On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:28:00 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

W5DXP wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Your failure to confirm or respond to Walt's second correction offers
compelling further evidence that you are an unreliable correspondent.

Actually, it confirms that I am a polite correspondent.
Walt and I are discussing this in private email.

So this makes the third occurence.

There is no pleasing you guys. Many say, "Take it to private email!",
and you say, "Don't take it to private email." What is a poster to do?

Admit your repeated public errors
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:33:47 GMT, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
Cecil, this is the error on Reflections that I told you about last week
that have already been solved in private correspondence. Why do you
make Walt come to this public forum to correct you for an error he has
already corrected in "private" emails?

You continue to support the evidence of not having read your
correspondence from Walt, or ignoring it to offer a knowingly
erroneous premise. This is unreliable correspondence at two levels.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC