I respond briefly to the four paragraphs in your posting of June 22nd.

1a) The use of capital letters is - as I'm sure you know - a means of imparting emphasis to the word(s) involved. The truth is contained within the text in general.

1b) I have not set myself up as judge and jury - I have instead taken Mr Davies' posting and debunked it for what it is - an over long, largely irrelevant, and vituperative outpouring of vengeance.

1c) The words you list at the end of para 1 are not dictatorial or combative. They are words that have clear meanings. At no time have I used dictatorial or combative langauge to Mr Davies nor to you. That, however, is more than can be said for both of you, for you both use derogatory and personally insulting language in your postings. I have listed Mr Davies' examples but I did not bother with your earlier claims that I am "unhinged" and "precariously balanced" for quite apart from their being intentionally insulting, they were unqualified too - or are you a clinical psychologist?

2a) Read Mr Davies' posting again - and ask yourself to what extent it is objective and confined to facts. Even you must accept that it is neither. Nor are his exaggerations and insults small in their extent. Mr Davies strayed so far from the path that in much of his posting it was not possible to discern what his actual complaints were. He used insults against the school management throughout his posting. Yet you have completely ignored my remarks about his content and instead have chosen somewhat un-necessarily to bumble on about some of the words I used. Maybe I should have used one-syllable words instead of the right ones.

2b) What is perceived truth? I always thought the truth was the truth. "Perceived Truth" is a fancy way of saying whatever you want and then trying to defend it by claiming it to be "perceived truth" Come on! Do us all a favour - Mr Davies' posting may all be true - I have not accused him of lying at all - except that some of his claims and insults are unproveable. However, if you consider my response to Mr Davies' to be untrue - why don't you say where and why it is untrue? The fact is however, that you cannot say where or why it is untrue because I have not used anything other than the truth in my postings.

2c) You tacitly accept that Mr Davies' posting is "exaggerated", "unduly vitriolic" and "veers off into irrelevant subjectivism". Then you say that we will all judge and decide for ourselves. That such complaints should not be the subject of voiced criticism such as mine. Earlier in your latest posting however, you claimed I had (wrongly) set myself up as judge and jury - yet here you are now, giving ALL of us that right - which do you want? you can't have it both ways!

3a) I have not 'decided' that Mr Davies is wreaking vengeance and has used over 90% of his posting to ramble on about irrelevant issues. I have simply pointed these out for what they are.

4a) Very true - and that tells the more astute among us that you are just going off at the mouth for the sake of it.

If you wish to complain about my postings - confine yourself to their content and keep away from irrelevancies. In respect of your latest posting it reeks of a man who had nothing relevant to say but HAD to say something anyway.

John