I did not down vote u/unemotioNOLE .

I wrote to you that I had corrected the text, recognizing and thanking you for catching that mistake on the fly and therefore alerting other readers to the mistake. Sincerely, many thanks for that.

Since your and unemotioNOLE comments referred to the POST text, that is what the statement "corrected text" refers to.

The next "come back to thread" does not refer to the text of the Post, it refers to the "thread" of comments that follow a POST and its TEXT message.

So, since I was not referring to the correction of December to September to Exhibits D and E in the Post Text when I wrote "come back to thread", I was intending (unsuccessfully) alerting you to a new comment in the thread which expanded on the text to the original post responding to TNBanjoMan's preliminary analysis.

So, the answer is yes... the come back to thread was for the comment you linked to, even though my instruction was ambiguous to a fault, you sussed my meaning all the same.

So you don't have to come back to thread again (even though I expect an interesting conversation to result from the added comment), here is the note I wrote to unemotioNOLA for the heads up about the incorrect months in the original text to the post"

"thanks for noting that and letting me know... no sleep = mistakes - text corrected

come back to thread - new info comment section"

Kek kek!!

I did not down vote u/unemotioNOLE .

I wrote to you that I had corrected the text, recognizing and thanking you for catching that mistake on the fly and therefore alerting other readers to the mistake. Sincerely, many thanks for that.

Since your and unemotioNOLE comments referred to the POST text, that is what the statement "corrected text" refers to.

The next "come back to thread" does not refer to the text of the Post, it refers to the "thread" of comments that follow a POST and its TEXT message.

So, since I was not referring to the correction of December to September to Exhibits D and E in the Post Text when I wrote "come back to thread", I was intending (unsuccessfully) alerting you to a new comment in the thread which expanded on the text to the original post responding to TNBanjoMan's preliminary analysis.

So, the answer is yes... the come back to thread was for the comment you linked to, even though my instruction was ambiguous to a fault, you sussed my meaning all the same.

So you don't have to come back to thread again (even though I expect an interesting conversation to result from the added comment, here is the note I wrote to unemotioNOLA for the heads up about the incorrect months in the original text to the post"

"thanks for noting that and letting me know... no sleep = mistakes - text corrected

come back to thread - new info comment section"

Kek kek!!