Absolutely nothing wrong with taking offense if you felt his post was unwarranted and incorrect. I simply feel it would've been better for you to direct your annoyance at him via PM, in the first instance and then if he didn't retract (if he was in the wrong or misunderstood the situation), by all means make it known publically you'd been reasonable. That said, I'm only saying that's the approach I would've made if new.
If you come on here all guns blazing, with your first post, that's sometimes the reaction one receives. I shall apologise for the rude way I commented re punting you, but stand by the quality of your photo's, which are bloody awful! Whoever is guilty of taking them should be on the end of your whip! If I'm in the area, I'll come around and whip the pair of you for subjecting me to that quality of picture?!
You guys know this more than most (same as us WG's):"There are three sides to every story; yours, mine, and the truth"
In my (humble) opinion, perhaps the 'moral' of the story (post) is that a degree of discretion and most importantly a sensitivity and deference to the demographic and majority populas of the arena in which one is posting. In my mind, the reaction to miss-erika's posting was almost certainly inevitable.
To put it another way, imagine if, let's say, Matty was to rampage into the belly of the SAAFE forum boards, submitting what could be construed
as an antagonistic/defensive/accusatory reply to a post initiated by an established, identifiable, member of said forum which is, of course, a collective of individuals sharing views/interests/activities deriving as a result of a 'common' ground (as is the whole point of any and every forum)
Miss-erika, I am in no way seeking to 'knock' a fellow WG, but I joined this site with a genuine interest in acquiring a rare opportunity to 'put myself in the other person's shoes', gain further insight into the experiences of SUs, with the hope of pinpointing any short-comings in the service I aim to provide, perhaps learn of issues/likes/irks that have not and would not occur to me that I may easily be able to include/exclude/prevent/ensure in my portfolio, and with a genuine hope that I might add a small contribution, here and there, that might actually be of interest/use, to some members.
As such, as I hope will be quickly evident to members, I have no interest in 'flying anyone's flag' WG's or otherwise, and am most definitely not some sheep, bleeting the same baaaaaahhhhhh's of any particular group/movement/forum etc, but seek to keep any offerings; pragmatic, objective, logical and unbiased (as humanly possible!) Most important of all (I believe) is to keep emotion out of it
! Emotions and 'common sense' arguments have no place in rational argument/discussion/debate, only factually based, non-emtoive, measured and considered input, can serve any real purpose.
Perhaps, miss-erika, this is perhaps why your post (what should have/could have easily been a quickly resolved matter???) had the consequent 'snowball' effect on the discussion? If (as I'm sure is the case) your intention of posting was to explain the misunderstanding, smooth the issue out, wrap the issue up with the OP and move on mutually more content than before, I think on a forum in which the 'tag' (??is that what it's called???) is: "Where the punter comes first" (and no, the double entondre is not lost on me you cheeky *****
a more contained, self effacing, apologetic approach may have served the purpose better and I suspect (ready to stand corrected lol) garnered a more sympathetic acceptance. As you do say yourself, Matty, the comments about miss-erika's service were indeed a bit 'potent', which in all fairness you retrospectively accept and duly apologised for (was a bit too personal in my own opinion) and the strength of your pervious points equates to the lack of necessity for them. Your post had enough weight, as it stood without that, as you fairly deduced, anyway.
It seems a simple matter of '........when in Rome'