Apologies

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:08 pm

In order for an apology to be worth anything, it needs to not only express your sorrow over the situation that you are apologizing for, but it also needs to re-state exactly what the situation that caused the apology is [or was], so the person receiving the apology can properly evaluate why they are being apologized to, and if the apologizer has an accurate understanding of what they did wrong.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:32 pm

Agreed. So...was there something up for debate here?

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:25 pm

I would hope not.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:48 pm

I actually think that's one of the most clever posts I've seen: it's an example which proves itself, while presumably also serving a hidden purpose. Nice.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:00 pm

How is it an example that proves itself? Unless I'm just being dense, that would imply you think this is Adam trying to apologise obliquely to someone.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:12 pm

Adam, it's okay, I didn't need a public apology.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:31 pm

Jesus. Did we get to an agreement on an issue in SST in like five posts? Christ, we are becoming old boring fucks.

Adam, you're so fucking wrong. Fucking Canadian.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:33 pm

Jeff Hauze wrote:Agreed.

Neener.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:34 pm

Jestyr wrote:How is it an example that proves itself?

Because, since he doesn't "express [his] sorrow over the situation that [he is] apologizing for" or "re-state exactly what the situation that caused the apology is [or was]," the apology is, indeed, "not worth anything," because no one can "properly evaluate why they are being apologized to."

Jestyr wrote:Unless I'm just being dense, that would imply you think this is Adam trying to apologise obliquely to someone.

That is my impression, yes. If that's not so, it's not so much "clever" as "opaque."

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:35 pm

Wow. I think Jestyr just fucking kicked my ass.

I got the shit kicked out of me by an Aussie (bad enough)...and a girl. I suck something terribly, right now, don't I?

But seriously. I was damn sure at least *somebody* would disagree. It's SST after all.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:35 pm

Latter. Can I still quote you calling my post clever, though?

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:36 pm

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Tue May 01, 2007 5:37 pm

Jeff Hauze wrote:Jesus. Did we get to an agreement on an issue in SST in like five posts? Christ, we are becoming old boring fucks.

Nono, we've mellowed. Not old, mellow!! Not old,d'you hear!?

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Wed May 02, 2007 12:39 am

TLM: I would yell at you, but I have to take my Metamucil and watch Golden Girls before my 8PM bed time.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:35 am

I'm sorry that I had too much with your mother, Adam...

oh, and I'm sorry that I just made a mom joke.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:36 am

*waves zimmer-frame threateningly in Cash's direction* Not old, nabbit!