I've given the dishonest and lying antiseptic a few more hours to provide "proof" of his allegations.

But of course, the dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to display an INCAPACITY, both on this topic and the violence against women topic, to publicly back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA broke the law in their dealings with him. He can't do that because there is NO proof, as he very well knows.

Antiseptic = dishonest.
Antiseptic = a liar.

I don't know Antiseptics case details but some coverage of alleged CSA breaches of their responsibilities can be found at

http://www.mensrights.com.au/1cs6-02.doc

R0bert

Firstly, that link is from a "mens rights" group. No different from the radi-fems groups. Both are full of wackos. Both have no credibility.

All examples in the radi-mens link are "alleged", and NO defence whatsoever of the allegations is presented. Totally biased, one sided and no credibility.

No criminal behaviour is cited.

Your defense of the dishonest and lying antiseptic via this method is pathetic.



The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to display an INCAPACITY to publicly back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA broke the law in their dealings with him. He can't do that because there is NO proof, as he very well knows.

Antiseptic = dishonest
Antiseptic = a liar.

Sally, no attempt was made to hide the source of the article. I don't often quote from mens group sites because of the point you make but in regard to an issue like this they are likely to be the only ones covering it. Would you attack a woman who posted a link to an article on a womans group site for doing so?

Your carry on over at least two threads and a long period attacking Antiseptic because he won't dance to your tune is seriously off. Based on the extremes you went to in accusing Antiseptic of lying over the earlier quote from JW I doubt that anything he could do here would make the least difference to your mindset anyway.

Firstly you accused Antiseptic of fabricating the whole thing then when Graham pointed out that the post existed you decided that he had noted the details of a post, posted a misquote from it and by good fortune the original was deleted. No backing off based on your earlier claims being shown to be false, no acknowledgement that Grahams post appeared to suggest that Antiseptic's quote might have been legit.

Antiseptic has mostly replied to your obsessive carry on with good humour.

Many of us who have dealt with CSA have formed the opinion that they don't always act ethically or in the best interests of children or clients. I tried on a number of occasions to get them to confirm in writing that they had the legal authority which they were claiming in spoken conversations and they pointedly failed to do so. They refered to other legal authority in written responses but ignored the specific authority I'd refered to.

I've not had recent dealings with them but when I have they have not allow recording of conversations or third parties as witnesses to meetings. The people I've dealt with from CSA have not disclosed full names. They protect themselves from "evidence" of the kind you claim to want.

Why are you so bothered by Antiseptics claims regarding CSA?

R0bert

(1) It's got nothing to do with "dancing to anyone's tune". It's got everything to do with "honest" allegations backed up with proof. Antiseptic's allegations of criminality are dishonest. He knows that, and it's why he can't provide "proof".

(2)Graham's post did NOT suggest in any way that Antiseptic was right. That's a mischievous misrepresentation of Graham's post. Graham merely said a post existed and he deleted it.....and Graham is correct. A post DID exist and it WAS deleted. It's the **CONTENT** of the post that was debated and NOT the fact it existed and was deleted. DUH!

(3)Yes, antiseptic has replied to my request seeking "proof". But what you "conveniently" ignore is the fact that he has totally avoided the request by NOT providing "proof", so in reality he shows an incapacity to answer the actual question asked. He doesn't address the actual question asked (to provide "proof on this public forum, the same forum where he made his false allegations), because he CAN'T answer it.

(4)I'm concerned about antiseptic's false charges of criminal acts because of his earlier statements regarding his situation with his 3 ex partners, children, child maintenance and the CSA interaction. His words had a ring of "revenge" about them. BUT, if he had answered directly and honestly, the questions asked of him regarding the authentication of his allegations, then that would have simply been the end of the matter, regardless of the reply. He chose not to address the actual questions asked and instead embarked on a ritual of juvenile sarcasm and personal abuse. He has not been able to get away with that because people here have challenged him.

And finally the most important thing of all.....

(5)The dishonest and lying antiseptic continues to display an INCAPACITY to publicly back up his false allegations with "proof" that the CSA broke the law in their dealings with him.
Antiseptic = dishonest
Antiseptic = a liar.

Sally you are misquoting Graham. "Graham merely said a post existed and he deleted it."

His post which appears to refer to the post Antiseptic referenced is at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153&page=0#47350

"Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 9 October 2008 3:01:27 PM"

The plain meaning is that Antiseptic's post was accurate. Not a post, "the quote".

You have not proven that Antiseptic has told any lies, just that he does not choose to post proof of his claims on this forum. We have seen credible proof of Antiseptic's earlier claim on this forum and you chose to disregard that proof in favor of a more unlikely scenario.

If you have proof that Antiseptic has lied post it, if you consider that he lacks the proof it's fair to point that out and maybe even to prompt from time to time when similar claims are made. To effectively kill off two threads with large numbers of repeated unsubstantiated claims that Antiseptic is lying interupts more useful discussions and makes it look as though you have an unspoken agenda.

Many users of these forums choose not to post identifying details for a variety of reasons. That does not in my estimation make them any more prone to telling lies than those happily identify themselves.

You have repeatedly called Antiseptc a liar, by your own standards the onus is on you to prove those claims and his failure to respond in the way you think he should does not constitute proof.

R0bert