"My argument with Mike (which was none of your business anyway) was over his refusal to see that when one says something "might" happen, implicit in that statement is the alternative "or might not", which elicited fom him some nonsense** about the man being too scared to reveal the "real" figures, mere conjecture on Mike's part and entirely unworthy of the man I take him to be."
.,,.
I am reciprocally disappointed by this reaction from you, Don. I expect heels·dug·in from the likes of the doctrinaire, 'don't-confuse-me-with-facts' Carroll; but thought you more amenable to reason. **"Nonsense", was it? How can you be so insufferably cocksure? Did you ever stop to think maybe I had that fellow's measure better than you?

Think of the words of the Lord Protector Cromwell

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Pretty rich coming from him, admittedly, who probably never admitted to a mistake in his life.

But you now, Don? Has a new idea, the possibility of any possible alternative of that lefty weltanschauung in which you seem too immovably fixed to allow any possible conception of another way of looking at the world (in a time when all we hold dear is menaced from within -- I ask again, did you watch that video from the girl in Luton? & did you come out the other end with all prejudices & preconceptions intact?) never even entered your head?

I say again, I should have thought better of you. You appeared to have 100x the intellect and grip of the likes of Carroll, but it appears not the ability to make this essential leap: so maybe I have overrated you. If this be so, I shudder for you. You will learn when it is too late, I fear.


In continued friendship, but with concern

~M~