The space before the question mark was always the give away ;-)

robin orton

You are correct as Roz did raise a point about a persistance whereby some people think they have a "right to have financial and societal superiority over us".

This is a substantially differrent expression from your response which advocated the "need to have a degree of 'societal superiority' in that they need to command respect".

There is an older argument about motivation and different tiers of need, a not insignificant part of which is self awareness, self-esteem, social recognition and accomplishment. I do not recall a need for societal superiority being defined as a positive motivator.

But, in review, perhaps this is all much too intense for our local forum. Perhaps we should follow your recomendation and let someone close the thread.

And then we'd be only one step way from closing the forum.

For clarity and to avoid mis-representtion, I certainly was not advocating the use of the side door to prevent any expression of views.

I welcome your call for Antediluvians of the world to unite.

Do let us know what colour of hats you plan to wear.

Is anyone else confused about what jgdoherty is actually objecting too in this thread? I'm not saying he's not making a valid point, I'm just not sure what that point actually is.

Correction: *to*

Is that Maslow's hierarchy of needs and all that? I don't think the monarchy should be defended on the basis that it's good for HM's self-esteem! On the other hand some antediluvians might argue that her 'societal (how about 'social'?) superiority' was good for us, that 'knowing your place' can sometimes make you feel better about yourself.

I quite often find myself wondering what jhgdoherty is really trying to say.