We'll just have to disagree on that: just because a few opinion polls
suggest a majority of those interviewed "oppose the war" - which I do
not believe to be the case anyway (what are the statistics and polls
to which you refer?) does not mean that they all feel so strongly
about it that they wish to disrupt the lives of ordinary people trying
to go about their normal business in London.

Here you go again, "ordinary people" are also protesters. Unless you
"ordinary people" means people like yourself.

By "ordinary people", I simply mean the tens of millions who would never go on
ANY demonstration and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a
day in slow-walking down Central London streets or listen to the likes of Benn,
Galloway, Livingstone and fellow-travellers venting their anti-American
diatribes.


However lets look at your logic

You start by condeming the demonstrators for inconveniencing your life.

You then doubt the majority "oppose the war", stating that if they did
they would they should show this by coming to London to do exactly what
you condem in the first place.

So, I oppose the war, are you saying I should come to London and
demonstrate? What if I don't? Does that mean I do not "oppose the war"?

You seem to have some difficulty in understanding a simple point. Let me try
again. I do not accept that the majority of the population opposes or opposed
the war. But even if a majority did oppose the war, I do not believe that that
majority would take to the streets. I am not suggesting that they SHOULD
demonstrate, just suggesting that most people do not feel so strongly about
this (or other) issue that they are willing to demonstrate.

By your logic you do not oppose the EU because you do not oppose
according to arbitary criteria.

Again, I don't see why it is difficult to understand what I wrote, but let me
try again: I oppose the E.U. but do not believe in demonstrating, so do not.
Instead, my opposition takes other forms, such as the way I vote,
letter-writing, contributing to discussion and debate and so forth.

Marc.

In
Mait001 wrote:

By "ordinary people", I simply mean the tens of millions who would never go on
ANY demonstration...

Why would you think tens of millions of people "never go on ANY demonstration"?

You're espousing the view that there are a million or two of the demonstrator
category, and that they're a non-representative minority of trouble-makers who
the rest tolerate. But you're wrong -- and dead wrong.

People in this country like to demonstrate -- from all sections of society.
Even governments are bright enough to realise that fact.

Within the British Constitution, the right to demonstrate has been one of the
most jealously guarded rights that people of this country have -- why is that?

Aren't you really just making some very uninteresting comment about yourself?

and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a
day in slow-walking down Central London streets

Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself.

Well, who cares about you?

Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to know
when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late.

Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who think.

Feel free to join.

--
kedron

By "ordinary people", I simply mean the tens of millions who would never go
on
ANY demonstration...

Why would you think tens of millions of people "never go on ANY
demonstration"?

You're espousing the view that there are a million or two of the demonstrator
category, and that they're a non-representative minority of trouble-makers
who
the rest tolerate. But you're wrong -- and dead wrong

I'd hazard a guess that, of the 55 million or so, only about 1 to 3 million
have EVER been on any demonstration of any sort.

In fact, of my social circle, I have not met a single person who has ever been
on one.



People in this country like to demonstrate -- from all sections of society.
Even governments are bright enough to realise that fact.

Maybe in your social circle.

Within the British Constitution, the right to demonstrate has been one of the
most jealously guarded rights that people of this country have -- why is
that?

It's always puzzled me!


Aren't you really just making some very uninteresting comment about yourself?


Uninteresting or not, you choose to read and reply to it.

and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a
day in slow-walking down Central London streets

Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself.

Well, who cares about you?

Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to
know
when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late.

Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who
think.

Feel free to join.

Utterly prejudiced nonsense.

I have already stated an issue about which I feel passionately - not for
selfish reasons but because it is causing grave damage to this Country's
democratic traditions - the European Union. I just do not believe in
demonstrations.

I could CHOOSE not to earn a living and live off the backs of others, but I
regard it as my DUTY to work to provide for me and those who depend on me. I
should not be prevented from doing that.

Or is the right to demonstrate MORE IMPORTANT than the right to work?

Marc.

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


By "ordinary people", I simply mean the tens of millions who would
never go on ANY demonstration and are, in any event, too busy
earning a living to spend a day in slow-walking down Central
London streets or listen to the likes of Benn, Galloway,
Livingstone and fellow-travellers venting their anti-American
diatribes.

So what are you saying, you can't be an "ordinary person" if you
demonstrate?

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

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.

In
Mait001 wrote:

Why would you think tens of millions of people "never go on ANY
demonstration"?

You're espousing the view that there are a million or two of the demonstrator
category, and that they're a non-representative minority of trouble-makers
who
the rest tolerate. But you're wrong -- and dead wrong

I'd hazard a guess that, of the 55 million or so, only about 1 to 3 million
have EVER been on any demonstration of any sort.

But that's just a guess. It's precisely the kind of guess I suggested
you were making. Between poll tax, country alliance, cnd, anti-war, pensioners,
petrol geeks etc etc, I'd say your guess is wrong.

I'd say you're misjudging your fellow citizens.

What do the rest of you think?

In fact, of my social circle, I have not met a single person who has ever been
on one.

Is that supposed to be surprising?

If your social circle is greater than say four, I'd say you'd need to ask
around a bit more, before misrepresenting them here.

People in this country like to demonstrate -- from all sections of society.
Even governments are bright enough to realise that fact.

Maybe in your social circle.

It's nothing to do with my social circle, I just watch things carefully.

Within the British Constitution, the right to demonstrate has been one of the
most jealously guarded rights that people of this country have -- why is
that?

It's always puzzled me!

Well there you go.

I recommend that you look into that more closely Marc.

