Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

No it doesn't as the first part itself is in two parts:"it's quoted from the "identical" source does confirm that you knew of her source. The second part "...you used, but neglected to mention..." is false, period. She mentioned the source as the link was posted for everyone to follow.
So the link to her source was posted in the original post.
You stated in your a) section above:

Quote

“…it’s quoted from the
> "identical" source you used, but neglected to
> mention…

which is a false statement.
End of argument. She did not neglect to mention.


> 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.

As I have said before the correctness of her source/link has no bearing on the fact that she did in fact give a link to the source.



Lobo-hotei
lobo

Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb