Re^6: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity-- Now definitely OT

Update:The original post in the text below the line was grossly insensitive and condescending on my part and I'm sorry I wrote it, but I did write it and it stands intact as a testimony to my stupidity, as well as an object refered to by some clear and concise comments from BroserUK in posts below it.

Double plus (really, that's my vote) for coming up with another version of the generic I'm sorry you're offended
Judith Martin classes these as non-apology apologies. These statements add a second insult in the form of an apology, in this case it's basically "I'm sorry you're so immature."

In practice, these replies are a bad move, leading to further miscommunication. The insultee feels further insulted (quite reasonably), and the insultor thinks "What's the matter with him? I apologized, didn't I.", and leaves with either a vague uneasiness, or a naive self-righteousness.

Of such things are family splits and community divisions made.

Comment on Re^6: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity-- Now definitely OT

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity-- Now definitely OT by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 24, 2006 at 15:32 UTC
I find this post extremely offensive. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal? "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^8: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity-- Now definitely OT by rodion (Chaplain) on Aug 25, 2006 at 19:39 UTC
I am sincerely very sorry, and embarrassed, to have caused offense here. I clearly messed up big time, talking about courtesy, but actually offending further myself. I very much appreciate your letting me know, as I did not realize it myself. Addendum: Having had a few hours to think, I can see that I was, at the least, grossly insensitive, flip, condescending, and too wrapped up in my own thoughts to see it. There's more than that, but for now I'm still too dense to see it clearly enough to address it here. Perl Monks deserves better from me, and I will try to provide it. This thread is probably too deep for anyone to read or care, let alone to later remember and feel a helpful urge towards me, but if anyone does remember and sees me heading in this dirction again, please, please let me know. I now have a week long trip, away from the internet, and this has given me something to ponder on it, and hopefully it will do some good.	[reply]
Re^9: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity-- Now definitely OT by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 25, 2006 at 19:42 UTC
Sincere or not, an apology for having caused offense, without understanding of what and why it was offensive, is ultimately hollow. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal? "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^10: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity-- Now definitely OT by Argel (Prior) on Aug 27, 2006 at 03:02 UTC
Re^11: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity-- Now definitely OT by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 27, 2006 at 03:33 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^10: Jokes, ad-hominem attacks, and sensitivity-- Now definitely OT by Anonymous Monk on Aug 27, 2006 at 14:42 UTC


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks