Subject: Re: [Fot] Best distributor/ignition for TR4 - conclusion explanation

From: fubog1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:36:54 -0400 (EDT)

A statement was made yesterday re an analogy to an F-16 launched off of a
carrier...
I made the perhaps smart-ass comment that the F-16 wasn't carrierbased,
tongue-in-cheek, and my reply bounced back due to too much text.I sent another
shortened reply.
This was apparently interpreted by the OP to having been held by moderator
forbeing offensive in some way. I made it clear in an email to the OP thatit
was in no way intended to be offensive; this was a simplemisunderstanding.
Sorry for the confusion...
Glen

This whole discussion is so far flung that it escapes understanding!

Now we've got it....the moderator got notice of your rubbishing around and

hold back my last message.
_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

http://www.fot-racing.com

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]

---

From: Christian Marx <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:05:22 -0700

Was my fault. Did write one word wrong. Instead of our I wrote "your".
So everything is okay with me. :-)

Cheers
Chris
Am 24.10.2012 17:36 schrieb "fubog1" <[email-masked]>:

>   A statement was made yesterday re an analogy to an F-16 launched off of
> a carrier...
> I made the perhaps smart-ass comment that the F-16 wasn't carrier based,
> tongue-in-cheek, and my reply bounced back due to too much text. I sent
> another shortened reply.
> for being offensive in some way. I made it clear in an email to the OP that
> it was in no way intended to be offensive; this was a simple
> misunderstanding.