Over on the HelenaIR, traveling through the comments threads is sometimes like being stuck driving behind a senior-citizen who is looking for an address. The problem is that we have quite a few active commenters who have a rather average level of education and that is no compliment. Their background knowledge, not mention their inability to understand logic and reason and nuance, is severely limited.
I’ve tossed text around recently with 5thgen, a nice enough commenter but one who fits the above mold. After 5thgen showed an enormous ignorance of basic inductive reasoning skills on a recent thread, and after making many “you” statements about me, I felt it was only fair to provide him with feedback. I think it makes pretty good reading and details the challenge that attempting to bring the intellectual level of discussions up on that site faces.
Btw, you have made reference here, numerous times, and on other threads, concerning how what I write might make me “appear” or “sound” to others. This must be a value you personally hold, that is, how YOU appear or sound to others is very important to you. That must be true since iyou have brought it up so frequently and projected it on others. Do you really let what others might think about you moderate what you write? Why can’t you be yourself? That said, since you do take great interest in how others might percieve you, I’ll provide you a modicum of feedback.
The 5thgen who writes here is someone who is obviously new to the world of online commenting. He has difficulty making the leap from face to face discussion to this new world and brings along expectations for others and finds these not being fulfilled. For example, he demands that others not only recognize him when he speaks but that they respond to his demands the way he wants them to. It is likely that he has been pampered into some minor authoritarian role in life but his minions snicker behind his back after they let him feel important.
Another sign that he is a noob in this virtual world is how he demands that others make personal disclosures about themselves. In one early exchange he said he couldn’t really discuss something with someone unless he really knew who they were. We see that same problem on this very thread where he demands that someone, me, state their position on sanctuary cities because he has a need to know before he can formulate a response.
It is clear from that that his world view is one of bifurcation. He needs everyone to let him know if they are with him or against him, friend or foe, one his side or the enemy. This is also why he is unable to deal with any topic or discussion without it being a personal issue. He arrives with his mind already made up and thinks everyone else should as well. The idea that something could come out of a discussion with new information that could change their mind is not only foreign to him, he sees it as an impossibility and somewhat a threat. On a thread about religion, he was asked how he knows his chosen one is the true one unless he studies all the others. He said he is sure his IS the true one and has no interest in looking elsewhere.
It has become obvious that 5thgen’s level of formal education is average. Some of what comes up here just flies right past him and his responses indicate an inability to utilize logic, reason, and critical thinking skills. On one thread he proudly challenged others with one of those fallacious claims “well, you can’t prove it’s not,” as if we had never heard that one before. When it was explained that the burdon of proof was on the claimant, he responded as if this was an entirely new concept. He denied that the burden of proof was on the claimant, him, at that it was even a valid tool in pursuit of the truth. He also displayed a complete ignorance about the wide range of logical fallacies and why they render an argumant invalid. It is evident from this that we can deduce that his education level never progressed to a point where he had to research a topic and build an argument that he then had to defend. Not only that, he appears completely in the dark that people even engage in that process.
Unlike a few others on this site, 5thgen is probably a nice person. While simple, he does not appear angry at the world, nor is he relentlessly playing the victim, both of which we see from the likes of dietz1963. However, his limited background knowledge makes it hard for him to keep up if the discussion becomes too esoteric and he will, on those occasions, display signs of frustration and even lash out with an ad hominem. For all his reluctance to learn, a reluctance fueled by his inner fewrs, he is getting better at playing the game. He combs the comments of others and attempts to find a weakness where he can attampt to get a foothold using a technique that has been used on him. He is rarely successful and comes off more as a wannabe and a disciple than showing the ability to produce original thought.
5thgen, that’s the free version. If you want more depth I can tell you my hourly rate and you can schedule an appointment.
Poor little dietz1963. Ever since commenter Jeff Noonan suggested that interacting with him is distracting to others, to which I agreed here, dietz1963 has been largely ignored and is running around the comment threads calling “troll” out to anyone that he thinks has harmed him. Six of his last 10 comments have included “troll:”
“BTW, you really don’t think I care what a troll thinks, do you?”
“You make my point every day troll.”
“….Hahahahhahahahahahahaha. What a troll.”
“Oh, your fellow IR trolling buddy skooter has arrived to bail you out AE.”
