Posted by Rick [Rick] on November 08, 1999 at 21:33:02 {Nq8EnQ8RVA7ajbiu2wnkFMFBt36Xyc}:
Dear friends,
I'm really getting tired seeing people harass other visitors in trying to bully someone into apologizing for something, when that person didn't believe they committed a wrong! This post is not about Greg per se, rather, it is about the underlying principle of the matter that is the driving force of H2O.
The Webster Dictionary states that apology means "a formal justification : DEFENSE b : EXCUSE 2a," "an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret." How specifically can one admit error if they genuinely believe they did no wrong, but might have come across wrong so as to offend others? Answer: By providing an apologia. Websters goes on to state, "APOLOGY usually applies to an expression of regret for a mistake or wrong with implied admission of guilt or fault and with or without reference to palliating circumstances [said by way of apology that he would have met them if he could]." (Bolding added for emphasis.)
In countries that have not embraced democracy, often someone is forced to confess to a wrong they believe that they did not commit. Often those authorities will demand an apology because as the dictionary points out such carries with it "implied admission of guilt or fault." These dictatorships and Stasi-like leutenants who administer them will often not accept an apologia because it leaves open the possibility that the accused didn't believe he or she did wrong, but actually wanted to explain why it may have came out all wrong, so as to help others understand their actions were with the best of intentions. Of course, since the accused is guilty until proven innocent, and the all-knowing State wouldn't have accused them unless they were guilty, the "apologia" is therefore considered an unnecessary "excuse" in all cases. Their amoral standards that him whom "they" point a finger at, is automatically guilty, without exception.
Those who are educated, of course, know the difference between an apology and providing in their own words an apologia (which may not include the literal words "I'm sorry" which imply guilt). Even the uneducated have an innate sense of wanting to explain their actions if they inadvertently offended others, while not coming out with a formal apology. The apology is intended to express sorrow for a wrongful act one acknowledges (a) was wrong, and (b) they had committed. They're under no obligation to apologize provided they personally believing they were not in the wrong even if lots of people righteously demand it.
Here is where it gets complicated. The accusors of someone who demand a formal apology first must demonstrated that the acused knew he or she did wrong. Otherwise, the accused has more than fulfilled their moral obligation by providing in their own words an apologia. (Actually, IMO an apologia is not necessary but shows a loving desire to explain actions to others who might have misinterpreted them so as to become highly offended or hurt.) Indeed, those who are not even aware of the meaning of words, and have never heard of "apologia," well understand that implied admission of guilt or fault is unwarranted if indeed they know in themselves they committed no wrong. They will sometimes instinctively offer an apologia in the form of an explanation.
The Webster Dictionary states, "APOLOGIA implies not admission of guilt or regret but a desire to make clear the grounds for some course, belief, or position [his speech was an apologia for his foreign policy]."
The volumes of explanation Greg Stafford has offered after the uproar has more than demonstrated his good faith effort to, not admit guilt which he personally believed wasn't the case, but offer an apologia. This was in the form of several posts, in what I personally believe is a good faith attempt to make clear the grounds for the course he took, and what he perceived happened that lead to his mistake.
Rick