Less pissed.

[profgreen]

So like the rest of you, I was extremely disappointed in Susan Stanton's recent comments in the SPTimes

Comments

[mesolimbicjoy]

Snarky is a bit of an understatement there. She might as well have written, "sorry you're such an idiot." :/

[chaos_rains]

IAWTCSFM

That little snarkiness to me makes her apology way insincere. Sort of like, "You're dumb and a waste of my time but I'm going to write an apology to cover my own arse."

[kittyarrr]

Indeed, interesting that. I'd tend so say that this looks more like a CYA-maneuver, particularly given that it seems truly difficult to distort that much material in an article comprised primarily of direct quotes.

And the snarkiness at the bottom -- wow, is she condescending, regardless.

[terry_terrible]

And why in the hell is she dumb enough to *trust* the SPTtimes, which if I remember correctly was the paper that outted her in the first place? Very strange.

[shelleybear]

Unfortunately, anyone reading this article would think I am a conceited, arrogant, depressed, suicidal victim in need of immediate medical intervention. I regret that the Times conveyed this very unflattering portrait and the damage it has done to my personal and professional reputation.

Except for that little snarky bit at the end, I consider this somewhat of an apology. Now lets see if she actually fights the times for a retraction.

Yeah, let's see.

[sophiaserpentia]

I am truly sorry you believe everything in the paper you read.

Good grief, is she a third grader?

[aki_no_kaze]

Now lets see if she actually fights the times for a retraction.

That is what I am waiting for as well.