“So says the ultimate IR troll.”
He’s like a little kid who learned a new curse word and goes around saying to anyone who will listen.
It’s pretty obvious that this guy does not get enough of the right kind attention at home. He’s probably a pussy-whipped husband whose wife makes more than he does and probably makes him wash her panties by hand. You can tell the type since they then show up away from their masters and over-compensate by acting the tough guy.
Now he has taken on Jeff Noonan because Jeff objects to the “Veterans Party” using the word “veteran” when the group does not solely represent veterans and is only using the name for marketing purposes.
“How would you feel if the transgenders in our society decided to call themselves “Veterans” because of their perception of abuse over the past years? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the answer. You would go berserk!”
dietz1963 responded, in part, with:
“…then go off on some tangent about transgenders…”
Tangent? dietz1963 can’t even parse the comment to see that reference to the transgendered was an example, not a tangent, to illustrate a point.
This is just one of many examples of how dietz1963 is, intellectually, over his head in these discussions and why so many find him annoying. Add to the fact that he can’t see this for himself and his running around name-calling, and you see we have a 3-year old who’s missed his nap today.
“Note to Deitz1963 and Athiest Educator: Both of you may, or may not, have good ideas to share. But your nonstop insults to one another are neither adult or interesting. Can we just make a rule that after one or two exchanges, we just agree to disagree? It would make life a lot more interesting for all of us.”
A few others agreed or added to that sentiment:
Riamh – September 14, 2015 1:40 pm Agreed, Jeff. I’d be glad if people would just discuss the issues, and keep attacks to each other’s words, instead of going personal all the time. Personal attacks serve no purpose for civil, or rational discussion.
skooter – September 14, 2015 9:23 pmRiamh. So I generally agree with you and Jeff…and of course, dietz breaks in pretending to be the victim here. But I am conflicted b/w in AE’s defense…it’s generally AE against about 4 or 5 detractors who can tend to be more than relentless (clue, 3m, steeline, country & dietz) and generally are at him/her in packs….
I responded with
Atheist Educator – September 14, 2015 11:33 pmRiamh, I guess I’ve made my point. I’ll revert to my good behavior again. Thank you.
Of course, dietz1963 could have none of this:
dietz1963 – September 14, 2015 9:55 amTotally agree with you Jeff, problem is, this troll is relentless. Obvious if you take a look at her blog here:
Which in reading it, and now posting it, makes me an atheist (by her accounting) of when I read and post websites.
dietz1963 – September 15, 2015 8:40 amYea right skooter. Same could be said about you, AE, catspaw and twangs.
Give it a rest, all you folks “taught us” to be the folks on the IR we are today. Want a change in responses, try being civil yourself.
dietz1963 – September 14, 2015 2:08 pmAsking her to stop while supporting it (hence the jab “its ever so much fun”)
No more “flaws” in my logic then yours or anyone elses Riamh.
and this response to dietz1963
middleoftheroad – September 14, 2015 10:47 am If you agree, then why did you just throw AE under the bus again? Give it up. You’re both tiring.
dietz1963, of course won’t budge:
dietz1963 – September 14, 2015 11:14 am If that’s throwing AE under the bus “again”, she most assuredly throws me under the tank consistantly. Now, why not get on her instead of jumping on me?
It’s pretty clear that my point regarding dietz1963 has been made. Others on the HelenaIR know that his comments are fraught lies, logical fallacies, faulty thinking, ignorance, fear, and victimhood. That he won’t take responsibility for his actions on the HelenaIR is reflected in the way he blames others for the misery he experiences in his life. For example, some of his favorite whines:
- women get special rights because he took a hit in his divorce
- Obama is bad because poor dietz1963 has financial problems
- minorities as taking away his white male privilege
So, where to go from here? You can expect to see his flawed reasoning exploited on this blog as it will be pointed out on the HelenaIR. But I’ll attempt to reduce the “clutter” in the threads there and point the off-topic stuff to this venue.
In what has to be one of the most cowardly moves we have seen in the HelenaIR, commenter dietz1963, in an attempt to extricate himself from a morass of falsehoods, is blaming a “family member” for his own ridiculous comments.
