CycleDog posted about someone that made me mad. Fritz posted a link to the someone's apology, and the apology made me more mad. Since the author-owned website that posted the apology left me no avenue for comment and was very very ready to display the face of the person that made me mad, I have decided to combine the two.
First, the face, from the website of the one who made me mad:
You know, I'm not certain you got a good enough look at this guy...
Now, the man who made me mad's "apology":
May I take this opportunity to apologize for any offence I have caused through the article in last weekend’s Mail on Sunday. It was never my intention to offend the many cyclists who share our roads across the country. What was intended to be a humorous piece was clearly misjudged. Further more I do not condone any form of reckless driving.
Once again, I am sincerely sorry for any upset caused in relation to this article.
Now, my Comment:
I am certain it was not your intention to offend the many cyclists who share the roads. It was, however, your stated and gleeful intention to scare the living shit out of the cyclists on your road. You are a dangerous idiot, unless, of course, I have clearly misjudged. It is my sincere hope that you made your little scenario up, but I'm guessing that you didn't. I hope you are sincerely sorry for the upset caused to the people you threatened with your car. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke, right?
I had a bunch of writing full of expletives one minute ago that I deleted before posting; I am confident that you get my drift. If my response seems a little over the top, please forgive me. I just got mad, and I strongly believe that if you put yourself out there in the public space in this way, you had better be prepared to be criticized when you write something so repugnant to so many.
R A N T W I C K 
8 comments:
I'm reminded of my sister's son, when he was young and could not get along with another boy who was in daycare with my mother. When his Mom asked him what about the other boy bothered him, he simply said: "His face".
Jeff - hehe.
Joking or not, he wrote a boast about an act of hate-driven assault. I wonder if his lame apology would be viewed kindly or given an ounce of credence if he had written similar hateful language about assaulting a minority.
Imagine that. He's surprised cyclists would be so upset when many of us have actually had someone do that to us.
What a ftard.
The man-child is a bully and a coward.
He has not yet taken responsibility for his actions, other than to say he is sorry he wrote about it and that he upset people by writing about it.
My ire might be mollified if he were to apologies for having poor impulse control and committing a crime of opportunity at the spur of the moment, and that the events have made him re-evaluate his moral and legal duty to exercise due care when operating a vehicle in the public way.
Short of that, I will continue to hold him in contempt.
I agree with Chipseal. It was the pseudo-apology of a coward. Paraphrased: "I'm sorry if you took that wrong, I was only joking."
ChipSeal & Keri - Precisely. That's why I got more angry instead of less when I read it.
Here's my apology:
Dear James Martin,
I am sorry you are an ignorant, mean-spirited ftard. Any offense you may take is clearly due to misjudgment on your part.
Contemptously yours,
--bikeboy
Seriously, Cath Wiggins' suggestion to complain to the UK Press Complaints Commission seems like a useful way to register our collective dissatisfaction with James. The UK press are supposed to collectively adhere to a rigorous Code of Conduct, of which James Martin runs egregiously afoul. They have a handy form!
BikeBoy - hey, thanks for stopping by, and the link!
Post a Comment