I have and will reply to Mick personally, But I would like to apologise here for any impression of condescension I may have given to Mick's or to anyone's' views. The two questions I posed were not in hindsight the clearest way I could have asked them. Mick has taken it to mean that I was critical of him singing to the converted in cheese and wine parties and that was not the intention. Having read it again I can see how that impression can be arrived at. I did not respond to Mick's initial posting because they was nothing in it that I disagreed with or anything that I could add. I took no offence at anything that was said there and nothing I said subsequently was any attempt to belittle Mick's or anyone else's views.

I am not going to try to say it again, for clarification, for I will then be accused of dressing it up in order to get someone to agree.

It is not important to me that people agree with my views, it is just important that they are put in a way that those views can be understood. I will continue to come back and try to explain them better if I think they have not been understood (for I accept that the fault will mainly be mine), or if I am asked a question pertaining to those views. I apologise to those who find that tiresome.

Is there not a strange dynamic going on here though? For when Don does the same thing and for the same reasons, it would appear not to be considered tiresome? I do accept however, that his posts are more to the point and less long-winded. I will strive to improve.

My views are not 'set in stone' and will change the more I focus on the issue and in response to the other views posted here. Is not this exchange of views the very purpose of this place