Apologies
Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:42:58 PM PDT
If an apology is not a sign of civility, it is at least a sign along the way to civility.
I am grateful for the opportunity to publish a couple of apologies that went via e-mail earlier today. No one requested or suggested that I compose them.
Apology to Febble from macdust
Dear Febble:
Last Sunday on Daily Kos I replied to a comment of yours in a manner that was unduly prosecutorial and caustic with a comment entitled, "So they paid you and you changed your mind." For that I apologize, and I also thank you for your even-handed comments under the circumstances. The conversation was turning toward politeness when suddenly I found myself banned, and I have just been informed that it was as a result of that exchange. I suspect you are too kind a person to take any satisfaction from my being banned, and I do not ask you to take any steps to undo that decision.
By way of explanation, I was perhaps unjustifiably surprised to read that you had been "contracted" by Mitofsky. I had heretofore made measure of your integrity and motives through your own statements of selfless interest and nonprofessional status, as in such statements as this:
I'm not a professional statistician but I do use statistics in my research on a daily basis, and I have been looking at a recent paper that has appeared on the subject of the discrepancies between the exit polls and the counted votes.
My fitful attempts to appreciate your evolving conclusions have up until now provisionally resolved themselves on that point. You have an impressive commitment to your own curiosity, and I am grateful that we all are the beneficiaries.
Had the conversation been allowed to continue, I would have thanked you for confirming what I had expected: that the interchanges among the familiar discussants led to your collaboration with Mitofsky. My money was on DemfromCT, and it only perplexed me that you would need any introduction at all.
I had also hoped for another point of clarification. As I understand it, the data are not owned by Mitofsky but by the consortium that comprised Mitofsky's client, a consortium in which Fox News led the decision not to release the data. I wondered whether Mitofsky represents itself as the owner of the data for purposes of contracting. As I have noted before, I find it perplexing that so-called news organizations would prohibit the public from having free access to such important information.
I have cc'd Kos on this by way of making amends for stressing the fabric of the community he hosts.
Humbly,
(macdust)
And to another great presence here:
mcjoan:
Last Sunday I posted a comment which trampled on your effort to establish common ground among both sides of an ongoing debate. It is impossible to make amends publicly, as shortly afterward my posting privileges were stopped without explanation
The title of my comment, "Because you accept corruption, that's why," inflated a narrow point into a grand and unwarranted indictment. On a better day I would have softened the title and cut the entire comment down to its last paragraph: "There isn't a gigantic disagreement about what did or didn't happen, about what conclusions can be drawn and what cannot. It's about what we should accept."
I'm sure you have survived the episode without damage to your conscience, as you should.
With gratitude for your work,
(macdust)
If you wish to point out ways that my apologies fall short of my offense, please do so. If, on the other hand, you think they are not entirely warranted, please take my word that whatever the merits of any position, I could have and should have been nicer.
Permalink | 23 comments