Frank, you have made a mistake. In arguments and disputes if someone says something that infuriates you - you should never respond to him while you are in that state of mind wait a while until you have calmed down and then look at it again. You will generally find you will respond differently

I will reply to your latest posting paragraph by paragraph.

Para 1 - The invective you quote was uttered by just one person. He happened to be the man I challenged in his treatment of Nanhai Neusoft. His postings have thrown up some very big questions and I believe I am close to some very big answers that he wont want anyone else to know about. It is generally the case when people such as him lose their rag as he did, that they are hiding something. All he has to do if my suspicions about his complaint are so wrong and so unfair is to say, step by step, exactly what happened that led to the predicament he claims he was landed in. He evidently doesnt intend to do this and there is a reason for him keeping quiet about it

Para 2 This was not an outburst, Frank . All I did was to query you on what appear to be contradictions in your own attitudes shown through many of your postings. Whether or not you intend to respond to any further contact from me must be your decision and I have no comment to make about it.

Para 3 I didnt suggest that KJ would be dismayed by your posting, why should I claim that when you were generally in agreement to what he had said. I also agreed with his posting and said so loud and clear. I did say that certain other people may find what he said to be unacceptable and squirm in their seats with frustration. This was because KJ was putting across his view that teachers often do have cases to answer too. That view is not generally supported in this forum.

In answer to the latter half of your paragraph I accept that you have claimed to be fair and I accept that you generally aspire to be but I have yet to see you raise even a doubt about any other teachers behaviour except that of Dr.Cross and even that expression of doubt caused you some evident anguish.

Para 4 - I accept that the word attack cannot be taken literally but it nevertheless stands good as a meaningful figure of speech in this case. In an earlier posting of yours you cited generally derogatory comments made by other people in a context where you agreed with them. These included Mr Yi and someone else who supported him. I therefore contend that you jumped on their bandwagon of attack. For the record, I entirely accept that you have never called me names or been disrespectful but then I have not accused you of such you seem to have presumed it.

Moreover, in my posting To My Few Detractors, you say that I complained of unfair treatment. Where did I claim that, Frank? I have checked through that posting again and nowhere did I make such a claim. I have not made any such claim in any of my other postings either. The fact of the matter is that I think most of you have such biased views against schools simply because some of them are bad apples in the barrel. Others have no idea how to see holes in some complaints and there is a general refusal to look objectively at any challenge that I choose to make no matter that I go to great lengths to explain these challenges. I could use the word unfair if I wanted to but it isnt an adequate word to describe what in reality is a barrage of such subjectivity that I am amazed that teachers in here who one would normally think are pretty smart people - include many who arent so smart after all. You, I see as one of the smarter ones, which is why I wrote to you privately.

Do you know, Frank, that in all of these increasingly heated exchanges, not one of you has shown me the courtesy of asking me to discuss how and why I reached the conclusions I did. Not one of you at any time has sought to address anything I have said. I put it to you that in general terms, my conclusions and explanations thereof have been very well composed. In the main it does seem that all this flak coming at me is because I have covered things well enough to have headed some people off at the pass, so to speak.

Para 5 Here again, Frank, you are wrong. I have not accused you of using the phrase Will not tolerate It is ME using that phrase. Yes, you did express misgivings about Dr Crosss complaint but they were very reluctant misgivings and you were quite clearly hoping that Dr.Cross would make a return visit with some further information that would negate your misgivings. Dr.Cross however, did no such thing so we were both left without his confirmation of what was so private.

Counter to that, was what he did say namely that he had sought to break his contract, then he had run away and had subsequently been caught by the police and was being thrown out of China on his ear! How much empathy do you need, Frank? Dr.Cross was obviously hugely misrepresenting his complaint and in reality had acted arrogantly, irresponsibly and illegally in that order? In challenging Dr Cross I scored a bullseye, which vindicates what I said about him and justifies my challenging these dodgy-looking complaints in general. Other than Dr Cross, Frank, you have not come down against any other teacher whose complaints I have challenged, nor have you sought in any way to get to the bottom of any of their complaints nor my challenges thereto.

