| re: an apology to Jim - no reply required | |
|
Posted by: |
Klasien 04:35 am UTC 01/11/12 |
| In reply to: | re: an apology to Jim - no reply required - LordRahl 01:23 am UTC 01/11/12 |
yes, dear, that no reply thing was meant for you. So what? You've never said or posted anything you wish you hadn't? I've had to take a good look at myself lately and decided I didn't like who I was becoming. But what is done is done. All I can do is apologize and move on. Time and my actions will tell whether I can change. Or perhaps you guys are right and I simply am an attention-seeking kid. -K- Warning: may contain traces of bitch. > > huh? > > > > > Dear Jim, > > > > I just wanted to take up 2 seconds of your time to > > apologize for the comment I posted yesterday in reply to > > Scaramouche's Batman post. > > I had no right and no reason for what was intended as a > > tongue-in-cheek comment that came out totally wrong. > > > > I should know better than to think I have the right to > > speak to you in that manner and really regretted making > > the comment from the moment I read it back and realised > > exactly what I had said and how it would be interpreted. > > > > I wish you nothing but the best, both personally and > > professionally, obviously for reasons both noble and > > selfish, and hope that the occasional ramblings from fans > > who consider you and (or perhaps through) your music to be > > among the most important influences and people in their > > lives do not stop you from 'staying in the trenches' with > > us. > > > > Sincerely, > > Klasien > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: an apology to Jim - no reply required - LordRahl 01:23 am UTC 01/11/12 |
| Next: | re: an apology to Jim - no reply required - LordRahl 12:34 pm UTC 01/12/12 |
| Thread: |
|