Lance Dopestrong wrote:I had no issue with Baker's tweet, and I believe I understood the vein in which he had intended it.
I do have issues with his behaviour since then. His apologies have been qualified at best,
I understand your words - I just find the logic/reason inexplicable. If he didn't intend offence - and he quickly withdrew the foolish offensive post - then how does the quality (or quantity) of his apologies matter one jot??
It seems we must agree to disagree, we're clearly on different ethical planets. (see also your post about making apologies SEEM sincere being important )
Lance Dopestrong wrote: This being the case, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that you are feigning indignation.
If this comment is meant as a satirical poke, it's very funny
(if not, it's highly ironic ... )