Also i want the complainer against Kyle to explain what did he mean when he said the following:
"Karel Scherpereel
Holy !@#$, what's with the defensive attitude all the time. Give it a rest. Or QQ"
You said you didn't know who Woelfy is yet here you re asking him what's up with the defensive attitude - all the time- . All the time?
There is a blur here. And also you clearly see that someone is frustrated, you answer with QQ and then you repeat QQ.
QQ is a form of mockery.Sometimes such mockeries are worse than a vulgar insult.
Looking at the other Magistrates here; am I supposed to answer this? I don't think it's proper to drench up a closed case, certainly if you chose to abstain, Lavigna, and after a verdict has been reached.
Somehow I feel you still think I provoked Kyle other than those two messages on facebook. I already admitted they were inappropriate and explained I didn't consider QQ quite as offensive as others might, and I apologised. I'll readily admit following up with another QQ wasn't exactly grand of me either.
However you must realise that I had bitten my tongue two times before, when Kyle chose not to, and that this time I just didn't. Because these two incidents were long past (over 30 days) and without record, I didn't bring them up because they would be no more than defamation without grounds; equal to what I have been facing throughout this topic (mostly from you).
It appears you sympathise more with Kyle's case than I would expect from an (impartial?) magistrate.
In any case, I consider this case closed, as I believe all other parties involved do (including Kyle). I doubt I'll honour further requests for bits of information if the only reason you want them is to see me guilty, and really believe this whole debacle has wasted more than enough time for anyone involved (including Kyle).
