Quote Originally Posted by Henry Porter View Post
What an unedifying spectacle this thread is. Personally I think the committee should have stuck with the strategy of not responding to internet forum discussion. All it does is feed the ego of people with nothing better to do; and in the end it really is only about seven people.

I'm just pleased it is not about anything important. What we have will either stay or go, if it goes something else will happen- personally I really couldn't care less. Choices choices.
I disagree. It's only through engagement by the committee and Graham on this debate that we can see where Mike and others have merit and where they do not. We don't have all the facts ourselves, so need the committee to refute things they believe to be untrue or unjustified.

At some point we need to reach a state of affairs where:
they agree
they agree to differ

That can only be reached by discussion. I agree that statement and counter-statement is a lot less productive than a chat. It now seems that Mike is the one who is being intransigent by refusing to have a chat about his numerous issues.