Aren't you really just making some very uninteresting comment about yourself?

Uninteresting or not, you choose to read and reply to it.

I was making what I believe is a correction.

and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a
day in slow-walking down Central London streets

Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself.

Well, who cares about you?

Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to
know
when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late.

Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who
think.

Feel free to join.

Utterly prejudiced nonsense.

What is?

If I said something wrong, please point it out -- precisely.

I have already stated an issue

But we're not talking about any issue.

about which I feel passionately - not for
selfish reasons but because it is causing grave damage to this Country's
democratic traditions - the European Union. I just do not believe in
demonstrations.

Your beliefs, however, are not reason to trash Britain's age-old
tradition. Nor does it make incorrect assumptions correct -- does it?

I could CHOOSE not to earn a living and live off the backs of others, but I
regard it as my DUTY to work to provide for me and those who depend on me. I
should not be prevented from doing that.

Or is the right to demonstrate MORE IMPORTANT than the right to work?

I'd say it is.

Certainly it's more fundamental. Take it away, and you'd have difficulty
justifying most other rights, (that had previously been taken for granted).

--
kedron

and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a
day in slow-walking down Central London streets

Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself.

Well, who cares about you?

Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to
know
when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late.

Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who
think.

Feel free to join.

Utterly prejudiced nonsense.

What is?

If I said something wrong, please point it out -- precisely.


Okay, here goes:-

1. I do "give a ****" about lots of things apart from myself.
2. Lots of people care about me (or at least they say they do).
3. Your phrase ending with the words "****ed up the ass" is a bit obtuse for me
- if you explain what you mean then I'll be able to reply.
4. Your implication that I do not think is misconceived: you confuse inability
to think with disagreeing with your view.
5. I am a British subject already, so there is nothing for me to "join".

Precise enough?

Or is the right to demonstrate MORE IMPORTANT than the right to work?

I'd say it is.

That's your opinion and, on it, we'l just have to differ.

Certainly it's more fundamental. Take it away, and you'd have difficulty
justifying most other rights, (that had previously been taken for granted).

An interesting philosophical point, but as it happens I regard duty as more
important than "rights" anyway, and it's not only a right to work, in my view,
as long as one is able to do so, it is also a duty to work.

Marc.

In
Mait001 wrote:

and are, in any event, too busy earning a living to spend a
day in slow-walking down Central London streets

Precisely. You don't give a **** about anything except yourself.

Well, who cares about you?

Except, people who are "too busy earning a living", are also "too busy" to
know
when they're being ****ed up the ass -- at least until it's too late.

Fortunately, at least in this country, there is a tradition of people who
think.

Feel free to join.

Utterly prejudiced nonsense.

What is?

If I said something wrong, please point it out -- precisely.


Okay, here goes:-

1. I do "give a ****" about lots of things apart from myself.

Ok. It's an affirmation, but I'll take you at your word for now.

2. Lots of people care about me (or at least they say they do).

ditto.

3. Your phrase ending with the words "****ed up the ass" is a bit obtuse for me

Phrases are not generally said to be "obtuse". It's not the first time today
I heard the word used incorrectly. Perhaps you meant "abstruse", or perhaps,
just not specific. In any case, "****ed up the ass" means doing something
very bad to you -- like lying to you, or ****ing on your rights.

- if you explain what you mean then I'll be able to reply.

Yeah.

4. Your implication that I do not think is misconceived: you confuse inability
to think with disagreeing with your view.

I think your views, and particularly your WORDS here relating to the
rights to demonstrate, illustrate a blockage in your thought process
department. I'm willing to discuss that publicly with you, and in painful
detail.

5. I am a British subject already, so there is nothing for me to "join".

Specifically I was talking about those subjects who think.

Precise enough?

I think you'll find I am just that.

Or is the right to demonstrate MORE IMPORTANT than the right to work?

I'd say it is.

That's your opinion and, on it, we'l just have to differ.

Certainly it's more fundamental. Take it away, and you'd have difficulty
justifying most other rights, (that had previously been taken for granted).

An interesting philosophical point...

....it wasn't just a "philosophical point" to the people of say Romania
less than fifteen years ago -- was it?

Your RIGHT to demonstrate is a lot more powerful than even your right
to vote. The Romanians removed a dictator by demonstrating.

but as it happens I regard duty as more
important than "rights" anyway,

Like the right to complain about European integration?

Great. In that case just shut up. You have no rights, and you don't count.

and it's not only a right to work,

But who cares about rights? Duty to the Party is more important
--isn't that what you're saying? Or what?

in my view,

Yep.

as long as one is able to do so,

For how long will that be?

it is also a duty to work.

Good. No rights for you then.

Hands up -- anyone else?

--
kedron

"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.

Hear hear. I agree totally with you! Quite frankly it is wishful thinking to
try to argue that the "anti-war" feeling was that strong. 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. There are other ways of expressing opinions to parading in
the streets.

Robert Griffith

"rob" wrote the following in:



"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.

Hear hear. I agree totally with you! Quite frankly it is wishful
thinking to try to argue that the "anti-war" feeling was that
strong. 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. There are
other ways of expressing opinions to parading in the streets.

What you write above is totally nonsensical, incoherent and
inconsistent. You argue that anti-war feeling wasn't strong because the
UK didn't grind to a halt as a result of the demonstration. You then
argue that there ways of expressing opinions other than demonstrating.
If that's the case then why on earth are you trying to say that anti-
war feeling wasn't strong on the basis of participation in a
demonstration?

0/10 for intelligence

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!