Didn't he personally apologize after he was mandated to by the court, though? I dunno, this whole thing about "well, he apologized, but the parameters of the apology were not adequate to meet my personal standards" thing just reads to me as trying to find a justification for maintaining a vengeful attitude, like you need him to jump through some very specific hoops you've come up with that aren't really based on anything principled.
At its core, I don't think the debate is really about the quality or circumstances of an apology. The central dispute seems to be whether you think he actually is contrite and actually feels remorse for what he did, or you don't believe him about that. Seems like reasonable people can disagree about that, but there's an awful lot of personal admonition aimed at people just for falling on one side of that line or the other and it doesn't make a lot of sense from where I sit.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|