--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > I find people who insist on getting apologies to be very tiresome. It's s > form of aggression. In this case, it is not even the "wronged" person who is > insisting on it, but his self-appointed protector. Authfriend reminds me of a > mother hen protecting one of her chicks, without noticing, apparently, that > her "chick" is a full-grown rooster who can and does out-crow anyone on the > block.
I am not sure "apology" and "aggression" are related. Is MAKING an apology a form of aggression or just HOPING for one (theoretically speaking)? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a > > "psychological rapist." > > > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step" > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely. > > > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your > > character. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part > > > of an apology. Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could > > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis > > > exchange. For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an > > > apology and this is where the cost comes in. And of course the cost or > > > amends is meant to address the actual consequences. Such as a > > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the > > > family savings for example. > > > > > > But the first step is to offer > > > apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person. > > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year. And it seems > > > we're not getting to it again. But I've made my offer and stand by it. > > > > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing. In those > > > days many people went to confession every week. Also I say it just in > > > case I've hurt someone's feelings. The better I know FFL people the > > > more I'll dispense with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE > > > > > > > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful > > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis > > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the > > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the > > > > semantics of that) > > > > > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and > > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference > > > to what Curtis said. > > > > > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you. > > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that > > > > > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including > > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when > > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best > > > *ambiguous*. > > > > > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin > > > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's, > > > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and > > > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was > > > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response > > > to your post about Barry, Ann. > > > > > > (snip) > > > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite > > > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It > > > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to > > > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant. > > > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense > > > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate > > > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before > > > > they even have time to react. > > > > > > It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone > > > is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent > > > offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what > > > will an apology from this person mean for something that > > > really requires an apology? > > > > > > If an apology costs nothing to make, it's worthless to > > > the person to whom it is given. > > > > > > It would cost Share something to apologize for calling > > > Robin a psychological rapist. But she isn't willing to > > > give that much of herself to right the grievous wrong > > > for which she was responsible. > > > > > >
