I didn't criticize you for it. I simply asked why, since it's pretty
unorthodox.
"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:EQbT9.102548$hK4.8330868 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Why not?
>> I do it when I realize, after posting the first thing, that there's
> more that needs to be said with respect to what I'd posted - needed
> clarification.
>> Is there something 'wrong' with doing this?
>> I find it unacceptable to withhold info that I've realized is
> pertinent, and, in the context of this or that that I've posted,
> possibly not obvious.
>> Again, why not do so?
>> ken
>> Mark Zarella wrote in message ...
> |Why do you always respond to your own posts?
> |
> |"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message
> |news:jYYS9.101467$hK4.8231021 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> |>
> |> Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message ...
> |> |
> |> |Richard S. Norman wrote in message ...
> |> ||On 7 Jan 2003 15:58:32 -0800, ukcomplaint at lycos.com> (UKComplaint)
> |> ||wrote: [...]
>>