I'm so sad.

[ConHog]

I just reread this thread and realized that there is some question about whether my apology was an apology. Let me clear that up.

Kathianne, I am sorry that I called you that. Frankly I wasn't even thinking about the fact that Jim has "outlawed" that word and whether he has or not is immaterial. I shouldn't have called you that. I'm sorry.

Now, she can accept that apology or not, but the rest of you frankly have no dog in the fight and thus no reason to pile on.

[Anton Chigurh]

I just reread this thread and realized that there is some question about whether my apology was an apology.

There was no question at all. It wasn't a apology. At all.

Glad to see you have corrected that error.

[ConHog]

There was no question at all. It wasn't a apology. At all.

Glad to see you have corrected that error.

You're right, there was no question because I clearly meant it as an apology the first time around. If not, I would have ignored the comments to begin with.

[Anton Chigurh]

You're right, there was no question because I clearly meant it as an apology the first time around. If not, I would have ignored the comments to begin with.

You clearly said you "would have no problems" apologizing. That isn't a apology. There was no apology, and there was NO question about it. Case closed.

It's the little semantics games pukes like you play, when they actually do not intend to apologize - they merely want dupes to think they did.