User talk:Durova/Pledge
Not exactly:
1. False dichotomy. I think it's possible to have honorable motives and yet not be shooting straight. Sometimes that happens through no fault of the shooter. This may be one of those times. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you think I deliberately mislead people over this issue, then by all means sign your name and salt the redlink. Your caveat is welcome under the signatories line. Durova278 15:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think YOU are deliberately misleading anyone. If I did, I would have signed. I do think there is a very good chance people are being deliberately misled. Including you. But not BY you. Hence I strongly feel that this doesn't belong under the signatories. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Lar, I wish you would stop this attempt to imply hidden motives. It seems to me that the motives and actions on all "sides" are out in the open, and people are commenting accordingly. It's completely unnecessary to go around implying that people are being deliberately misled—on either side—by unnamed figures. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure you do wish that I and others would stop wondering about your motives. But you will forgive me if I say that I no longer trust you, or your motives, based on experience and observation over a long period of time. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's really not acceptable for you to go around posting these vague allusions, which you've been doing for a very long time. I saw the proposal, I don't like, it worries me a great deal for the reasons I've explained. I filed an RfC. Period. If you think I have secret motives that are somehow inappropriate, that's up to you, but it doesn't really matter whether I do or whether I don't, because the RfC statement speaks for itself, and that's what people are commenting on. I'm sorry to say I don't trust you either Lar, but that doesn't stop me from taking what you post about proposals and content at face value, and it would never change whether I agree or disagree with you about any given fact or proposal. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't the right page for this. But I am by far not the only person who a) tires of YOUR allusions, insinuations, and the like against other editors and b) doesn't trust you. If you think there is an issue sufficient to warrant action, you know the avenues to use. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's always the same small knot, and you're one of the ringleaders. It's pointless and toxic, and you would hate it if someone were to do it to you years on end. It's not even clear what you could mean by "secret motives" in a case like this. I've made my position on this very plain; I don't think it could be any clearer. It feels as though all you want to do is blacken for the sake of it, and so I say to you, in return, if you think there's something that warrants action, please use dispute resolution. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't the right page for this. But I am by far not the only person who a) tires of YOUR allusions, insinuations, and the like against other editors and b) doesn't trust you. If you think there is an issue sufficient to warrant action, you know the avenues to use. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's really not acceptable for you to go around posting these vague allusions, which you've been doing for a very long time. I saw the proposal, I don't like, it worries me a great deal for the reasons I've explained. I filed an RfC. Period. If you think I have secret motives that are somehow inappropriate, that's up to you, but it doesn't really matter whether I do or whether I don't, because the RfC statement speaks for itself, and that's what people are commenting on. I'm sorry to say I don't trust you either Lar, but that doesn't stop me from taking what you post about proposals and content at face value, and it would never change whether I agree or disagree with you about any given fact or proposal. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure you do wish that I and others would stop wondering about your motives. But you will forgive me if I say that I no longer trust you, or your motives, based on experience and observation over a long period of time. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Lar, I wish you would stop this attempt to imply hidden motives. It seems to me that the motives and actions on all "sides" are out in the open, and people are commenting accordingly. It's completely unnecessary to go around implying that people are being deliberately misled—on either side—by unnamed figures. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think YOU are deliberately misleading anyone. If I did, I would have signed. I do think there is a very good chance people are being deliberately misled. Including you. But not BY you. Hence I strongly feel that this doesn't belong under the signatories. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, calling foul and moving to talk. Both of you have been on the opposite side of a long and bitter arbitration case, and whether Lar and SV trust each other doesn't have much to do with me. For the record, had no idea she was planning this RfC until it was already running. It so happened that we agreed (which is about as frequent as a solar eclipse if one tracks these things). Durova278 01:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)