I have already contacted Jon privately, if he receives enough of our support I hope that it may cause him to, reconsider his decision.
As you seem incapable of replying to me personally and appear to NEED to do this in public. I will answer you publicly and apologise in advance to all the rest of The Mudcat who are not interested in our personal disagreements. However I will try to resist the temptation of responding to you in the same 'tone ' as you seem to need to do, to me. For no one here needs to "prove" anything to YOU. There may be something YOU could demonstrate to those here though. A little humility perhaps?
The 'tone' of my last posting was ill conceived and I regret that. I did not take my own advice and think again, before posting. As a synopsis of where we are, it still stands up pretty well though but I will try here to concentrate on the issues.
You may not welcome my analysis of events but when you post publicly, you are open to the danger of maybe getting what you deserve, rather than what you necessarily want.
It is of some surprise to me, that you feel that you have to respond to criticism of your actions, for I may have expected some criticism if I were in your position. It would be the shame, guilt and embarrassment of receiving praise, in this situation, that would cause me far more concern. For you are still at the party and receiving toasts! Jon is not.
To those who feel that I am being hard on someone who has apologised, I can only say that I understand that view but that this whole episode is repeating a sad and sorry pattern. One where Mick's victims, get hurt and leave and where Mick stays, accepts no responsibility and never appears to learn from the experience and as a result will repeat it.
As to an honest apology? Yes I do know how to recognise one. It is NOT one that is immediately followed by an attempt to regain 'the moral high ground' as yours was. If you could only have stopped at that point I would have had the utmost respect for you and honestly felt that we may have moved on. The apology mentions the word "humble" but I see little subsequent evidence of that humility and the real test of an apology is whether it is accepted and effective in making the hurt party feel better?
We have been here before have we not? Each time after you have 'fired from the hip' and directly and indirectly driven folk away. Jon had other reasons, which he clearly stated but the 'tone' of your post would have hardly helped, would it, maybe a case of 'The Straw That Breaks The Camels Back'?
All I would ask of you now and all I have asked of you before is, that you think of the possible effect of your "fierce rebuttals" on all other posters, before you post them? If it is addressed to an individual, maybe it should be sent to them privately and that may at least, prevent all this public grief?
I note that you say you did a name search on Jon, after your 'apology'. MICK, why on earth could you not have done that before you asked him to leave?
You repeatedly see my criticism of your actions and their results, on this issue as a criticism of you personally and you don't like it. Can you not imagine how your victims feel especially as you 'pull no punches' and speak with the authority of Mudcat and the silent majority ? If I were to say sorry to you now, for making you feel bad, it would not make you feel better automatically?
When our children were young, we used to say to them, "the fact that I do not like some of the things you, do, does not mean I do not like YOU". If that could be the unsaid message of ALL our postings, it may help. Can we please at least learn something from the "silliness', this time?