Paul Gibbs explained:"no apology will be forthcoming."And further that:"I maintain the right to express my view"Indeed. And if it wasn't for those like yourselfmaintaining their right to insult and defame peopleas you've just done with Ms Bond, then there'd bethousands of libel solicitors and QC's deprived ofa living, to say nothing of the effect on the Bench.And let's face it Mr Gibbs its relatively easy for youand your kind to act the Internet Hero by maintaining this right of yours to insult people, and tell them what you really think of them (and on so little evidence in this instance) when you can shield behind the relative anonymity of the internet.Whether you'd be quite so forthright in your views withsome of the more robust contributors to these forumswere you to meet them face-to-face can be leftfor others to decide.You see Mr.Gibbs, it's all a question of "good manners".And "good manners" isn't a question of background or class. You find people with good manners in all strata of society.Good manners basically means treating other people as they themselves would wish to be treated, and in the same manner they treat others in their turn. In my experience in all her postings on theseforums Ms. Bond has never directed a single personal remark at any other contributor, she doesn't engage in heated exchanges and neither has she directly challenged anyone. She simply makes her contributions and leaves it at thatAnd yet you Mr Gibbs, who on your own admission" Having only recently joined the forum "saw fit to challenge Ms Bond" May I ask why everything you post have to have a recycling angle?I know that you are well-intentioned but it borders on obsessive."and accuse her of being borderline obsessive.In other words Mr Gibbs, not only are you devoid of good manners but you appear determined to give others the benefit of your views about them as people despite the effect this might have on that person's feelings. For all you know at the time. And to what end exactly Mr Gibbs ? Paul Gibbs further wrote:"It is not a judgement, as you incorrectly claim, merely the expression of an opinion."All judgements are a matter of opinion Mr.Gibbs.If I asked you who in your judgement was the better striker, Harry Kane Romulu Lukaku, Jamie Vardy, or Sergi Aguero your answer would be your opinionSimilarly in Appeals to the High Court cases are decided on the Majority Opinion of the Judges hearing the Case. Might I suggest you look up "Majority Opinion"?Paul Gibbs further wrote:"I have messaged Ms. Bond and I doubt that she needs your public 'airing' of heart-rending support."So that having previously described Ms.Bond as borderline obsessive, and while refusing to apologise for your remark, you now claim to have sent her a privatemessage and to be now speaking on her behalf. I see.Now why don't I find this all rather "creepy", to say the least ?So that -you turn up on this forum out of the blue. And on the strength of reading a few of their messages you decide to describe a regular contributor as being borderline obsessive, you directly challenge them to respond. And then when they decline your offer, you send them a private message.And then you have the temerity to claim that I'm the one one with the "agenda". When my only agenda Mr.Gibbs, such as it is, is to try and prevent this forum from descending into the sort of bear-pit where you'd clearly feel more at home, and where trading personal insults is the norm. Horses for courses and all that, Mr Gibbs.You see Mr.Gibbs the very fact that despite being a new member of this particular forum, you are already seemingly familiar with the mechanics of sending private messages does rather call into question your proclaimed innocence in this matter. And may one venture to say, how much devestationyou may have already left in your wake elsewhere.michael adams...
Michael Adams ● 3088d