population opposed the war,

The population was lied to. Perhaps not anything like a majority
were not stupid enough to be fooled. But the truth is coming out, as
it always does, and look what's been happening to the popularity
ratings.

If you say so.


(b) that those who did demonstrate cannot be said to represent anyone but
themselves

So? The point was they represented themselves in massive number.

The "massive number" means nothing but that that number was willing to spend a
day in London doing nothing better than marching and listeing to a few
left-wingers speak in Traflagar Square. The even greater "massive number" that
had nothing to do with the demonstration have legitimate views too - or do only
people that "demonstrate" count?

and
(c) that some who did not demonstrate had other means to express their
views,

But did they? Did you? How did you express your views?

I expressed my views by persuading my girlfriend not to demonstrate and by
arguing, whenever the opportunty arose, in favour of the war which I supported.

and
(d) a combination of those groups does not represent "the majority" of the
population anyway.

Have you carried out a poll or something? You seem to be speaking with great
authority.

I have seen no survey that shows that "the majority" of the population was
against the war, but many that showed "the majority" supported it.

The demonstrators were the ones who knew they were being lied to.

Maybe they were lied to, but I do not accept they could have "known" this at
the time.

If we had not been lied to, do you think the outcome would have been same?

The Attorney General and other leading Counsel have advised that the war was
lawful and, lawful or not, I believe it to have been justified.

Yes, I believe the outcome, i.e. a war, would have been the same outcome
whatever Blair and his cronies decided to tell the public. They could have
chosen to make a good case for war on the basis of removing Saddam, which I
wish they had done, and this would have removed the problem which many are now
crowing about, i.e. whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction.

Marc.

That's about right... some of us have more important things to do than worry
about 'being counted'.


Good point!

Marc.

I've been around for 43 years now and know no-one who has ever been on any
kind of mass demonstration.

Indeed, that's exactly my feeling.

I'm not interested in your feelings.


I didn't express my support for Stimpy for your benefit.



When I asked Stimpy to account for all the demonstrations that
I cited by way of example, he said he didn't know, and didn't care.

What say you? Feelings?

--
kedron

Well, I do care, but do not condemn those that do not. But however much I care
won't bring me onto the streets of London or support those that do.

Marc.

In
Mait001 wrote:

So WHO are all these people who demonstrate?


I think your subsequent sentence:-

trade union demonstrators, animal
rights activists, environmentalists etc

gives the answer you were seeking, i.e. the usual rent-a-mob suspects.

Yeah, like pensioners. You're just a bigot. This is all about
your dumb feelings, about yobs and people you think are beneath
you -- isn't that right?

People are demonstrating all the time about all manner of things,

Really?

Aren't they?

I bet you if you asked around your friends, you might be surprised.


I have already stated that, amongst my friends, NONE of them has ever been on a
demonstration. Now that I think of it, the same applies to my neighbours - the
ones that I know.

So who are all those people? More than a million people
is just a rent-a-mob? Or do you actually want people to take what
you say seriously?

they, like
me, are just getting on with their own lives and doing the best they can to
create a secure future for their families.

You think demonstrators don't do that as well?

Not at the same time that they are demonstrating!
Which is why I started commenting on this thread: these people are most likely
going to cost me a day's pay on the day them demonstrate.

So you'd rather get your day's pay than do something to prevent thousands of
people from being slaughtered in a war, not sanctioned by the UN, and prosecuted
based on pack of lies?

Ok, so you agreed with the war -- but millions didn't. And many more
are starting to realise they were conned.

But I do agree with
their right to demonstrate, and I believe far more people are exercising
that right than you suppose.

A 100,000 or even a million or so - hardly a significant number when compared
with the population as a whole. Try as you will, all the hype against Bush and
the war cannot change the basic facts.

Not the "population as a whole". Millions couldn't demonstrate -- like children,
people who live too far away, sick people, old people, and of course people who
had no choice but to work. In the face of that, "a million or so" is a lot more
significant than you are trying to suggest.

I also believe that they can make a difference.
Like the one that's going to happen this week.

