Broncocastro

June 2010

I understand you disagree with me on some substantive issues, but I really do think you should cool it on the allegations against me. I'm not trying to silence anyone or any viewpoints. Normal practice on WP is to take other users' word on something once the issue is discussed openly. I've accepted your word that you are not a meatpuppet; now you need to accept my word and quit flinging allegations and attacks. If it continues, I'm afraid I'll have to ask other users to help me stop it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• "A:" I don't understand your insistence on attacking me, or projecting that I'm attacking you, when I never attacked you to begin with. I have merely observed that you were using an ad hominen approach to the debate at hand, notwithstanding the "legitimacy" of your "doubts" about how some of us may have come to know about this matter. You could have been more careful in your choice of words. Moreover, I am not the only one who was not impressed with your proposal, arguments, remarks or inquisitorial approach. In good faith, Bronco Castro (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Bronco Castro

• I'm not sure if you reviewed what you wrote, but perhaps you forgot.

• You wrote the following: "I am concerned that someone who has no apparent respect or appreciation for the specialized work and concerns of said individuals is attempting to efface this body of literature by lumping it into one more general and possibly unrelated category of identification." No attack there?
• Then you wrote: "I assure you this is all made in good faith and in the interest of all readers and researchers alike, unlike the comments that you have made here attacking the commentator rather than the argument." No attack there?—suggesting that my comment is not made in good faith is not an attack?
• Then you wrote: "Last, it is my impression that Olfactory's remarks and proposal imply a flippant disregard for the sensibilities and differences of the group and groups in question." Anything wrong with that one?
• And you also wrote, "Yours is a mere attempt to silence the arguments made against your proposal.". After I have corrected your impression and told you that what you assumed was my intention is not my attention, for you to continue to maintain that they are is incivil.

• My inquiries as to possible meatpuppetry were quite normal given the circumstances. You are actually lucky that a format checkuser wasn't filed—the reason it wasn't is because I believed your statements. Other users are not so trusting when the circumstances are "suspicious", as they are there. It's clear you don't edit elsewhere in WP, so having you comment in a CFD is extremely unsual. If my inquiries offended you, I apologise. However, I also think you need to re-assess whether the assumptions you have made about me are correct. It's possible they are not, and you haven't acknowledged that anywhere. (You might also note that a number of users have agreed with my arguments on the substantive issue, so all is not as one-sided as you may want to believe.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• "A:" I will not comment further on your insistence to justify your misguided "suspicions" and unwarranted accusations. Please, whatever else you have to say to me, say it on the topic discussion space. Thank you, good night and good weekend to you.Bronco Castro (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Bronco Castro

• Way to accept an apology. I understand if you are too proud to do likewise or admit any wrongdoing (or just otherwise don't want to, for whatever reason), but it's normal for users to discuss interpersonal conflicts on user talk pages rather than continuing to clutter up category discussion space. I'm sorry that you seem unfamiliar with a number of WP procedures, but I am trying to help explain them to you. It's normal not to know about them if you haven't been active on WP, so it's nothing to worry about, but to reject it all as someone trying to "justify misguided suspicions and unwarranted accusations" seems a bit overly dramatic. To each his own, though. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)