 |
 |
David Havard makes the point that as a group we "crave" tolarance but do not appear willing to extend it to someone who insists on marching to his own drummer. In fact most participants in the debate quite happily tolarate the alternate point of view - it is just being asked to fund it that sticks in the craw. David further argues that having paid into the system everyone has the right to claim against it. True, but only if they meet the criterior. The right to assitance carries with it the responsibility to do what we can to help ourselves. Finally, David argues that the dissenter is claiming against an 'insurance policy' into which he has paid. Very apt. But I doubt any insurance company would part with a cent if the claiment failed to exactly meet the terms of the policy. Dennis. ++++++++++++++++++++ Dennis Greene 47/10 [log in to unmask] http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/ ++++++++++++++++++++