Para 6 Yet again, Frank, you are accusing me of ascribing words to you that were never used at all. The words you highlight in red were not uttered by you and nowhere did I say that you had. Your general attitude and reactions do however, in my opinion, point to a general reluctance to accept that teachers are sometimes to blame and that schools are generally not. Moreover, I do not take offence at anyone disagreeing with my views providing they take the trouble to properly consider what those views are. I see no-one trying to keep an open mind on these complaints I have challenged nor on my challenges themselves. Yet you claim there are many - please name three of them.

Para 7 Yet another exaggeration, Frank. In your posting you highlight four issues where I have said something you dont agree with. Three of those were not as you accuse me of - the subject of any private correspondence between you and I I have made those statements in other postings or based on what you said in other postings. The fourth such highlight does catch me with my pants down I will admit. I recalled you saying what you did but I made a mistake in thinking it had been made elsewhere. My sincere apologies for this. I could also explain why I said it but as you have rightly protested that it was part of a private communication, Ill leave it alone.

However, please tell me why it is you accuse me of giving you a lecture about the legal justice systems in the UK and USA. I made no mention whatsoever about the legal systems in either of those countries. I made no lecture about any legal system at all. What I did do was to explain to you three examples of my past working experience to demonstrate other points and the legal content was confined to a fairly brief reference to contractual claims in no way connected with the issues going on in this forum.

The rest of your posting in fact refers to matters that you also chose to say in the private correspondence so as you have objected to me making any disclosure, I will not address them here.

This forum, in my opinion, stinks! It is populated by so many people who have minds closed shut like steel traps. This series of exchanges has shown that time and again. I have stuck grimly to my points throughout whilst others have jumped up and down acting in some cases in a very unprofessional manner indeed. It has gone beyond discussion and has now become a stone-throwing exercise on the part of most of those who are my detractors. The whole thing has gone into perpetual motion, where my claims are met with accusations which in turn require my explanation and in turn yet more accusations come back at me and so on. Im sure most of us are thoroughly fed up with it all.

Therefore, Frank, I make you a serious challenge and the rest of the gang can witness it if they wish but not be allowed to join in or in any way to electronically heckle

1) I propose that You and I enter into an electronic debate Just you and me and that it be conducted on e-mail.

2) That You and I enter into an exchange of numbered e-mails in which I will objectively state my challenges to complaints point-by-point and that I explain objectively why it is I have made them. In turn you would have the right of reply providing it be done equally objectively. We would both have the right to ongoing counter-replies as long as these remain relevant.

3) That this debate be confined to two complaints only these being the ones that have dominated the content of this forum so far. These complaints being those made by Dr Cross and by Mr Yi

4) That anyone who wishes to know what is being said can register his interest before we start and that he gives us an e-mail address to which we both undertake to send copies of our e-mails as they are transmitted.

5) That no third party is allowed to contribute anything nor question what either of us may say to the other. In other words we run it as a Quiet Room and we both undertake to honour this and to ignore incoming e-mails from other parties (but see 6 below).

6) That where possible we invite the plaintiff to clarify his claims or to provide further information that appears to be necessary. (Though I doubt that Dr Cross is still in the Country).

7) That if you accept this challenge, we both drop right out of any further argument and discussion about these particular complaints in the open forum forever. For my part I will additionally undertake not to enter into any new issues until after we have concluded our debates.

As our debate goes along we formally close our cases as and when we feel it appropriate and that once closed, they STAY CLOSED.

If you accept the foregoing we can go private and fine-tune the rules of engagement. Not only will this proposition kill what has become an acrimonious roundabout but it will see the two principal complaints made the subject of a serious attempt to examine them objectively from both our viewpoints.

If you have read this far, Frank, that is my proposition. We are both honest enough not to manipulate it and are both articulate enough to discuss the subjects quietly, respectfully, and objectively.

Over to you

John