This latest escapade started on the thread Fanning the flames of division
Here’s what happened:
dietz1963 said (September 02, 2015 12:56 pm):
“We are NOT better off then 7 years ago. Look at food prices, like many others, I live on a strict budget, buying the same things like 7 years ago and its gone up by 40%. My paycheck hasn’t.”
Of course, this is because it’s Obama’s fault.
September 02, 2015 1:15 pm
“@dietz, speak for yourself, dietz. If you are not better off than 7 years ago, then either you never saved up, or you got your clock cleaned id divosce. either way, it is your fault, not the economy’s. food prices? sorry, your numbers don’t add up. inflation has been less than 2%.”
I chimed in with:
“dietz1963, your 40% figure is a joke. Where did you pull that out of? Or is did the landlord of your single-wide raised your rent that much.”
“I make the same as I did before and prices have gone up that much, saving has nothing to do with it nor divorce. If you aren’t paying attention, then either your fairly well off and $300-$400 extra doesn’t phase you, or you got enough government subsidies where its not an issue.
I nickel and dime Limber watching prices, that overall inflation may or may not be less then 2% is hardly an argument. Take anything as an average and it all looks good, problem with averages, in some areas it could be in the 90% range and in others less then 1%…but it all looks good, don’t it, to show the overall 2%?”
I posted this:
“dietz1963, your 40% number is still hogwash. If you want us to believe it,myou need to post a good assortment of products and their prices then and now. Let me help you get started.
Gasoline in 2008, $4.10 per gallon.
Today? Whoops! Better try something else.
A gallon of milk in 2008, $3.75.
A dozen eggs in 2008 was $2.20.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Look, things always go up which is why proper personal finacial planning can mitigate that. If you are impacted by an inflationary increase and your pay has not risen accordingly, you need a better job, or a better union.
Or maybe this, did your ex-wife get cost of living raises in her alimony?”
dietz1963 attempts to counter:
2001 — $1.43
2002 — $1.34
2003 — $1.56
2004 — $1.85
2005 — $2.27
2006 — $2.58
2007 — $2.81
2006 average pound of beef $2.26, now $4.14
2006 average price of bread, 97 cents. Now, $1.96
2006 average cost of eggs, 97 cents. Now $2.27.
The list goes on and on.
You lose again.”
I point out:
“dietz1963, no, I do not “lose again.” Let’s go back and look at your original statement:
“We are NOT better off then 7 years ago. Look at food prices, like many others…”
Get it? You referred to the past 7 years.
It is 2015. 2015 – 7 = 2008
Your “data” is outside the range you were whining about. The data I provided was within the range.
So, no, it is YOU who has lost again, as usual.”
“dietz1963 asks “got any of that regarding your lie about me sitting in a corner wearing a dunce cap?”
diezt1963 said “you type nonsense and post weblinks. HARDLY evidence.”
dietz1963, you are now, as usual, ignoring your own claim, that prices have gone up 40% in the last 7 years? That was YOU who said that and whined about how times were tough and you were having a hard time making ends meet.
Then I posted a slew of everyday commodities that have gone down in cost over the past 7 years.
You countered with prices going up on certain items prior to that 7 year time span. Get it? Your comeback was data prior to the time period in your own claim.
You couldn’t even pull data from the time frame that YOU used in your claim, a claim that was purely to blame your own miserable situation on Obama.
And, yes, I posted verifiable proof. I gave you links to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and a real life inflation calculator that showed your claim was off by 75%.
What’s funny is that when your claims get blown out of the water with evidence, you whine about the evidence just being “weblinks.”
Let’s all be reminded of when dietz1963 provided us proof, with a weblink, that science doesn’t know the age of the earth and that link went to a creationist web site that tells us that the earth is only 6,000 years old. diezt1963 said that site is a more reliable source of science information than Scientific American.
diezt1963, yes, you are definitely in the corner wearing a dunce cap. Based on your refusal to admit your own errors and show any indication of a willingness to learn, it looks like you’ll be there for quite a while.”
After denying that any evidence can be posted that proves him wrong about anything, he comes up with this gem:
“….do you think its me commenting using this nickname of dietz, or a couple other family members who use this same account? You don’t know as you can’t verify who’s doing the typing and trust me, it isn’t always me.”
Nice, dietz1963, nice. Throw your family under the bus and put the blame on them for all your ignorant, fallacious, and misinformed comments.
