Spitting chips; how do others see us?

“It was a farrago of misleading, exaggerated or misconceived commentary about the complaints he had made, how poorly his complaints had been handled and his critical opinions of the outcomes. His evidence was little more than a long, convoluted, out of sequence and incomplete submission; albeit neatly and dutifully set out.
It is obvious from the applicant’s materials and submissions that unless he gets his own way, anyone who calls him out or questions his judgement or conduct, is wrong, biased or ill-informed. Throughout the last two years, anyone who has disagreed with him, or who had merely sought relevant and/or appropriate information, was either acting unlawfully, unfairly or both. When anyone reacted to him or questioned him, he twisted the circumstances and looked for some spurious, unconnected basis to challenge their motivation.”
Samuel v Inner South-West Community Development Organisation (2017) FWC 435 delivered 20 January 2017 per Sams DP