Lobo:

I realize that you have a difficult task to perform and tough calls to make at times.

Yours: “…The point was that you made a false claim of Byrd not mentioning her source when it was there on her original post. You were wrong, period...”

From mine to Byrd: “…it’s quoted from the "identical" source you used, but neglected to mention…Wikipedia…”

The sentence is in two parts…
a) it’s quoted from the "identical" source you used, but neglected to mention...
b) Wikipedia…

1) Stating that it’s from the “identical” source automatically informed Byrd that I ventured to Wikipedia. That settles the first part of the statement.
2) Reading from that Wikipedia source in the section relating to the “definition” of the “second” there is a shortcut on the word “second”. It takes you to the “history” of its development (my original question in the posting that Byrd is answering to). It is here where you find Byrd’s contradiction. That settles the whole issue.

Byrd is capable of typing and also replying to my post. I’m not interested in petty comments from other parties who misread my sentances…and that’s been a big issue lately.

Sorry, but there’s nothing to “Man up!” to, to confirm…ask Byrd.

Best and gone for the long weekend.
Clive