the number of work hours required to monitor comments would proportionately be greater. 55 The wording of the affidavits on behalf of each of the defendant was conspicuously similar. The foregoing comment is not said as a criticism. The affidavits have, obviously, been crafted by a legal practitioner and the wording of each of them is, in part at least, identical. Of itself, that fact does not influence the Court in dealing with the veracity of the comments made on the facts stated in the affidavits. Generally, there is little that is controversial in the facts. 56 The cross-examination of each of the witnesses was efficient and concise. Mr Shelley conceded that it was impossible for a publisher of a public Facebook page to prevent in advance the publication of any comment fully, unless it operated in a way that did not allow any comments. The best that could be achieved by the publisher of a public Facebook page, which allowed comments, was to ensure that every post by a commentator was hidden, until monitored and approved by an Administrator. 57 The method of “blocking” comments was to list common words that, presumably, would be contained in a comment. If words such as “he”, “she”, “and”, “the” or “a” were the subject of blocking, to the extent that a publisher utilised the most appropriate tools on the website, and to the extent a comment utilised such common words (with a limit), all comments of that kind would be blocked, regardless of its content. 58 If the aim was not to block all comments, but, rather, hide them, as earlier described, that could be achieved, and, if the publisher desired to have the comments published, the comments could be monitored and “un-hidden”. There was a degree to which all of the witnesses, and counsel, utilised the term “blocking” and the term “hiding” (or their cognate forms) synonymously. 59 The cross-examination of each of the defendants’ witnesses concentrated on the likelihood of inappropriate comment to controversial postings by the defendant, as one aspect upon which the defendant could rely in terms of limiting the monitoring that might otherwise be necessary. The evidence,