On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:50:03 -0400, jr wrote:

> I reply because it gives me opportunity to write the sentence better.
> 
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:41:41 -0400, jr wrote:
>>
>> > read it.  excepting the last paragraph where, arguably, I was "rude",
>> > the _whole_ post is about "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" the _user
>> > community_, in my opinion, fwiw.  yet, you persist in making this a
>> > personal thing, about "me".
> 
> I ought to have written: ... "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" it to the _user
> community_, and to POV-Ray itself, in my ...
> 
> 
>> > know what?
>> >
>> >> ... "*plonk*" ...
>>
>> Good luck with that.
>>
>> In the words of Stephen Colbert:  I accept your apology.
> 
> Wikipedia tells me he's someone in TV.  I'm a radio person, don't own,
> nor watch, TV.  therefore ***whooosh***.

That's fine.  I still accept your apology for calling me a liar.

> and I apologise to the reader for continuing to carry out this .. spat
> in public.  netiquette, as I found out reading about message
> cancellation, requires both parties to dislike one another in private
> :-), via email.  (while mine is available, Mr H's is not)

There's a reason I don't use a valid e-mail address.  I leave that as an 
exercise for the reader.  People who have a need to know know how to get 
in touch with me.

Netiquette also requires being polite when making requests of people.  
Hopefully you've learned something about that and didn't engage in some 
selective reading.

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message