Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
angelikaJ, kdsub and VAC,
I apologize for my poor choice of words, and the unintended offense that caused.
Let me run through what happened for context.
A post was made wherein a reference to WMDs was made in connection with the Boston attacks. Not currently following American media, and being unfamiliar with American law, I was unaware that this was a legal term, or that it had already been brought to bear in this case. As such, I assumed that the term was meant as a comparison, by that poster, between the Boston attacks and those events to which we may uncontroversially apply the term mass destruction in the context of WMDs. This misunderstanding on my part happened despite an attempt at using native speakers to verify the reading of the post in question as a safeguard against being harsh with the poster for no reason. I have since apologized to the poster whose post I misread, despite others appearing to have read it the same way.
In reply, in the context of the misread post, I wrote pointedly about the lack of comparability between the Boston attacks and mass destruction events. I will admit I was, at the time, offended by the mistakenly perceived comparison, and that I may have let that influence my choice of words. The references to the Boston attack made in that context were not meant to belittle, diminish or otherwise dismiss the horror of the Boston attacks, but rather meant to illustrate that if we were to compare them in the context of WMDs, the comparison would be ludicrous, and that accordingly one would have to use terms to describe the Boston attacks that are patently inapplicable to get the perspective right. Ironically, the key point of this was precisely that we cannot make the comparison, because the two exist in entirely seperate frames of reference: the Boston attacks were a massively (adjective) destructive event, not a "mass destruction" (noun) event.
In the course of writing the reply, I forgot about the fact that there is always an "audience" in a forum, posters that will be reading the text as a third party to such an exchange, and that any post must thus be written also for that audience, which in this case had the Boston attacks fresh in their minds. It should have been obvious to me that my choice of words would give offense. An offense I did not intend, I assure you.
I'll note, with particular attention to what angelikaJ said, that I followed closely our own attacks a while ago.
During the bombing in Oslo, my beloved was supposed to be present at that time, in that place, to the best of my (then) knowledge. I have some comprehension of how these things can hit close to home, even for those not in the middle of it. As for scale, those attacks weren't mass destruction, either, but were certainly massive, as I well know from following the coverage and later the trial with its detailed coverage of what happened to each individual victim and what the consequences for them and their families have been. Those are strong impressions that cannot be erased. Impressions that spring to mind unbidden when following the Boston attacks. While my words were insensitive, my heart is not. And, perhaps therein lies the problem: I let myself be moved to post in a crude and rash manner.
That in itself calls for an admission of fault and the apology here given.
Mea maxima culpa, sodales.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Justice in Boston - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread