User talk:Plattopus/DCB

Postdlf and IP

When Postdlf attempted to get a response from Mr. Boyer regarding his surreptitious use of the IP, [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADaniel_C._Boyer&diff=11479703&oldid=11454398) which was suspected at the time but not discovered until later, Mr. Boyer gave no response.

The reason I didn't is that Postdlf had already said he wouldn't discuss anything with me. So I wasn't going to discuss anything with him. For him to bring it up after having said this was a kind of having his cake and eating it too. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I never said I wasn't going to discuss anything with you, just that I was done rebutting your claims to notability in that one VfD, but that's your selective interpretation again. But like I said, you'll have your chance to fully respond once this is posted. Maybe this RFC can be cathartic and we can resolve these continuing disputes rather than continuing them. We'll see. Until then, you'll just have to wait until we actually post it. Postdlf 00:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about misinterpreting what you said; it wasn't deliberate and I hope you will accept my apology. However, you are misinterpreting what I said on VfD. I did not claim to be notable, and I do not claim to be notable now. If you'll actually read the VfD discussion you'll see that all of my complaints related to research, process, and the like. I did not have any position on whether there should be a Daniel C. Boyer article, my only positions were as they would be for any other article, that statements should be factually correct, though maybe I was too tenacious about arguing for precision. I was annoyed when you kept failing to understand what I was saying and maybe that annoyance got the best of me. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)