JW:"a TOTAL unwillingness to openly state names followed by specific charges backed by proof and signed with his real name."

Who are you to ask?

I can now see that antiseptic is not serious about all of this, you can tell that by the way he writes his posts. I doubt very much he's had any contact with anyone at CSA, ever. I suspect, but can't prove, he's also another contributor here, and adopts a different persona for that character. He's probably had bad relationships and is now bitter against any women who say "boo" to him, or any women who don't allow him to be in charge. I wouldn't be surprised that his claim of having a child and having partial custody are also made up. Why does he do it? I suppose it gives meaning to his life to come here and have people respond to him.

He's got a real problem with himself.

Sally G that is a strange post why?
And who do you think is a puppet?
I will never understand why we need to slander one another.
And why some like too cast shadowy unfounded insults.
You defend some one who by post history revels in insults and verbal warfare
Who is the puppet please tell us.

I'm not defending antiseptic, I'm criticising him. I mentioned no one other than antiseptic in my post.

But yes, you're right, antiseptic does have a history of abuse and verbal warfare and that's why I, and seemingly others, find him to be offensive.

Now he has the right to be offensive here if he chooses, but don't forget that people here also have the right to treat him as he chooses to treat others. You mention slander, I don't know your level of education but FYI, you can't slander a screen name, you can only slander an identifiable person whose identity is known. I guess that's why antiseptic won't answer questions about his paranoid CSA charges and put his name to it, as antiseptic knows he can be sued for slander if he reveals his identity, and answers the questions as asked. If the charges were truthful and antiseptic was in possession of proof, then antiseptic would have nothing to fear by revealing everything, including his identity.

SallyG, you'll find belly is not complaining about you defending antiseptic, but he thinks you're defending me. But you're right, you didn't even refer to me once in that post. I'm sure the last thing on your mind was me.

Belly has taken a dislike to me, that's why he wrote that post, and for a few days has followed my posts around making personal comments about me, while not referring to the subject matter. That's "his" problem, let's forget him.

Antiseptic, from his posts, is the type of man who can't stand having a "woman" in control. It upsets him, and triggers his personal abuse and put downs. Again, that's "his" problem.

PS: If antiseptic posts under different handles, I wouldn't worry about it. Just forget it. He, in the past, has accused others of doing that (I guess he thinks that making things up gives him some type of advantage). I suspect, in his case, it's merely the pot calling the kettle black. I also suspect that you're right, he's probably never had any direct dealings with CSA. I guess that him saying he has, props up his arguments (in his own mind). But who cares whether he's lying or not. He's obviously a waste of time, and just a joke. Good entertainment though.

SallyG:"antiseptic would have nothing to fear by revealing everything, including his identity."

And who is SallyG to demand I reveal my identity?

SallyG:"you can only slander an identifiable person whose identity is known"

And truth is a valid defence, which is why the CSA and the individuals I have identified, including one with the initials JW, funnily enough, won't take action in Court. Glad to have cleared that up for you.

JW:"Antiseptic, from his posts, is the type of man who can't stand having a "woman" in control"

Actually, I won't allow you to order me around, which is an entirely different thing. It must be really hard for you when you're so used to being able to bully people willy-nilly in your job at the CSA.

JW:"I also suspect that you're right, he's probably never had any direct dealings with CSA"

I've had lots of direct dealings with the CSA, thanks. In every direct contact I've had, the staff involved have either lied, offered dishonest "advice", falsified records to suit their preferred version of events or failed to competently carry out their duties in some other way. The one with the intitals JW lied, dishonestly misrepresented information she was given and failed completely to demonstrate any ability perform simple arithmetic.

JW:"But who cares whether he's lying or not."

You seem to. Must be a guilty conscience, eh Judi...JW?

BTW, feel free to check with GrahamY about my use of different handles. He'll happily confirm that I do not. Will he do the same for you?