As I said before, it’s no wonder that your ex-wife divorced you and got the kids. They were all better off without your lame influence and inability to man-up and take the hits that your own words have brought down on you.
As educators we really do not want to leave any child behind, however, regardless of what we might do, some children choose to have themselves left behind. Such is the case over at the HelenaIR where regular polluter of the comment threads, dietz1963, has shown to be not only resistant to learning but outright refuses to try.
I documented here the many lessons he has been assigned and his utter failure to do his homework so he might, just might, benefit from them. But, no, dietz1963, wants to stay mired in his world of ignorance and refuses to even look at the lessons and the evidence they provide. He stepped in his own pile of doo-doo so many times that he is now accustomed to the aroma.
There was his debacle over who wrote the book “The Population Bomb,” his inability to understand the meaning of “residency,” his proffering a creationist web site as more trustworthy than Scientific American, and, in one of his major faux pas, he named a segregationist, and well-know crank, as his preferred expert on Civil War history. I thought the latter would have finally taught him but, no, with dietz1963, it’s like a Tree of Ignorance that bears fruit all year long.
In his latest attempt to prove that he can look ridiculous, he attacks the credibility columnist in the HelenaIR without first checking her credentials. The column was “Don’t Sink the Iran Deal, Make It Better” by Trudy Rubin. dietz1963, of course, sees her opinion as wrong and after several comments he states this:
July 28, 2015 9:57 am “A newspaper reporter is hardly an expert on foreign policy and her “politics” is showing. Its been reported by several other newspapers that amendments/alternatives have been introduced yet she says she’s’ “yet to see anyone present one”. Prior to that statement, she says there are “many other points” needing clarification. How many people, regular people that is, “sign up” to anything BEFORE getting points clarified?
She also points out how Iran is “stirring up” stuff in countries that are in ciaos right now. So we what, “reward” that be easing sanctions and “hope” in some why Iran helps bring some stability into the region?”
Check out that first sentence and we need go no farther:
“A newspaper reporter is hardly an expert on foreign policy and her “politics” is showing.”
Of course she shows her “politics,” it’s an “opinion” piece. But to criticize her as just a “newspaper reporter,” well I had to answer with this.
“dietz1963 said “A newspaper reporter is hardly an expert on foreign policy and her “politics” is showing.”
Your grammatical error aside, putting her down as just a “newspaper reporter” shows, again, that you don’t know what you are talking about. No surprise there since your most recent venture into that unknown had you touting a segregationist as an expert on the Civil War.
Trudy Rubin has some pretty good credentials. From the Philadelphia Inquirer web site:
“Trudy Rubin’s Worldview column runs on Thursdays and Sundays. Over the past decade she has made multiple trips to Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Turkey, Israel and the West Bank and also written from Syria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, South Korea and China. She is the author of Willful Blindness: the Bush Administration and Iraq, a book of her columns from 2002-2004. In 2001 she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in commentary and in 2008 she was awarded the Edward Weintal prize for international reporting. In 2010 she won the Arthur Ross award for international commentary from the Academy of American Diplomacy.”
That’s a bit more impressive, and verifiable than your supposed “Special Ops” experience.”
Looks like dietz1963 is “shooting from the hip,” again, that is, running his fingers across the keyboard as if he is some kind of expert and not checking what he is talking about. This is the same thing as he did with the creationist web site and the Civil War segregationist. He looked for something online and didn’t check the source of what he found. Or, he really is a creationist and a segregationist and supports what those sites present. Or, he is an ignorant commenter who isn’t used to being told he wrong and his fragile ego would never entertain that possibility. Or, maybe, a bit of all of those possibilities.
A while back, March 2015, he claimed that Scientific American is not a trustworthy source of science news and, instead, provided a link to a site that masquerades as science news but it clearing run by creationits (spelling intentional.) He denied that it is a creationist site. He denied that he is a creationist. Finally he tells us that he just picked it at random.
Well, the old boy has done it again. The article is what should be done about the fountain that was installed long ago by the segregationist group, the Daughters of the Confederacy. I made my usual claim that the group has a segregationist agenda with no opinion as to what to do about the fountain. dietz1963 and few others try to change the subject by bringing up the red herring that blacks served in the Confederate army.
