>>>Who was it said "Put not your trust in princes?" And who was it that added "for they will plead expedience while spilling your blood from a safe distance?" ;-)
>>>
>>>Well put!
>>>
>>>That's why you won't see any comment. Without NN's public appeal and without publication in the wider media, turning away from NN is the expedient course.
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>Finally, it's worth observing that "chatter" threads are minority interest in UT, unlikely to be viewed by many apart from the small group of current participants.
>>>
>>>Actually, I've learned recently that more individuals 'read' the chatter area than one might believe...though obviously they may not say anything.
>>
>>Part of the 'problem' may be that it's not a simple matter of saying 'yes, I agree' or 'no, I disagree'. There were a lot of facts and arguments to be thought about. I recall Jos Pols. He replied to one of my messages. I got the feeling that he essentially replied to that message only, kind of jumping in just back from a nice holiday or some days of hard work and trying to pick up the rhythm here again. My reply to him contained a hyperlink to a message that I regarded as a good starting point. However, Jos didn't reply anymore. Although it's possible that he had another motive to not reply, I presume he feared a 'mine field' that required thorough knowledge from the very start to survive.
>
>You assume a lot. My point was clear and I had nothing to add.

Perhaps YOU assume a lot, for example that your point was clear?!