A subject can't be simplistic in itself only people's approach to it

A subject can't be simplistic in itself, only people's approach to it. He must have meant "simple".It's usually a mistaken desire for a bit of extra gravitas, a bit of weight, that makes people prefer the longer word to the shorter. Etymologically there's not much excuse for it this time.Leaving aside the professionals like scientists and linguists, anyone who can be described with a word that has an -ist or an -istic on the end of it is likely to be suffering from an ism. Thus an atheist is a person who keeps on insisting that there's no god; an evangelist is bursting with a message; a materialist is obsessed by worldly goods. And a simplist (the word exists) sees everything in black and white.

Realists, admittedly, are an exception: they see things as they really are and should presumably be given the credit for it. So perhaps a simplistic person might be given the credit for seeing how simple things are? If only they were. (Even realists, come to think of it, can be rather tiresome at times.)At least one paper described the killers as having run amok, which reminded me of the old Daily Telegraph style-book - long out of print now and much prized by the few who still have a copy - one of whose instructions read: "Only Malays run amok". This was indeed true for a long time, amoq being a Malay word for a frenzied warrior, but it was already being applied to others a century before that style-book was compiled.If enough people go on using simplistic when they really mean "simple" then that is what it will mean, and all the style-books in the world will be powerless to stop it.

But I rather hope this won't ever happen, because if it does we will have lost a useful word, and will have to find another. Simplificatory perhaps? That should be long enough for anyone.. INSTEAD OF attempting to blame the Serbian people for the Kosovo tragedy ("Voices were raised in protest, now the silence is deafening", 18 April), Andrew Gumbel should have asked this question: why were no Western voices raised in support of the tens of thousands of Serbian demonstrators against Slobodan Milosevic in the winter of 1997-98? Why the deafening silence then? That winter, in inclement weather, for more than four straight months, sometimes as many as 400,000 Serbs demonstrated daily against their corrupt leader. During the earlier democracy demonstrations in Prague and Warsaw, the West gave full support for toppling the Communist governments When the Serbs demonstrated, we did nothing. The money spent on one day of Nato bombing, spent in support of the demonstrators, would have toppled Milosevic. Let's stop the lying. Milosevic has remained in power this long because he was "our boy".

In their ignorance of Serbian history and spirit, Nato planners and Western politicians expected Milosevic to sell out again, clueless that he could not sell out Kosovo and survive. Not only has the bombing by the "civilised West" taken away hope for a democratic Serbia for years to come, it has succeeded in turning those who despised Milosevic, and demonstrated against him, into supporters.. THANK YOU so much for the ever-civilised, delightful Michael Bywater. I laughed like a drain at his column "Going, going, gone" (Review, 18 April), as he took our so-called "leaders" vigorously to task. Bill Clinton is "a potato-faced boobie with a hard-on who thinks it's a good idea to invade a country thousands of miles away" Brilliant - this is what so many of us wanted to say Michael puts racial hatred in its proper perspective.

Why shouldn't Slobodan Milosevic mutilate, kill and drive out people he doesn't like? They're only Albanians, for God's sake. Michael's enjoyable description of the PM will certainly take the wind out of New Labour's sails! Tony Blair is "a slogan-machine who deserves to be dragged face-down through Clerkenwell with a Crunchie up his arse" Woo-hooh! I've never laughed so much. This is a clear reference to the black American James Byrd who was dragged to his death in such a manner. Woo-hooh! Please thank Michael for being the voice of reason, liberalism and sheer human decency What a nice man!. AS A "REFUSNIK", according to Tim Dowling ("Leading us up the aisles", 18 April), although I appear to be motivated "by an altruistic desire to save the high street", I am more likely to be a snob with "surplus time and money" Patronising and untrue. I shop, almost daily, in specialist shops because I want the best for my family and experience has taught me that shopping in supermarkets is time-consuming and expensive. I do buy some goods in a supermarket, although I can't send the au pair because I don't have one.