And you astonish me with your massive over-reaction and total misinterpretation of my posts.
I can only recall 3 posts in response to yours.
The first was:
"Paul - if you are indeed a new poster then you are getting some unfair stick.
We do however have a multi username poster who gets weird satisfaction out of inventing a new persona every now and again. When "called out" on his subterfuge he has no qualms about blatantly lying about it "sorry I have no idea what you are talking about" would be typical. Your appearance on here is very much deja vu. Obviously there is no point in asking you to come clean, if you are that infamous multi you would have no problem lying through your teeth and denying it."
This was to explain that posters may be assuming you to be the board's most infamous poster, a self-confessed serial liar and that IF YOU WERE THAT POSTER you would happily deny being him - making the question "are you Kempo?" a waste of effort. The point being that you were in a bit of a "no-win" situation. Your appearance on the board and becoming an immediately prolific poster did bear the Kempo hallmark. Denying it wouldn't convince anybody based on previous experience.
You actually thanked me for explaining this point.
You then started your own thread stating that posters accusing you of being a "multi" didn't understand the meaning of the term and your own definition was that it was for users posting "simultaneously" under different user names. I think you made the "simultaneously" point a couple of times. I can assure you that the "simultaneous" requirement would not fit into the definition of "multi" of many, if any, of the posters on here. This did arouse my curiosity so I posted:
"I note that you stress "simultaneously". Does this mean that you have previously posted under another username? Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just curious"
You didn't respond to that question. The Leicester connection is just the sort of teaser that Kempo would delight in throwing into the mix so it did arouse suspicion. I posted:
"I note that you have not answered my question. Have you previously posted under a different username (or 5)?
I suspect that your avatar may be giving us a clue - given the Leicester connection.
Of course, if you are the good doctor, the question is a bit pointless. You would be happy to lie about it without a second thought."
I have not said that if you deny being someone it's because you would lie about it without a second thought. I have said you would do so "if you are the good doctor". Have you seriously not understood that distinction? You seem an intelligent bloke. How come you can't grasp that.
I have not called you a liar at all. Again - please try and understand the "if" part of my posts.
"Rancour" "bad behaviour" where?
Perhaps if you read my comments a bit more carefully you might think again, but having thrown the toys out of the pram (again), perhaps not.