I believe in fairies too!

Tell that to the Eastern Europeans.

--
kedron

"Steve" wrote in message
...
"rob" wrote in
:


"Robin May" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(Mait001) wrote the following in:


Allow me, if I may, to reply.

Robin, you seem to have some difficulty in accepting a consistency
between 2 totally consistent and coherent statements:

You have misunderstood the post to which I was replying.

1. Anti-war feeling is lower than it has been hyped-up to be.

Robert Griffith didn't say this. What he said was that he didn't
believe anti-war feeling was very strong. He said the reason he
didn't believe this was because the demonstration was only a million
strong and the population of the UK who could demonstrate was much
bigger than that.

2. There are other ways of making one's anti-war feelings known
other an public street demonstrations.

But he himself only recognised anti-war feeling when it was expressed
at a public street demonstration.


Hang on sunshine! Please stop twisting my words to suit your beliefs.
Marc summed up the points I was making admirably. Clearly I failed to
get them across to you, but then maybe that says more about your
ability to understand an opposite view than my inability to articulate
my thoughts!

One final go, I believe:
a. the active anti-war/antiBush support is exaggerated

Based on what? Speculation or in your own words:

"Given the total population of the UK, I do not recall the country
grinding to a halt in a way it would have done so, had most of its adult
population joined a demonstration."

Neither is credible.

So on what evidence do you make point a?

As I have said before, it is simply arrogance on your part to make
dismissive statements like "Neither is credible". Why not? Give me your
evidence if you believe it so important as to justify your approval of this
demonstration.

b. there are other ways to express ones disagreement rather than
participating in yobbish demonstrations! yep yobbish!

So now you are twisting your own words, noone mentioned yobbish before,
now you feel the need to add it, sorry, it does not help you out of your
hole.

In what way am I twisting my words? Nobody may previously have used the
words "yobbish" . So what? That is my view of many (not all) who flock to
demonstrations (of any kind). As another poster said, most of us have better
things to do with our time than inflict our opinions on the wider public.

Robert Griffith

Which is why I started commenting on this thread: these people are most
likely
going to cost me a day's pay on the day them demonstrate.

So you'd rather get your day's pay than do something to prevent thousands of
people from being slaughtered in a war, not sanctioned by the UN, and
prosecuted
based on pack of lies?


I do not for one moment live in the cloud cuckoo-land that tells me that those
who demonstrate will " prevent thousands of people from being slaughtered in a
war".

Legal opinion is that the was was lawful and sanctioned by the United Nations.

prosecuted
based on pack of lies?

That has not (yet) been proved to be the case, but I believe, with or without
weapons of mass destruction, the war was justifiable.


Ok, so you agreed with the war -- but millions didn't. And many more
are starting to realise they were conned.

Well, just because I happen to agree with the war, as opposed to opposing it,
should I go on the streets to make my point?

Not the "population as a whole". Millions couldn't demonstrate -- like
children,
people who live too far away, sick people, old people, and of course people
who
had no choice but to work. In the face of that, "a million or so" is a lot
more
significant than you are trying to suggest.

There you go again, trying to spin a million (or whatever the actual number
was) to represent many more than just themselves. I do not accept that, but
even if they did, on your argument, represent say 10 million, that is still
hardly the population as a whole or even "the mass of the population" or
whatever other exaggeration you may care to use.



I also believe that they can make a difference.
Like the one that's going to happen this week.

I believe in fairies too!

Tell that to the Eastern Europeans.

--
kedron

The difference between the Eastern Europeans prior to the fall of the Russian
Empire was that they had NO democratic process by which to vent their views. I
do not accept that we, in the U.K. are in any way comparable to that situation.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
So what are you saying, you can't be an "ordinary person" if you
demonstrate?


No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe,
the
vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever.

Marc.

What exactly is an ordinary person?

No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe,
the
vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever.

Marc.

What exactly is an ordinary person?


Someone who is not a member of the rent-a-mob that turns out for most
demonstrations that take place.

Marc.