"

 Disscussions with DMacks 

oth have understanding difficulty's.OneMadScientist (talk) 
I am talking about your behavior...we are all responsible for what we ourselves do, even if we feel provoked by others. It's a great test of one's strength to recognize when to help raise the level of discussion rather than inflaming tense situations. Your edits were explicitly written to insult a person rather than as constructive criticism of specific actions, and you even said you were trying to undo your previous steps towards repairing the destructive atmosphere here. That's all forbidden. Period. No ""but he said..."" or ""I'm just proving I was right all along"". What are your personal intents for being a Wikipedia editor? If it's to improve wikipedia articles, then go do so now and stop wasting everyone's time with discussions about your previous battles. If it is anything else, including trying to school others in morality or your sense of religious obligation, no...this website it not for you. DMacks (talk) 

@DMacks WELL - I'am talking about your, and Plasmic Physics's behavior and responsibility around here and maybe this website it not for you.
You Would Do well Take your own advice DMacks. Is there not a word for describing the lack of following one's own advice (rules) which I have been condemned for using. Oh, yes now I remember, It is (hypocrite).
And I was Beginning to think you had realized YOUR errors in regards to YOUR application of YOUR ""Obligations"" as a Wikipedia ""morality code"" enforcer and understood my very significant and valid arguments.
Specifically for now -
In regards to YOUR choice!!(and the actual definition) of what exactly constitutes a personal attack around here. And the objectivity by which it is applied and the selective abuse of its application by YOU in particular.
You are now bringing up the very important point that I would Have Very Much desired to take up with you in your absence.
I am sorry, I mistook your silence for understanding on your behalf.
I contend that you have failed miserably in the ""great test of one's strength to recognize when to help raise the level of discussion rather than inflaming tense situations"" and should have known better given your display of ""apparent"" authority.
I contend that (In This issue with Plasmic Physics - which you had been following from the start, at least) that after my initial ""transgressions"" and subsequent overly profuse apologies, was being very polite and civil.
I was then was the subject of an Obvious personal attack from Plasmic Physics, who was my initial accuser!! in the very first instance (again NOT taking ones own advice!!).
His remarks which OBVIOUSLY ""were explicitly written to insult a person (me) rather than as constructive criticism of specific actions"" and contained no factual justification.
My response contained words and statements that were correctly and appropriately describing (with civil English words) the FACTS in relation to nature of his personal attacks on me.
In my attempt to obtain an apology from him, while Lacking any support against his attack, you decided to label me the transgressor, but not him.
You appear to be very negligent and biased acting in your ""appointed role here???"" to say the least, if not totally malicious.
I contend that your obviously biased behavior should preclude you from further involvement in any ""moral code violation"" disciplinary action, let alone this specific one.
This is for starters in addressing your negative comments about me.
I hope I have I made this point clear to YOU now!  
OneMadScientist (talk) 
I would appreciate and DESERVE an apology from both of you but I can see that is unlikely. If not Please don't waste my time any longer with YOUR ""attempts"" at trying justify either your or Plasma Physics transgressions toward me or bother me any longer about this issue and I SHALL LEAVE YOU ALONE and seek others here who deserve my considerate attention. It appears that you two obviously should get along well together!."