Amex/Mischcon V Me

[vjohn82]

I've been alerted to this thread, mainly because the OP clearly needs assistance, but also because of this witch-hunt.

 

We all need to understand that there are opposing viewpoints and that a counter argument is not personal and not designed to shake one's faith in their case. In fact if someone like rhodium78 has gone out of his way to point out a valid flaw in the reasoning of a person proceeding with a case as a LIP then surely it is better for it to be brought out into the open here rather than be stuffed in the courtroom?

 

I won't judge the manner of the comments because I understand feelings and tempers can run high in the heat of the moment; however, the accusation that rhodium78 is a troll does not sit well with me considering the wealth of assistance they have provided to others on the forum.

 

I do think Martin has made a mistake in not removing posts that are "off topic"; this is stated within the t's and c's upon signing up. A mere accusation of trolling, and the banter in between, is not a reason for keeping a number of posts on the OP's thread that detract from the assistance that they need. I would urge Martin to reconsider this at his earliest convenience.

 

I'm here for the sharing of knowledge; if I disagree I say my peace and then move on. I probably won't meet any of you off this forum and we will probably never meet on opposite sides in the courtroom so arguing is pithy and a waste of my time (I have learned that lesson from a thread a few months ago).

 

I'm not perfect, neither is anyone else. But I see a genuine reason for a retraction of the allegations made towards rhodium78, though an apology would be just as good.

 

I've said what I needed to say; I'm with DB though in that a genuine poster has been maligned who has helped a considerable number of people and, while we have disagreed on some things, that does not mean that I do not respect their opinion.

 

I too will leave the forum if this situation is not rectified in some way. Collectively me and DB have thousands of posts and numerable successes (especially HFO)... if we go it only makes CAG weaker.

 

Martin, this really needs strong modding in line with the forum rules and I would respectfully request this thread goes back on topic ASAP.

 

Thanks.

 

VJ

[vjohn82]

Vjohn-thanks for your input.

 

I agree that the off topic stuff do not help anyone,and always encourage open and constructive dialogue that serves to further progress.

 

Good modding can be seen from many different angles,and often its impossible to please all.

 

If there is wider evidence of a witch hunt,then this is something that would be viewed as unacceptable,and I invite you to hit the red triangle with that if you have that info.

 

I dont consider a need to back track on anything I have posted,however

 

Martin,

 

I cannot for confidentiality reasons disclose how I know that rhodium78 is the "genuine article". The simple fact is that he has been "outed" by 4 particular posters as being a troll simply because of his posts on faulty DN's and not because of any evidence to support the assertion. That alone is enough to remove posts which are off topic.

 

I'll take the risk of being called a troll too then... rhodium78 assertions are correct regarding DN's.

 

Now, what do the posters in this thread think of that? Dare anyone call me a troll too?

[vjohn82]

I'm trolling off for a few hours. I hope we all see sense and get this sorted, and I'd eventually like to see anything not related to the thread removed.

 

Me too DB... perhaps our contributions are not worthy enough and that instead the site team would prefer to read unfounded speculation and insults?

 

Oh well... other threads to troll I'm sure.

[vjohn82]

Good idea. Let's get back to the job in hand and stop all this trolling stuff because if rhodium78 is a troll, I'm one too!!

 

I dare say the whole HFO Fan Club is in that case.

[vjohn82]

I think the mere participation is enough but if you would like to clarify I think that will go some way to pacifying someone who has a great deal to offer CAG.

[vjohn82]

I think that's fair enough. The others I'm afraid were far more "vocal" and obvious in their condemnation and should be apologising.

 

I've helped those concerned on a number of matters from my recollection and I consider it a personal insult for rhodium78 to be maligned in this way.

[vjohn82]

VJohn. I really don't think we should hijack Martel's thread any longer but can I politely suggest that if Rhodium (or indeed anyone) who has particular talents/ qualifications etc and wants to help the posters then could they identify themselves to the Site Team?

 

In this way the Site Team can verify their status and confirm they are "good guys" or girls.

 

Both you and DonkeyB want to vouch for them so we know they must be alright.

 

Revealing personal details would go against everything the t's and c's state and, furthermore, I would say dangerous in light of the recent court order which allowed a DCA to access a number of CAG user's information upon request.

 

I would urge everyone to make sure they are as anonymous as possible on this forum to a certain extent. However, the fact that me and DB have vouched for their character considering the lengths we have both gone to in order to clarify this should be more than enough for the posters concerned!

 

This thread can be brought back "on topic" as soon as the mods remove all references to rhodium78 being in any way deceitful.

[vjohn82]

I would say DB hit the nail on the head

 

Legal arguments and legal opinion differ between opponents

 

so what Rho may take the view as being right does not mean i will agree, it is ultimatley for the Courts to decide who is right and who is wrong.

 

But take the Heath v Southern pacific case, decided by the Court of Appeal,

 

now we could say that the multiple agreement arguement is dead and no longer available.

 

I have a High Court decision passed to me that distinguished Heath and the judge agreed with the Claimants counsel and the bank lost.

 

Now the Banks counsel argued heavy on Heath.

 

Im just trying to say that just because someone has a different view point, lets not label them as a troll and force them off the forum. debate is what is needed

 

I disagree with some views, but no one calls me a troll do they?

 

Troll

[vjohn82]

trust you to pop up lmfao:D

 

I couldn't resist