No, it is not better. It is still just as disparging, sarcastic and insulting as the first.
It wasn't about the global vs non-global.(that was a joke I felt I could make based on your post) It was about the authorized.
If you're going to make fun of me, please do it in a PM.
Woa.
Bert,
It was never my attempt to disparage, insult or otherwise trouble you. I am sorry that you took such offense.
My use of the word "mod" was meant as a short-hand for the software change control use of the word "modification", as in a deliberate, authorized change to an existing end item.
My obtuse, recovering engineer roots are showing, because I don't see (much less intend) anything in the original comment other than acknowledgement that the thread had strayed(with my involvement), and you had come along and were gently nudging the conversation back on topic, or on the topic posed about insurance companies and healthcare in the US.
With that in mind, I acknowledged that I was focusing on the authorized modification to the thread, and asking a question about that subject.
That is, and was the totality of my point.
In retrospect, even though we were all talking about software, it belatedly occurs to me that not everyone may have been involved with engineering change control applied to software, and thus "mod" could be mis-interpreted.
If I have so poorly used the English language that I have so offended you Bert, please accept my apologies - there was no intent.
