John,

I can see why Kevin's family may have been anxious and I can see why Kevin may not have appreciated it despite the immediate retraction and apology.

There's no way you would have known this, but if you're going to speak of the events with authority, you need to be aware of the following:

The 'retraction/apology' was not immediate, and more importantly was not a 'new post'. It was made at some point the following day. William Sanders went back and updated two of the threatening/sensitive messages I had not specifically responded to. Since updates to messages do not update the time, you have a situation where Sanders threatened to hope on a plane with a blade in his hand at roughly 11:20, then apologized at 11:30, then threatened me again at midnight, and apologized ten minutes later. (I forget the exact times, but you get the idea).

This is one of the reasons I did not accept his apology. I think it was done more to 'cover tracks' and 'save face' than to offer a sincere apology. Had I not gone back to review all of the messages, I probably never would have been aware of this 'apology'.

While I've generally liked the general 'laissez-faire' concept of the UT, this is a feature that I believe should be modified. Person 'A' can send a post to Person 'B', and while 'C' and 'D' are formulating a response, 'A' goes back and completely re-works the message, while 'C' and 'D' have responses that quote the original post from 'A'. What you have at the end can get confusing. At the very very least, when a post is updated, the modified post should automatically contain the updated date/time.

And finally/ironically, I see that in the time I've typed this, you went back and updated the message you originally posted, and removed the line where I quoted you above. While it makes my specific message less relevant to your post, I'm going to click SEND anyway, in case anyone else had read your original message. It's also a good example of what I mentioned.

Kevin