Looking for a theatre director

Nice, Don. I take that on board. But is my logic so flawed? I think not: It seems that several agree I was in the wrong to make an apology on anyone's behalf. Obviously I can't represent the whole of Perth. That was a figure of speech. And neither can I represent any particular individuals here. They are responsible for their own statements and beliefs. What I really wanted to do was say (to the people represented by the one making the comment, 'Wow. You people should get a life..") that I was SORRY for the way Perth was being portrayed, and to present a view which disapproved of comments that I saw (and that others were perceiving) as pettiness. Hang on - I was sorry? I guess that means I DID want to apologise! Yet I wasn't to blame. So I guess I was apologising on behalf of someone else. But who? Apparently I was the only one who was sorry. So in actual fact I was not apologising for ANYBODY. I was apologising for a SITUATION. The situation was the overall accumulative effect I saw, that I called 'the above stupidity'. The logic is like a mother apologising for her toddler who has just scribbled on your wall. The toddler isn't sorry, in fact sees nothing wrong, and many would view it as normal expressive behaviour; but you feel disdain for the situation, and the mother feels inclined to apologise on their child's behalf. Now I'm not trying to insinuate that anyone has been childish or that I represent any sort of parental figure; I say this simply to show that there is a logical precedent. I now understand a little of how John Howard might have felt when refusing to apologise on behalf of the Australian people over the Stolen Generations. How could he justify speaking on behalf of EVERYBODY, of people who weren't even involved, or of people who perhaps didn't feel sorry? But like Kevin Rudd eventually decided, perhaps the important thing was simply to apologise for the situation, because it was a good thing to do? Either way, there are detractors and controversy, and I don't know the answer for everyone. I can only answer for myself. I see my biggest mistake was in my flippant subject title. It was moronic of me, in my state of irritation, to use the word 'morons'. I see how that is actually the basis of all the insult that has been taken, and for this I really am sorry. It was stupid of me, and I'm capable of much more tact and cleverness. It simply was not apt or appropriate. Sorry. [Note, however, the phrase is 'to take insult'. You can try to GIVE insults, but they don't really count as insults unless they are TAKEN. It's in the receiver's court as to whether they are true insults, or merely words.] It's a good thing that grammatically my subject title was ambiguous, though! If I had titled it "An apology ON BEHALF of Perth morons" then that would leave no doubt that I was implying that all of those who had appeared before me in the thread (who had caused the situation I was apologising for) were morons. Then it would have been true cause for offense. But this was not the case! My actual title was "An apology FOR Perth morons." I only ever intended Perth morons to read it! Much like the State filters that have been promulgated, which declare only readers from a particular state are intended to read the following information, I was promoting a MORON filter, which means only people of limited intelligence were intended to read my posts. Anyone who read that title and chose to read and comment afterward, obviously consented that they fit that particular description! If they were of intelligence, they would have known not to read any further. So the whole argument after my initial post becomes a moot point. While I have enjoyed the convoluted application of logic to prove I was right all along, the actual substance of the argument has become meaningless. Everyone knows you can't argue with morons. Thanks for trying, though. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------