Again JW I'm asking which of the small number of posters who had already commented on this thread you were refering to with your opening post

"What are you guys trying to hide?

This has got nothing to do with "legitimate" privacy, but EVERYTHING to do with hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners."

As I pointed out earlier only no privacy, Stg, Antiseptic, myself, Divorce Doctor and Young Dan had posted to this thread at that point.

Who were you accusing of "hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners"?

Do you have any evidence to back up that serious allegation made against other posters?

You seem very keen to demand detail of others, I'm asking much less of you, just some clarification about a post you made on this site.

R0bert

I've visited divorce doctor's website. To get a definitive answer to your question Robert, I suggest you also visit that website. Do a little homework.

samsung, the original allegation was plural. A suggestion that more than one was involved.

Given JW's demands regarding the providing detail to support allegations it's not unreasonable to ask the same of JW especially when it relates to allegations against other posters on this site.

Are you in a postion to answer on JW's behalf?

R0bert

I wrote that post to you Robert as an experiment. Rather than saying I knew exactly what one or more posters have done in their past lives, and honestly answering your query with detail, I replied to you in exactly the same way antiseptic has been replying to what I consider to be legitimate questions put to him by JW.

The result of my little experiment is. You seem not to be antagonistic towards antiseptic after he basically says in reply to JW's queries "do your own research". In other words he doesn't answer the question. Yet, you seem to be not happy with "my" answer to you where I basically suggest the same thing "do your own research". In other words I didn't answer your question.

Conclusion. Your query, which has been repeated several times to JW, is not based on a desire for all round truth within this OLO topic. Your query is based on a defence of an argument position. You apply one standard of proof to one side, and a different standard of proof to another side.

Am I wrong with this Robert? Have I misread you? If so, then I'll be waiting for you to put equal, repeat equal, pressure on antiseptic to answer the questions put to him. Then I'll sincerely apologise for misunderstanding you.

So come on antiseptic, when are you going to fully and properly answer the queries asked by JW?

You can continue to avoid answering, and continue to post replies all you like, for as long as you like, but I have a feeling if you are still doing that in 6 months time there will still be people replying to your every post, calling you out on the matter. You're going to be one very tired little boy keeping up appearances with your constant avoidance to answering properly.

phillips:"So come on antiseptic, when are you going to fully and properly answer the queries asked by JW?"

Already been done. When are you going to add something to a debate - any debate?

phillips:"but I have a feeling if you are still doing that in 6 months time there will still be people replying to your every post, calling you out on the matter."

And the collective hen-pecking continues. As anyone who knows chickens can tell you, it's always the old boilers who give the rooster the hardest time.