I, of course, provided links to a few scholarly articles that calls that claim into question.
dietz1963, in all of his ignorance, provides “proof” that they did serve in the Confederate army by providing a link to southernheritage411.com. In his ecstasy, he neglected to drill around on the site and look at who is behind it. I did:
dietz1963, below, in a now deleted comment, provided a URL to a site (southernheritage411.com) that supports dietz1963 position that blacks supported the Confederacy by serving in the rebel army.
dietz1963, regarding the URL you provided, is this just another case of you picking something at random thinking it would counter whatever I posted and you did so without looking into the the site yourself?
Depending on how you answer, you are either ignorant of the material you pointed to or you are supporting segregation and white supremacy. Your call.
That site is run by one guy who, at best, can be described as a southern apologist and, at worse, a white supremacist. He uses lines like this:
“The federal government used “slavery” as an excuse to invade the peaceful Southern states…”
He said the Federal government has “…taught their Yankee version of history in our public schools for the last 140+ years and have purposely taught hatred…”
He claims there were “millions of blacks who supported the South in it’s struggle for independence.”
This guy was one of the directors of the Southern Legal Resource Center whose main attorney had his marriage at the neo-N@zi Aryan Nations compound in Idaho.
The SCV made him an honorary member and then went after him after he was selling their wares but pocketing the money for himself.
This guy’s association and support of segregationist and white supremacy groups goes on and on.
And this is the guy YOU selected to back up your position!
dietz1963, you are a gift that just keeps on giving.
This goes on and all the sudden all my comments responding to dietz1963 and the URL as well as his are deleted. Of course, I save mine and will continue to repost them, forever.
Update, July 23, 2015
dietz1963 thought (strong word when referring to dietz1963) that he found a way out of this latest dilemma of his when he posted that the author of the nonsense on this web site is black. dietz1963 claims that there is no way that the site could be racist, segregationist, or white supremacist because the author is black and that he had been the chapter president of the NAACP.
Poor old dietz1963. He really needs to dig deeper. The author, H.K. Edgerton, yes, is black and was the chapter president of the NAACP but, as it turns out, the guy is a crank. He was voted out of his NAACP position for bringing the chapter into near financial ruin. The chapter also balked at his attempt to bring his buddy, attorney Kirk Lyons, a known white supremacist, on board.
Edgerton became involved with many neo-confederate groups such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That group has some interesting backstory, some of it detailed here:
That group’s big shot leader, Ron Wilson, was later convicted of running a $60,000,000 ponzi scheme and sentence to a long prison term. H.K is seeking a presidential pardon for this thief and for this one.
Anyway, Edgerton has made quite the business for himself by offering to appear at neo-confederate events for the cool sum of $20,000 plus mileage. These groups love to parade someone of his race around insinuating that their agenda can’t possibly be racists, segregationist, or white supremacist if he endorses them.
For dietz1963 to cozy up to this guy, and to actually write things in his defense, is, well, somewhere between appalling and pathetic.
After a bunch of my comments were deleted, which took his replies with them, he accused me of deleting them. I responded:
“dietz1963, why would I flag yours for deletion? They are a gift to all from the universe of ignorance. Why would I remove evidence that YOU provided a link to a segregationist/white supremacist web site to support your position. It is much more likely that YOU deleted them to try and cover up your incompetence after I found you out.
You need to learn the difference between a “red herring” and evidence to support the current discussion.
You can call me a “troll” all you want but all I am doing is responding to your, now apparent, segregationist agenda.”
To which he said:
H.K. Edgerton, a black guy, previous president of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, is a white supremacist/segregationist? Then you’re what, accusing me of what again?
All you’re doing is making stuff up. No way no how am I anything close to your newest “label” of me. By your logic, my “responses” are to your black supremacist/segregationist agenda. Because by your logic, you must be one.”
I love it when dietz1963 uses the word “logic” in a comment since we know it will be embedded in a fallacy.
Then he added:
“There is a point of going too far AE and this time, you dang sure crossed the line.”
“Why don’t you and dolphind3 get together and call the cops?”
And with this comment he existed the thread:
“What part of going to far and crossing the line don’t you get?
I suppose he meant “out of here” but with dietz1963, one never knows considering he is “out there.”
