Thank you "Overseas Teacher", this time for your comments on my response to Mr Davies' second posting.

This board is a medium where teachers can post complaints about employers who have wronged them. Such postings leave those schools unable to defend themselves other than write their own replies. They cannot easily take action against those who deliberately exaggerate and make personal, subjective insults against their management.

For this reason a board like this MUST be used responsibly and I contend that verbose and largely irrelevant postings such as that contributed by Mr Davies, are intended to wreak vengeance rather than express complaints. (There is a very important difference there). Thus, if such postings as these go unchecked they will turn this board into an increasingly derisory platform for personal revenge and invective unbecoming of people who are supposed to be professional.

Therefore, my comments are not uncalled for, they are extremely pertinent. You imply that complaints here should not be the subject of criticism. That they should be left unquestioned to paint pictures that do not stand up to scrutiny and are often unfair to the victims even though they may be at fault. I do not accept that and believe instead that those who use this board must stick rigidly to facts that are directly relevant to the issue being complained about. I do not believe that someone who is aggrieved has a right to blast off almost three and a half thousand words of tortuous ramblings full of stuff that is over 90% irrelevant, much of it personally insulting and some of it libellous to those being complained about. This is what Mr Davies has done.

You unwittingly underscore my point by accusing me of picking on only the negative aspects of his posting. Thus you admit that it was largely negative to begin with. It was - that is why I commented on it.

A well composed dignified complaint that confines itself to relevant facts is FAR better and has more impact than subjective ramblings full of irrelevancies and personal insults.

Mr Davies' second posting regarding Ruwi School comprises 3,279 words, over 90% of which are TOTALLY irrelevant to his complaint. I have gone through his text and can extract only around 300 words that directly back up his complaint. Everything else is subjective and some of it is libellous. Every personality he mentions (except the mother) is portrayed in various derogatory terms.

For example:-

He brands the father as a "totally classless boor" and "the most detestable of the whole crew"

The American man is said (twice) to be an "ass".

The American is derisively insulted because he chose to buy a chicken farm during a bird flu pandemic. (Actually its a potentially astute investment because when the scare is over, his chicken farm may be worth far more than what he paid for it)

The same man is then accused of enjoying teaching university classes because he likes to leer at the girls therein.

A little further on he comes in for another drubbing when Mr Davies states - "I hope ogling Chinese girls is worth his totally selling his compatriot down the river"

Then he makes a disgusting claim about them all. He says "I hope the bastards are reading this". That is foul-mouthed invective for which there is no excuse.

Finally he goes on to trounce the two sisters by claiming "I have never seen two nice little girls morph into such evil witches in such a way outside a horror movie".

Those claims are merely personal insults that Mr Davies cannot begin to prove and has no right to make. Let him stick to his complaint.

Mr Davies is deliberately using the relative safety of this board as a shield from behind which he appears to assume the right to say WHATEVER he feels like saying. I accept that he may have every reason to complain - but do we need to read his personal insults and lies about the school management? Do we need to plough through thousands of words of completely un-necessary stuff to find out what it is hes complaining about?

Is it the fault of Ruwi School that their town is a dump and that Mr Davies was "bored silly" by it?

Is it relevant that the younger sister wants to live in America?

Do we need to hear the American man's views on work and his claim to enjoy the attentions of female university students?

Do we need to be told of the practice of forcing people to denounce themseves during the Cultural Revolution?

Do we need to hear about the chicken farm purchase?

Do we have to know about the Canadian couple's lack of university qualifications?

His remarks about the students he taught were largely correct but not relevant to his complaint! So we didnt need to be told that either.

The foregoing may be true but they have no connection with his complaint!

Mr Davies' complaint has several facets. I don't doubt the truth of these but much of what happened to him could easily have been avoided. He should have acted in a prudent way and asked a few simple questions and taken a few simple and OBVIOUS precautions starting at the time he applied for their job.

He does admit to a few errors now but these admissions are made in passing and are drowned out by negative verbosity. I stand by my claim that his posting is a vehicle for revenge and not for objective complaint.

Thank you

John