No worries. They updated to choose the revised 2008 date instead, which is good enough. It's also interesting to note that it's easy to ascribe negative intent

No worries. They updated to choose the revised 2008 date instead, which is good enough. It's also interesting to note that it's easy to ascribe negative intent to entirely [helpful and] descriptive statements. I've done this before too. A Jerry Springer Learning moment, perhaps! This is quite a common ape attribute that it is worth practising not doing. Instead: 'if in doubt, assume good and helpful intent' makes for a useful rule of thumb.