As to the correctness of the location of Jim's ♥: we have had this conversation before IIRC. I am afraid that I cannot 100% so regard anyone who turns so nasty when he is getting the worst of an argument: see my posts of 1 Oct 1235pm, 3 Oct 0115pm, 4 Oct 0525am; in the first of these, I wrote

"It's all your usual MO ~~ you give the impression of wanting to argue intelligently till anyone asks you to question one of your fatuous OK shibboleths; then you turn illogical; when this is pointed out, you turn nasty."

I think this a fair summary of Jim's argumentative system [if it can be graced with such a designation]. I don't think such goings-on at all the mark of good-heartedness. Nor is his insistence that, if I ever take Keith's part against his blustering bullying & censoriousness, then I must be either K's 'Fairy Godmother' or his 'poodle'. I'm not worried about his fatuous animadversions; but can't help being reminded of Julian Fellowes' brilliant summary of a disagreeable character in his novel 'Snobs': "He was the sort of person who insults you and then says 'Can't you take a joke?'."

~M~