"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "BAC" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message
...
The message
from Sacha contains these words:

I am NOT arguing that ALL country
dwellers are pro-hunting but the march on Westminster would appear
to
suggest that an awful lot are - and probably the majority.

Are you really telling us that you believe most of Britain's
country-dwellers attended that march?

The marchers represented their own view; they very obviously did not
represent the views of those absent rural-dwellers who chose not to
support them!


It cannot be denied that those who attended the demonstration
represented
their own views, and not necessarily the views of the greater number who
did
not attend. However, it cannot be sound to deduce that all those who did
not
attend were tacitly indicating a contrary opinion.

Nobody did. I specified "those who CHOSE not to support them". It is
sound logic to deduce that those who do not support hunting, did not
join a pro-hunt march.


True, however it would be invalid IMO to deduce that those who did not join
a pro hunt march did not support hunting, nor that those who did not support
hunting were in favour of making the activity illegal. I know that you would
not make such an elementary error but thought others might misinterpret your
meaning.