I won’t litter the site with the entire background of what follows since much of it is already here, but what has transpired over on the Helena IR, is that I have taken commenter dietz1963 to task for just about all his transgressions at once. We’ve ended up with several threads under several articles with him trying to, and failing, to defend himself. (here, here, here, and here) I wrote one back this morning that, I think, is worth posting here since it nicely sums up the problem with dietz1963. Will this be the end of him? Will he change his ways? Not likely.
dietz1963, below, said “…unless you are my ex, show me the court documents.”
Who needs to? You’ve disclosed so much personal information about that tragedy yourself we all know the story quite well.
(I am still not clear on why you feel the need to disclose so much personal information about yourself in an anonymous forum and then complain when your personal information is tossed back at you. Are you just lame about the online world or so self-important that you want to flaunt your own failures?)
You said “I have explained, YET AGAIN about special ops. I have presented evidence enough…”
You haven’t presented anything that an 11-year old couldn’t look up online or make up after playing a few rounds of Call of Duty: Special Ops. Like I said before, if you are going to testify here as an authority then your credentials have to be open for scrutiny, otherwise, nothing you say regarding that has validity. Again, you exhibit a lack of knowledge about how things work in the anonymous online world and appear as quite the noob.
You said “You, like these kids, like to “pick apart” people statements to your own means…”
That is what discussions are all about. When you make a ridiculous, unsupportable statement, of course I will “pick apart” what you said. When I came on board here, you were more rabid than you are now and virtually every comment of yours was built upon one logical fallacy or another, generally going unchallenged. You would regularly “take apart” what others say (you still do) peppered with ad hominems and fallacious posits. You were/are a very easy target and I am not going to sit by and let that nonsense go by unchallenged. That you, and others get “riled up enough to have emotional outbursts whereby they also look foolish” isn’t my problem, but simply a side benefit of showing buffoonery where it exists.
You said “You aren’t about educating at all, more so mocking others to the point that you can have “that laugh” at someone else’s[sic] expense.”
Mockery is a technique that is an effective teaching tool at times. You have to understand that while it might be painful to the one being mocked, sometimes they are not the target of instruction. There are others who observe the process who can learn when they see a weak, unsupported, and ridiculous argument or claim collapse of a puff of logic. And this is most satisfying when the mockery is targeted at someone, like yourself, who puffs themselves up, feigns bravado, an “I’m always right” attitude, discloses personal things about themselves to add an air of authority, and expects others to kowtow to them. Very satisfying indeed.
You said “I really get tired of this creationism business because I picked one website from hundreds at random.”
So, now you are admitting that you knew nothing about the site and picked it at random. Why did you think that doing so would support your claim that scientists don’t know the age of the earth? Why didn’t you just admit your were wrong?
You said ” So I believe (can’t remember) much of the dating is by using either rocks from the moon or parts of metors[sic] they’ve found here on the earth. Thinking back to the class…”
You didn’t need to try and remember from a class that was probably a few decades ago. I provided a link to an October 2013 Scientific American that explains how scientist know the age of the earth. You obviously did not want to read it. Why is that? Instead you pick some random web site and say it is more trustworthy than Scientific American.
Well, you really stepped in it when that “random site” turned out to be a “young earth/creationist” site masquerading as a legitimate source of science news. Considering that the discussion was about “creationism,” you could not have made a worse move.
You see, dietz1963, this is a primary example of why you get attacked, not just by me, but by many on these threads:
– You make some claim (scientists do not know the age of the earth).
– Someone responds by providing source information to dispute that claim (the Scientific American article).
– You deny that evidence without even evaluating it.
– Then you toss out something (creationist web site) that neither disputes that evidence but obfuscates or attempts to change the topic (red herrings).
– When that technique is criticized you then deny that logic and reason are valid tools for assessing truth.
– Then you prance around like you won a debate.
What we see is someone who either does not have the cognitive skills to participate in a grown up discussions or someone who has spent so much of their life being intellectually lazy they can’t see how silly they look to others, or a bit a both.
You said “Clarified enough for you, this without the net. But I suppose you’ll discount that as well since I didn’t provide “proof””
You have made yourself perfectly clear, more than you will ever know.
Earlier on you said “I tend to apologize, and have, to those that warrant an apology.”
I think we all warrant one.