Take back

[Wimblees@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-08-02 00:15:36 EDT, you write:

<< You might consider that when you assume you might have offended folk before
 the fact, and predicate an apology on the surmised probability of a possible
 offense, you might, indeed, be offending a certain faction by presuming to
 apologize for an equally presumed offense when, in actuality, you are
 imposing on an otherwise un-offended populous by the unnecessary insistence
 upon a likewise equally unnecessary and fallacious apology for an offense
 that was, for all practical purposes, non-existent. In other words, don't
 worry about it. Keep smiling and press on. Insist on verification of
 offense, then decide on merit of the counter argument whether or not an
 apology, or even a clarification of statement, is necessary. Be right, or be
 wrong, but be whichever destiny decrees, with conviction. Then re-group as
 necessary.
 
 Just a little tip from your uncle Ron. (I really shouldn't drink on Saturday
 night, I know. Call it a collaboration between me and Jack Daniels. Please,
 be kind %-)  )
 
  Ron  >>


See what happens when you get Ron upset. Can anyone out there translate what
he just said?  :)

Wim