I think that the paper version is much better than the on line one - no glamour girls. Some of the columnists , as forum member says, are a bit extreme, but one reads them with a pinch of salt.All news needs to be evaluated sceptically from whatever source or newspaper. He does not mention Quentin Letts, who is the parliamentary and theatre correspondent - I think he is excellent. Also the puzzles are good for me - the pull out ones keep my old brain a little active for about 1/2 hour a day. The paper cannot be all bad unless those who dislike it are saying that its readers are idiots.

fm - Here is a simple question for you. What do you regard as a high quota of 2 million?

You are in the habit of putting words into other people's mouths, on occasions ...so I'll let you answer, in your own words.

john bunyan

"Then there are about 2 million idiots out there."

I'm afraid there are a lot more than that.

FE, FM

Re fm list to Aitchbee - I believe in none of the list, although no 4 may be argued in several ways.

I think the on line version is different. I used to read the Times and Financial Times when I was in full time employment, but read my wife's Daily Mail now, mainly for the puzzles. I am interested in the reply to namtas' question. Please do not assume that it influences all its readers opinions, nor that people blindly believe all it says. Maybe there are more than 2 million idiots out there, and quite a few are MP's and readers of other papers. I will refrain refrain from casting aspersions on people with other views but it is too easy (and a bit condescending) to say that all ,or most, Mail readers are fools.