>>It's not all about you. "We" does not imply all of us on UT. You obviously didn't read the entire exchange very closely. I was replying to the comment just before. Did you not see the "Mike C, Jay, several other people" part of that?
>
>I read it, but I feel that "We" is too general, but that might be my lack of knowledge of the English language, too ambiguous for me, as I think you could have said exactly the same if you wanted to refer to all of us on the UT, couldn't You? Then the onus is on the reader to put it in context, something that might not happen
>
>I know it was not about me, I used myself as an example of the only exception I can be 100% sure about

Maybe it was language, but really "we" was fine in that situation.