The Olive Branch Thread

@Dachs: I therefore apologize for the unnecessary apology, and in advance apologize for any other unnecessary apologies as a result of being unaware whether or not I had done anything requiring an apology.

Sorry for that, too.

Sent via mobile; apologies for apologizing for the last apology -- and for any spellling mesteaks...

Edit: sorry for the unnecessary edit.

Dachs said:

It could be worse, guys; you could be, like, poor VR.

Click to expand...

Eh? Outside of your irrational hatred of the South, I have no pressing issues with you.

I would like to extend an Olive Branch to those that get offended by the following proposed title for a book on Mosby's Cavalry:

JollyRoger said:

I would like to extend an Olive Branch to those that get offended by the following proposed title for a book on Mosby's Cavalry:

Spoiler :

Fifty Shades of Gray

Click to expand...

That's my title for my biography of the AARP! If I wasn't a commie who does't believe in intellectual property rights, I'd sue you pants off.

Sent via mobile; apologies ... this is the olive branch thread after all...

I'd like to apologize to Valka mainly because she sent me a long, excellent private message the other day and I am incapable of providing a response that would do it justice. I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not sure what to say that would make very much sense. I am in agreement with most of what you said and have similar thoughts and beliefs. You're a good person.

I am quite willing to cease and desist my antagonism towards you Oruc if he'd be willing to talk to me either privately or publicly why he has such dislike of me. I won't bite or get nasty, scout's honor. Though you're not going to see this unless someone quotes it.

From my perspective, the antagonism I direct at you stems from a nasty history of mutual disrespect. I don't care for the way you characterize me or play the disingenuous (from my perspective) victim card. By this point however, I've taken my unwarranted antagonism to the point where I am the caricature you present and as I said, I'm quite willing to get over it. I'd just like to know why you disliked me from the beginning and where the aggression you directed at me comes from. To forgive and correct my own deficiencies, I need to understand.

Synsensa said:

I'd like to apologize to Valka mainly because she sent me a long, excellent private message the other day and I am incapable of providing a response that would do it justice. I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not sure what to say that would make very much sense. I am in agreement with most of what you said and have similar thoughts and beliefs. You're a good person.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Synsensa. I really appreciate your telling me this - both about the PM and that I'm a good person. That is very nice and considerate of you. Don't worry about doing it justice - if you want to reply, just speak from your conscience. Only you know how you feel about things, so nobody has the right to tell you you're wrong.

Two apologies:

First to FarmBoy,
We had a bit of a split over some of the details of the ACA (obamacare) where you basically said (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that it's wrong to tax people for lifestyle choices by imposing penalties on insurance they now have to buy under the ACA.

My contention was that if the ACA penalizes smokers for smoking, it should also penalize 'fatties' (who don't have a condition like hypothyroidism) for being fat. You ardently disagreed and I think I seriously missed your larger point - That the ACA shouldn't penalize anyone for their choices to maximize 'liberty' since the ACA has taken away the liberty (more or less) to not have health insurance.

I have done quite a bit of thinking on the issue and I believe you are correct. The ACA shouldn't penalize anyone for lifestyle choices given that they have to buy insurance. It's essentially a matter of fairness and balancing the ability of people to do what they want with their lives whiles still ensuring that society as a whole is better off. I think your approach is the correct one with a caveat -

While I think the ACA shouldn't penalize anyone, so long as it does penalize one segment of society (smokers) I still feel that it should penalize other segments (fatties) as well. If we are going to go the social engineering route (which is what the penalties in effect do to a limited extent) then really there's no excuse to target one group over the other. But still, I agree the default should be a 'no social engineering approach' vis a vis penalties on lifestyle choices.

On that, I apologize for refusing to see your point, my obtuseness and over-the-top aggressiveness.

Even still: Rapey-ass Polar Bears!!!1!

Synsensa:

A while ago, back when Kim Jong Un took power, I naively tried to argue that he 'may be different'. I interpreted his early purges and his adoption of some token-trappings of western life (aka his mickey-mouse rip off) as a sign that maybe he was just going to push out the old guard and then take a more sane approach to governance. You argued he was an insane madman.

BOY WAS I WRONG. Sorry for that stupid line of argument on my part!

hobbsyoyo said:

Synsensa:

A while ago, back when Kim Jong Un took power, I naively tried to argue that he 'may be different'. I interpreted his early purges and his adoption of some token-trappings of western life (aka his mickey-mouse rip off) as a sign that maybe he was just going to push out the old guard and then take a more sane approach to governance. You argued he was an insane madman.

BOY WAS I WRONG. Sorry for that stupid line of argument on my part!

Click to expand...

Are you sure that was me? I honestly don't remember ever having a discussion about Un's rise to power.

Love ya Hobbs! Sorry if I get muley.

Synsensa said:

Are you sure that was me? I honestly don't remember ever having a discussion about Un's rise to power.

Click to expand...

Yeah it was you and it was a loooooong time ago.

As far as I know Smokers cost less, not more. Considerably less.
Just saying.

Terxpahseyton said:

As far as I know Smokers cost less, not more. Considerably less.
Just saying.

Click to expand...

Everyone looks at "this" year, not the last 6 years of life, but I think that's an argument for a thread on it rather than this thread.

Po-lar bear!

Polar bear! Pooooooolarbear.

I'm liking the bear. I'm sorry.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to post revision-of-stance stuff in the relevant discussion thread and use this thread for the apology with maybe some context & a link to the discussion thread?

Not modPete here, just chatPete

Yeah yeah sure thing but as a smoker I - just - couldn't - resist. Apologies.
Made a new thread.

I stand by my earlier post. Apologies are for the weak. I stand by everything I've ever said, even if it was idiotic and I disagree with it in hindsight. It reminds me of how enlightened and wise I currently am, even if I'm not a professional quote maker. In this moment, I am euphoric. Eh?

I've been here for a few years, may have forgotten some harsh words I've given to others. I've certainly exchanged enough. The insulter forgets, the insulted remembers. If anyone holds any grudge against me for something I said to them, now's the time to let me know and remind me via PM. If I regret what I said, I'll say so here.

I'll take advantage of the fact that Phrosso's here to apologise for being unnecessarily caustic in World History

Zack said:

I stand by my earlier post. Apologies are for the weak. I stand by everything I've ever said, even if it was idiotic and I disagree with it in hindsight. It reminds me of how enlightened and wise I currently am, even if I'm not a professional quote maker. In this moment, I am euphoric. Eh?

Click to expand...

Apologies are for mature individuals who recognize that they may have made a mistake or misjudged, and have the honesty and integrity to own up to it.