"Please tell me something. How do you manage to reconcile the fact that you continue to ignore the very premise on which I raised this subject in the first place, viz. that I take no position on the accuracy or otherwise on the allegations being made against Ann Keen, with your protestations of non-political neutrality?" Well I suppose that's down to the fact that you think you're a master of innuendo,just say enough to get the punters thinking,but don't actually make a statement,that doesn't leave any wriggle space does it?"It seems to me that anybody who twists an argument in order to make a case against a person who is in the political domain has an agenda." It seems to me that *any* person who is in the political domain has an agenda,that'll include you then."There is nothing wrong with having an agenda, but for goodness' sake you guys, have the honesty to let other posters know where you are coming from." OK again, I honestly don't support or vote for any political party,I don't like the lies,temporary bribes and innuendo they use. I did however vote for Mrs.Thatcher the first time she came to power,she made 4 million unemployed,then I voted for Tony Blair the first time he came to power and he started an illegal war that killed about 100,000 innocents."A neutral would consider all the facts. Only someone with an interest beyond the subject matter itself would be selective as to which facts he or she chooses to consider. I am confident that this fact will not have escaped the attention of other contributors." I'm not sure what you're saying here,are you saying that only neutrals should consider all of the facts? Is it OK for people with "interests beyond the subject matter"(ie politicos) not to consider them? Or are you saying that there are neutrals that are selective with the facts (i.e. Me) if so,for instance,where do you think I've done that in this thread?
Tony Wood ● 6006d