It's funny really, because, having read the whole of this thread and the other, much larger, one, I hadn't come to the conclusion that Roger was a troll. I see him (no disrespect intended Roger) as someone who genuinely feels, perhaps erroneously, that what he says is true. I felt that he was too persistent in repeating the argument, but I had no problem with the comments made. I simply disagreed with them.

Mick,

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I do take your point, tho' I tend to classify as trolls, only those whose postings are offensive, or disruptive, and contribute nothing to the subject under discussion.

I have to say that I still don't feel that Roger falls into that definition.

Don T.