"Wilko" wrote in message
...
BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go there...
Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for about a decade,
and while he's probably more than happy to repeat them ad infinitum, you
won't gain anything from getting a monologue like that from him.



Seconded. You could use this as an object lesson in personal restraint, and
nobody....I repeat NOBODY here will think the less of you for it. You could
be Barbara Walters wrapped up in Oprah and Larry King, and you will not make
any headway against his well-rehearsed position.

--riverman