I beg to differ - I think your English was ambiguous at best, more likely misleading.
In "my regime", anyone who wants privacy would be enbreastled to it. Even John Prescott.
Yes, indeed it is my choice. How you can make the leap to
I cannot tell. Are you struggling with context, or would you like me to reiterate " I work long hours and have a busy family life. My commute is the only time I have to myself. " and "I meet new people from all walks of life, almost daily"
So, by your (and I use the following word loosely) "reasoning", anyone who elects to spend any time to themselves has
Brimstone: Erm, I'm the one who believes live and let live, not interfere with people's lives. How is that self-absorbed? I'm the one opposing a tax, the consequence of which benefits me, because I can see how it hurts others. How is that self-absorbed?
Please don't stoop to Plowmanesque insults - it devalues your debate.
Why do you buttume I am untravelled? Also why do you suggest that travelling by car is not travelling, yet by PT is travelling? That makes limited sense.
I would rephrase that to "*IME*, those with less exposure to the rest of the world *tend to* have the most restricted view of life." Otherwise, you are again trying to pbutt of opinion as fact. I've met people who are widely travelled whom few would not regard as blinkered bigots. Contrarily, I've met people who've never left their county of birth, yet have very open minds. I'm not saying this is the norm, far from it, but it does show your sweeping generalisation up to be too far-reaching and therefore intrustworthy.
