Comments on: tracking the lack of apologies

By: David Gans

David Gans — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:05:20 +0000

In reply to Patrick Di Justo. I agree!

By: cjs

cjs — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:27:45 +0000

@Patrick Di Justo In linguistics, it’s called a “performative”. What you say you are doing is actually also the doing. For example, when a minister says, “I now pronounce you husband and wife,” we don’t wait for another statement, “You are husband and wife.” So “apologies and prayers in order” is both an apology and a prayer.

Reverse for comic effect: “Repeat after me. ‘I, state your name, do solemnly swear, etc.” And everyone says…?

By: good manners among children and Republicans

good manners among children and Republicans — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:08:59 +0000

[…] in unpaid writing fun, here’s a piece I did for SorryWatch on which, if any, Republicans apologized for publicly saying that Hillary Clinton was faking her […]

By: snarly

snarly — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:58:11 +0000

Patrick, I agree. But since Mackowiak was not personally snotty about Clinton (I went through his Twitter feed too) I read that as him calling on his fellow Republicans to apologize. Perhaps I give too much credit, but I’m menschy like that.

By: Patrick Di Justo

Patrick Di Justo — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:42:37 +0000

I’m not personally convinced that “apologies and prayers are in order” should count as an apology. It sounds too much like “you know, someone should apologize for this mess.”

By: sumac

sumac — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 06:40:19 +0000

So relieved about Matt Mackowiak's tweets, because if SorryWatch wrote about situations where someone ought to apologize, we would never have time to sleep.