Thanks for the laughs this evening–all the contributors to this thread (Cervaise and whoever posted re SA’s sister get the prize).
Where is my waitress? I want to tip her. 
Thank you.
But seriously, you think an apology is in order? For what? I got an email, I copied it and posted it. For all I knew it was composed by some clever conservative wit for the express purpose of making email rounds among conservative circles. There was no attempt at dishonesty, plagiarism or anything else I can think of that would warrant an apology.
Still, I’m willing to listen.
Apologies aren’t only for deliberate malfeasance; they’re also for unintentional fuckups. That’s what I teach my students, anyway :).
An initial apology would’ve been for the unintentional fuckup. At this point, you could do worse than apologizing for sneering at people for chastising you for an action you now admit was chastisable.
In which case you would write:
“Some conservative wit, who isn’t me, appears to have written this for circulation by e-mail. Enjoy the express purpose of its cleverness.”
I’ve just been watching some old Hugh Laurie clips on youtube. It’s going to take a while for the faux earnestness to wear off.
Shirley Ujest. Allusions to laziness, physical and mental, appear in virtually every paragraph.
That’s a good point. I apologized just this evening when I inadvertently got in someone’s way at the grocery store.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind pointing out just which posters deserve an apology. Most of the ones I can think of were assholes right out of the gate, and motivated mostly by ire over things I’ve said in the past. (And Don’t Call Me Shirley can shove a rusty dipstick up her crankcase for all I care.) 
Thanks for your input, and for your support earlier in the thread. But again, this is what’s called 20/20 hindsight. I had no way of knowing, nor even a suspicion, at the time I posted it that the issue would arise.
And you don’t sound overly earnest at all.
ETA: And now I’m off for a honkin’ big Frito Chili Pie, thanks to being reminded of them in the “Chili” thread in Cafe Society. I’ll see what you have to say when I return later, LHoD.
Another thing I teach my students: you’re not responsible for their choices, only for your own. If they acted like dicks, that’s on them. It’s your behavior, not theirs, that’s relevant when choosing what you’ll do.
Bullshit; you’ve been posting your inane half-baked nonsense on the SDMB for years. You’re not actually stupid, even though you frequently say stupid things.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. But that’s nothing new.
I vehemently protest the current movement to get Starving Artist to apologize for his carelessness in beginning this trainwreck of a Pitting. If he apologizes, then we will be ethically obligated to accept his apology and stop mocking him about it. Where’s the fun in that? 
Starving Artist, you are really a reverse Upton Sinclair or John Steinbeck, you write socially irresponsible fiction.
You may have a point on the CETA, however the critics never could calculate the priceless help many minorities got in discriminating areas to enter the job market, and I’m talking about the ones that did their jobs properly. In any case, this is a moot point because the government (that for some reason you assume never would make corrections) ended the program in the 80’s.
Just the simple example how black and other minority soldiers benefited from the GI bill is enough to show how your sources are just shallow and idiotic*.
*In the Greek sense.
How very handy for you! Then you won’t have the slightest difficulty citing multiple examples! (Which, in your haste, you neglected.)
A little difficult now, since the mods sliced the piece down because of plagiarism. SA would hove to repeat the, er… plagiar?
The original *Onion *piece is linked by one of the Luminous Ones (gfactor, I believe…) and is thus available. One assumes that the original posting still is available to the esteemed OP. Can’t see any problem.
It wasn’t much of an apology if any. Sort of a “I’m sorry if you misunderstood me” effort - no culpability was acknowledged for writing the post and he left open the possibility that the problem might be everyone else’s fault for reading it.
I noted a kind of odd style of …presentation?..in the OP. I kind of got the idea that it was another’s writing. I don’t think the OP was trying to pass it off as his own. That said, Don’t Call Me Shirly calling his sister a cunt was funny as hell.
It was clear from the beginning that SA was only forwarding a piece of junk-mail. Everybody leveling accusations of plagiarism are only embarrassing themselves.
At the risk of further embarrassment, where did you find clarity? When someone writes “I have seen…” something in the title, it’s pretty clear that his OP, unless he specifies otherwise explicitly, is going to contain the observations he has made himself. Where did SA put any distance between the title’s “I” and the OP which followed? I’d like some specific quotes, please.
A cursory glance at his post reveals all the hallmarks of bad glurge: it’s written in the format of an article, contains a strong right-wing message, calls attention to the supposed idiocy of congress, and takes a stance against welfare. It’s obvious where it came from, and it’s obvious that “I’ve seen…” was referencing his reading of the article. Although, even the title reads like something from a forwarded email, and I wouldn’t be surprised if SA copied that, too.
If I had to fault SA for anything, it would be overestimating the intelligence of the SDMB by not including a proper citation of the article’s origin.
And how is this any different from **Starving Artist’s **typical posts?
THIS is your response to a request for a specific textual citation showing the clarity of the OP’s origin? That “it’s obvious”???
Thanks for playing.