Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.

my, my, you really are (in the vernacular) as thick as two short planks.

given your background, you should have been polite and taken your .. fist
shaking off-list.  you had the opportunity, multiple times, and apparently knew
about that rule all along.  (inexcusable)

> ...

(and no, no apology for "as thick as", and no apology for implying you lack(ed)
.... veracity; ie you're playing games, and that, at least, is not true to the
spirit of the thread's topic)

jr.

Post a reply to this message