Adiyen is sorry to have offended Sriman Dr Kailasam. It is never my intention. Adiyen referred to them as 'robber dynasty' in two senses: (1) they assumed name of Chola. There is no explicit proof to link them to the early Chola lineage. And (2) their assumption of control over territory was not be right or by might. They merely took over when both legitimate dynasties (Pallavas and Pandiyas) had exhausted themselves by conflict.
Adiyen considered this usurpation of rights and authority not belonging to them to constitute robbery. Their desire to establish their authority and legitimacy is seen by the extravagant titles they gave themselves and to the places/temples they built. E.g. 'gangaikondan' - will any member of this esteemed discussion group dispute that this is merely a title and the Cholas never had a substantial or real control over the Ganges delta.
Imagine the Chera king calling himseld Imayam kondan? He knew his rights and merely called himself imaya varamban nedun cheralaadan - one who reached the limits of the himalayas. Adiyen thinks this is the difference between a legitimate dynasty and the new kids on the block!