A clarification and apology (if one is necessary)

[MSS]

Mods: with reference to forum rule 7.1, which states as follows:

"Where a thread has been closed by a Moderator, for whatever reason, you may not continue the subject of the closed thread in a new one"

I need to offer a clarification to something that I posted which was not directly related to the main subject of the closed thread. Therefore I believe that the clarification which I am about to offer is compliant with the spirit and letter of the above rule in that I am not intending to or continuing the subject of the closed thread.

My post #58 in the now closed thread started by MarinaBrian may have appeared overly harsh towards Kennyeth to those who did not see through the intended sarcasm.

The message was not intended for Ken's benefit - he just happened to provide the right mechanism and opportunity.

My apologies to Ken if he or others did not see the message as it was intended.

I would not wish to insult or otherwise annoy any member unintentionally and feel that I should offer this clarification.

Please feel free to close this thread as you see fit.

[Gigagator]

In a way, I suppose this thread is in violation of the aforementioned rule 7.1 haha

[Groundsman Willie]

Originally Posted by mss

Mods: with reference to forum rule 7.1, which states as follows:

"Where a thread has been closed by a Moderator, for whatever reason, you may not continue the subject of the closed thread in a new one"

I need to offer a clarification to something that I posted which was not directly related to the main subject of the closed thread. Therefore I believe that the clarification which I am about to offer is compliant with the spirit and letter of the above rule in that I am not intending to or continuing the subject of the closed thread.

My post #58 in the now closed thread started by MarinaBrian may have appeared overly harsh towards Kennyeth to those who did not see through the intended sarcasm.

The message was not intended for Ken's benefit - he just happened to provide the right mechanism and opportunity.

My apologies to Ken if he or others did not see the message as it was intended.

I would not wish to insult or otherwise annoy any member unintentionally and feel that I should offer this clarification.

Please feel free to close this thread as you see fit.

Personally, having read the 'offending' post, I found the humour quite evident. It was part of a general 'cut and thrust' sub-argument. Fair play for offering an apology, although, as you say, not sure one Is necessary