User talk:Fmatmi

Your Comments on Gordon B. Hinckley=

Fmatmi, I am approaching you here on your talk page because I believe that the conversation on Gordon B. Hinckley about the Hoffmann issue has gone more than far enough. However, I also believe that in trying to "pass the buck" to someone else (in this case Bytebear you may have only served to prolong the discussion further. I acknowledge that what you said is partly true: that is, it WAS Bytebear's comment that started the whole conversation up again. However, in the same breath, I must remind you that it was YOUR response to Bytebear's comment that kicked off the balance of the discussion, including your recent comments about everyone's Cognitive dissonance and the fact that while you agreed with most of what was said, you laid the blame at other people's feet for the prolongation of discussion. As I said on the talk page, I do not hold any resentment against you for your earlier accusations of cognitive dissonance against me. However, I cannot and will not stand by and let you lay the blame for the prolonged discussion at Bytebear's feet when actually your comment was what really started the whole "cognitive dissonance" issue anyways. As I said on Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley, this issue has gone on far enough, and instead of laying the blame at Bytebear's feet, you should perhaps have considered merely admitting your part in the subject prolongation and let it go at that. Accusing other users of something you yourself are in part responsible for is not productive, and it only engenders further discussion to try and prove you wrong. If you have a problem with an individual editor, the best method to resolve that is to use one of the many approved WP methods of conflict resolution, or posting your objections on the talk page of the individual in question. Publicly laying the blame at someone else's feet will only serve to cause any WP editor who has respect for their fellow editors and wants to keep the peace with everyone to either disagree with you in public, or do as I'm doing: post their objections in private. I hope you take my comments in the spirit they were intended, that is: I don't want to embarrass you by posting this on the talk page of the article in question, but I do want to help you understand how you might handle a similar situation you come across down the road in your WP editing a bit better than you handled this. At the end of the day, it's up to you whether you do in fact take my comments to you under consideration. However, I think ANY WP editor involved in this discussion would say something like this to you if they were in my place. I mean no offense or disrespect to you, but if you do have a problem with what I've just said to you, I'd prefer you take it up with me on my talk page rather than post about these comments on the talk page of the article in question. Let me know if you need clarification about any of this, and I hope you understand why I've posted about this issue at such great lengths. I hope you'll let me know if you don't understand or agree with any or all of what I've said, and I again hope you'll take these comments in the spirit they were given. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the one being falsely accused in public in a very hypocritical way. If an editor (F-451) wants to remind everyone that an issue has already been discussed, that editor needs to do so without taking the opportunity insert his/her POV. I WILL respond to bogus arguments presented on that talk page on that very SAME talk page. I make no apologies for it (nor do I need to). The ones that need to apologize are the ones that are making the bogus arguments in the first place. You need to apologize for falsely accusing me of “passing the buck”. If you feel that I have personally attacked you 1. F-451 brought you into our thread when F-451 stated (see “as Jgstokes has already pointed out”) and 2. please help me understand how I have personally attacked you. Let me know if you need clarification about any of this, and I hope you understand why I've posted about this issue at such great lengths. --Fmatmi (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)