This started when you invited me to express my views, which you thought you could change. I understand that I am in the minority, but the only substantive arguments I have heard from anyone all deal with how things looked from Ms Krone's perspective. The fact that the sacrifice would have been a major one has not convinced me that it shouldn't have been made.

Ironically, your comments re Ms Barry illustrate the debating tactic I was using quite nicely, as what feminists mean by "passive" is very different than whatever it is you are imagining doing with Ms Barry. Allow me to illustrate with an example from everyday life. Suppose someone accused me of violating the Tower of Death ritual of Zoroastrianism. Is that person not holding himself out as an expert on the subject? And if it turns out that the person in question is not familiar with the principles contained in the Avesta, does that not reflect on the credibility of the charge in the 1st place?

As for Julie's acceptance speech, I did say & do believe it was disgraceful, but am not convinced that it is matter which can be debated. What most people think she said is based on reports in the racing press, which did not include her bizarre disclosure of sexual fanatsies involving Steve Cauthen. The looks on the faces of a number of those in attendance convinced me that I was not the only one who did not think that it was the time or place to make such comments, especially in light of the fact that Mrs Cauthen was in attendance. One person did "defend" what she did on the ground that it was nothing more than Julie being Julie. Perhaps he has a point.