MadHatter, I think in your second paragraph, Richard is suggesting - and I stand to be corrected - that where there was a formal seminar for people who proposed joining WTO, there should equally be a formal venue where dissenters can offer their objections. And, I think he further, correctly - in my opinion - that dissenters views should not be limited to the everyday person (like me) who attend these events and asks questions. If you are allowing formal pro-WTO speakers, then you should allow formal anti-WTO speakers. I think that was his point. But, yes, I do agree perhaps he needn't have had to say they were "uneducated", although I think most of them would probably say that there are uneducated.

I also agree that both government and private sector should do a better job of explaining the pros and cons to the Bahamian people. Though, I will also add that a quick google of "WTO" provides a very good, albeit basic, starting point for the pros/cons of joining. Bahamians should take some initiative as well.

Your penultimate paragraph is well taken.

Your last sentence is...

licks2, before you go around calling people "dense", I suggest you learn to spell...oh, and the proper use of subject-verb agreement should also be on your list of things to do. But, what the heck do I know, with my "dense reasoning skills."

MadHatter, respectfully, I am not certain you read the article in its entirety, or you missed the point of the article. The author acknowledges his own bias about joining the WTO, but strongly argues for a venue where dissenters can be heard! How is that a "robotic zombie"? Methinks the person that you should have the least problems with is Richard Coulson.

So in other words CatIslandBoy, screw the justice system and the whole belief of proof before conviction/innocence before guilt, I am going to let my politics decide who is innocent or guilty (obviously you are a die hard FNM sycophant)...pathetic.

Joeblow, do describe the type of "strong message" you are alluding to?

Allow me to sum up this long, tired drivel that is passing for an editorial, in one sentence: "The Tribune concedes that Fred Mitchell (and Jeanne Thompson, et. al) was right...we should not have endorsed the opposition leader.

You do realize that in this modern Bahamas, i.e., post 1992, that the FNM has held the government longer than the PLP, right? So, logically, wouldn't the FNM also be responsible for our debt, bloated civil service, et al.)?

Realitycheck242, I do not disagree regarding Mr. Brown's track record. Said track record, however, does not mean that what Mr. Brown has said is inaccurate.

EastenGate, but the kids at private schools generally come from more stable and affluent homes, with greater parental supervision and interest in the work of their kids. So one can argue that the private school teachers have an easier (note: not "easy") function. I think if you put the private school teachers in the public school environment, they would immediately complain to their union representative.

John, your overall point is well taken. However, just for your edification, the concessions policy that exists today is actually a relic of Sir Roland Symonette/Sir Stafford Sands, et al (well before 1973). Pindling merely continued with what was in place. Even the most sycophantic UBPs/FNMs/PLPs agree on this point. In fact, new-FNMs (read: old UBPs) still like to rattle the cages of the PLP by reminding them that, despite the claim of independence and a better day for Bahamians, we (i.e. The Bahamas) still utilize one of the UBPs primary policies. Though I take your point that the policy should be revisited and even abolished, if necessary.