Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...


Actually, you still don't understand what you did. Jim did not change
what you wrote. His actions/comments were clearly his. You changed an
attribution. Jim did not.


And, you're still pontificating, Dave.

Oh no, Kim. See some of Len Anderson's wordy posts for examples of
pontification.

How many times have I clearly
stated: I know what I did, I know what I did trumped what Jim did (i.e., had
greater impact on everyone), and I'll state now I don't think I'd change a
thing about doing it--three ways--again!

If you knew what you'd done, you'd not have attempted to equate your
changing of an attribution with Jim's omission of your callsign.
The rest of your talk about trumping, impact and unwillingness to change
anything you've done is simply confirmation of your thumbing your nose
at the world.


To me, attributes, or deleting things such as signatures and things from
tracking mechanisms, are equal. Got it?

I have it. You are simply wrong in trying to equate the two.

No difference in either action to
be determined as "wrong." Each is an insult, each is astray from standard
conventions of newsgroup submissions, and each have the same potential to
mislead, or at least misdirect, the readers of that post.

....then you simply don't understand "standard conventions" in newsgroup
posting. Nothing in what Jim did misleads anyone.


IS NOT Jim showing the same disrespect for Kim in this case as he
shows
for Kim in his posts where he does not type her callsign?


I don't think the justification for the action needs to be included in the
dialogue. As I stated in another post, regardless of reason, *both* are
wrong. I refuse to continue to get wrapped up in this being about my
callsign--it is not.

Yes, your callsign is right square in the middle of all of this.


Therefore IT FOLLOWS that Jim MUST *always* make *full* attributes to
Kim exactly as she typed her post, with no deletions to content that
he
finds objectionable.

Any less would be disrepectful.


Good luck with this one.

Luck has nothing to do with it. Jim sees it quite differently, and I
see it
that he does just as he's accused me of doing.

No, he hasn't. I presented you with two illustrative example of what
you did. Jim did not do the same as you did at all.


You fall way short, Dave, of being able to *present* anything.

Why not admit that you fall short of being able to read and understand?


But, to me, I got my point
across and the posts get too long to continue the discussion

It's hard for you to get your "point" across when you still don't
understand what you did.

Do you practice being an

[word deleted]

, Dave? You must...because you're nearly perfect at it.

What experience qualifies you to assess such perfection, Kim?

Dave K8MN