The Shorter Oxford 1993 adds that a nemesis can merely be a persistent tormentor and that this meaning originated in the States

The Shorter Oxford (1993) adds that a nemesis can merely be "a persistent tormentor" and that this meaning originated in the States. The New Oxford (1998) says it's an implacable agent of someone's downfall, "especially when deserved".The 1998 Chambers has as one of its definitions, "a rival or opponent who cannot be beaten", which is the obvious one in this case, and I doubted it only because sports writers' way of expressing themselves is different from other journalists. If you go for the current (1989) edition of the big Oxford, you will think in terms of Nemesis the goddess, and yes, the suggestion here is that Henman was in danger of getting too big for his boots. She is, of course, the Greek goddess of vengeance, wheeled on to destroy mortals who get above themselves; the native English word for her is comeuppance. Could Henman, egged on by his squealing fans, have had a touch of what the Greeks would have called hubris? Well, it depends on what dictionary you use. Sportswriters are a well-educated bunch on the whole, and tend to favour a courtly style.

(Note the care with which Mr Dickson avoids the split infinitive in the sentence above, unlike Guardian leader-writers, who split them on purpose, if only to show that they're not the pedants we might have thought they were.) I refuse to insult the Mail by accusing its writers of not knowing who Nemesis is. "It means he was going to win, that's all." Maybe, but maybe not. THERE WAS a moment in Tim Henman's game against Jim Courier, wrote Mike Dickson of the Mail, "when you sensed he was ready finally to face down his nemesis", and I wondered for a minute just what Mr Dickson had in mind here "What's the problem?" I hear you say. PHILLIP KNIGHTLEY'S admirable piece of sanity might also have added that it is a bit rich for Britain and America to talk of law, human rights and ethnic cleansing when initiating an action from which it is unlikely that international law will recover FELICITY ARBUTHNOT London E9.

What we are sceptical about is the potential for mischief inherent in a particular political and bureaucratic system.HEON STEVENSONUniversity of SussexBrighton. It is scepticism about, first, whether British citizens' overall interests (including, but not limited to, economic and economics-dependent interests) will be best served by further integration; and, second, whether the interests of Europe's peoples (rather than politicians and elite businessmen) can be best served by further integration prior to wholesale reform in Brussels. Amusing though Mr Kennedy's caricature of a different generation's scepticism is, Brussels-sceptics born in the 1960s and 1970s are not interested in reliving the Second World War; we like European people, and have business, personal and social dealings with them week in, week out; we enjoy European music, food, literature and so on; and we have no strong feelings about the pound per se. IF HE did not so completely misunderstand his opponents' case, Charles Kennedy would probably find his Euro-enthusiasm easier to communicate. He both underestimates sceptics' potential to be constructive and overestimates the extent to which they can be pacified by the promise of an influence over others in Europe that they do not seek. Most Eurosceptics under 35 are highly specific in their scepticism. At secondary school, the information crammed into children so they can jump through the hoops known as exams is quickly forgotten - how much do you remember? How to produce decent, thinking citizens for the future? Give children rights, respect and responsibility. And you really don't see much of those 3Rs in schools, only lip service to them.