Dan,

That was swell.

Bill

Dan, that was swell.

Bill

Shalom. Peace be with you from a gentile.

Peace be upon you.

So what if your apology makes you feel good? Religiously, what is important is whether the people who you have hurt forgive you, not whether you feel good about yourself.

And saying that your apology makes you feel good -- without any evidence that you've heard any forgiveness from those you you've undoubtedly attacked through this blog in the last year -- is evidence of a kind of self-centerness that would, I think, make it less likely for anyone else to be able to forgive you.

Rich,

You're correct that "what is important is whether the people who you have hurt forgive you." The problem with the Internet, of course, is the difficulty of identifying those who have taken offense. Hence the blanket apology.

My deepest apologies if the last line makes me seem self-centered.

Offered apology = feels good
Forgiveness = feels better
Courtesy to a smarmy, self-important critic belaboring the obvious in an attempt to offer insult to virtue = feels best

I understand the reasons for the blanket apology. As I thought my first comment made clear, I wasn't criticizing the blanket apology per se -- just your statement "Wow, that feels good" to make it.

As for "My deepest apologies if the last line makes me seem self-centered." -- well, you are the one who brought this up in a religious context. Isn't the important question whether you really are self-centered, as opposed to seeming so? Feeling good for having made a blanket apology is a particularly New Agey kind of emotion. I would think that if you really care about whether others are going to forgive you, rather than about making yourself feel good for a harmless bit of puffery, then you'd feel bad at having to confront this acknowledgement that you've hurt others.

tmid writes:
"Courtesy to a smarmy, self-important critic belaboring the obvious in an attempt to offer insult to virtue = feels best"

You know, tmid, I too suspect that Drezner meant to sarcastically imply something like this when he offered his "deepest apologies" for his comment. But it isn't charitable to point this out in the comment thread for a post in which someone has just apologized for

"pride, pettiness, slander, belligerency, cruelty, and offensiveness"

Otherwise you might suspect that this apology lasted all of about 12 hours (judging by the posting dates) if it was sincerely felt at all.

Geez Rich, what an ass you are.

I'm Catholic.

Rich, you're an ass.

So in Confession, as penitence, the Father will make me say one Hail Mary Sunday.

Rich, a complete ass.

Okay, two Hail Marys.

SMG

"...without any evidence that you've heard any forgiveness from those you you've undoubtedly attacked through this blog in the last year."

Your point is utterly bizarre. When has our host ever unfairly criticized anyone? It's not his problem if those deserving rebuke feel upset. That’s their problem!

Mention the president in your prayers. He's all we have between us and President Rodham.

Shalom.

Reg, you and I are in total agreement! I guess there's always a first time for everything. :P

Nice job Dan.

Hope you had an easy fast. I too will try to act upon all that was spoken about at synagogue today.

Rich, you wrote:

"You know, tmid, I too suspect that Drezner meant to sarcastically imply something like this when he offered his "deepest apologies" for his comment."

You missed my point. I don't know that he intended sarcasm toward you, but I know I did. Sorry for the confusion.

"But it isn't charitable to point this out in the comment thread for a post in which someone has just apologized for"

Heh. Hehheh. Was that sarcasm?

Theologically, your original point on forgiveness was sound. But you're right, wasn't isn't charitable to criticise. So take the high road and don't.

"...it wasn't charitable..."

Dan:

May you be sealed for a good year.

Rich:

I do not think my rabbi would agree with you. But I would be interested in your halakich authority