"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Please note I did NOT assume anything. I did
not state that you ARE advocating that but that
it SEEMS that you are. There is a difference.
I.e. the statements in your posts can lead the
reader to that conclusion although the position is
not definitively stated.

Why bother to enter the discussion if you are not
advocating your position (or conversely playing
"devil's advocate")? (snip)


It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out, Dee. People do it all the
time - talk to friends or sposes about events half way around the world that
has no direct bearing on any of them, talk about criminal trials when they
have influence whatsoever on that trial, talk about what they might do if
they had a million dollars, talk about the economy when they have no real
intent at the moment to do anything about it, and so on. It's simply
conversation. Few are ever 100 percent right or wrong in these discussions.
Instead, they hear different perspectives, re-enforce some views, change
other views, and hopefully walk away slightly entertained by the experience.


(snip) The size of the audience should not matter.
You never know in what venue you may find a
person or group of persons who have the ability to
initiate and/or implement change.


I wish there was someone like that in this newsroup. I'm sure we could all
give him or her an earful. However, after six or seven years in this
newsgroup, I haven't seen even a hint of such a person. As for the regular
newsgroup participants (including the guesstimated lurkers), we're not
really large enough in numbers to impact even a small town's elections (much
less impact national issues).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/