Loren is a writer. He employed a common rhetorical device, asking a question as a method of beginning a discourse. That’s how I understood his initial post regarding the repeated use of an apparently abhorrent appellation. It was not a personal attack.

Loren questioned the appropriateness of the term, and he questioned the validity of its application to the P/G sasquatch, as did many others. He did not accuse anyone of being a racist, even suggesting the possibility that M.K. Davis was unaware of the history of the use of the term as a racial epithet. Those who assert otherwise have either accepted the negative interpretations of others without checking out the facts for themselves, or they have another agenda.

Although I do not think it was appropriate for Loren to attach any expectations to his apology, he should not have been pressured into giving an apology in the first place. Davis, like anyone else, should be held accountable for his ill-timed and ill-considered comments.

As for the seemingly outrageous claims about the nature of the P/G sasquatch, I’m afraid I foresee nothing positive coming from this affair for M.K. Davis, a person who has been nothing but professional in his conduct with me.

Perhaps at some point the term “Digger Indian” was considered correct and inoffensive, but it is now recogonized as a racial (or cultural) epithet and it should not be used. It was not out of line for you to point that out; on the contrary it needed to be pointed out. Too often people use terms that they have heard without realizing that those seemingly innocuous terms may be hurtful and denigrating to some people.

If we can discuss the propriety or impropriety of using terms such as Sasquatches as opposed to Sasquatch as a plural, then surely we can address improprieties such as unintentional ethnic slurs.

After reading your comments, I fail to see any need for an apology. I may have missed something, but in my reading I have not made note of you calling anyone a “racist”.

Was your apology driven more by a threat from a greedy would-be mega film producer and his hoaxing, mis-representing buddy? You know, the one that publicly calls you a liar and a thief on his message board?

You may have sparked some lively debate over M.K.’s comment, but where did you call anyone any names?

I’m going to agree with all previous posters here that no apology was needed on your part – but for a different reason. I don’t think an apology calls for a defense of one’s position when it’s clear from your post that you felt your actions were justified on nearly all accounts. Besides that, in my opinion defending your position at such great length as you did here takes the wind out of the sails of the apology. It’s the old “I’m sorry…” with the last minute “but” jab that we all hate to hear when the apology is aimed our direction. The hatchet is never truly buried. Indeed, the post ended with a challenge for a return apology! It’s “Crypto Apology Smack Down!” I think most of our mother’s taught us that an apology is offered because a wrong has been recognized – not because we expect an apology in return. Yes, it’s great to receive one – particularly when you feel it’s deserved – whether it’s aimed at you personally or someone else. But should it be the catalyst for the original action?

History is rife with people being crucified for sticking to their guns and saying what they believe. History also bears out just as often society would have been better served if we listened to them.