{"id":2002,"date":"2006-03-15T06:33:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-15T06:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/adrianwarnock.com\/2006\/03\/a-public-apology-to-johnson-for-a-perceived-rebuke\/"},"modified":"2006-03-15T06:33:00","modified_gmt":"2006-03-15T06:33:00","slug":"a-public-apology-to-johnson-for-a-perceived-rebuke","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/adrianwarnock\/2006\/03\/a-public-apology-to-johnson-for-a-perceived-rebuke\/","title":{"rendered":"A public apology to Johnson for a perceived rebuke"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

It seems I have fallen into the very same trap that I have been trying to address in my recent posts on \u201ctone\u201d in the blogosphere. I recognised this trap yesterday and tried to address it to some degree in my post 2001 posts and counting<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What trap have I fallen into? Well it is the trap of writing in such a way that I can be misinterpreted. My original post <\/a>which was intended to serve as a complement to Phil for his measured and appropriate response to Michael instead led some \u2013 not least Phil himself \u2013 to instead perceive a direct rebuke to The<\/em> Pyromaniac<\/em> himself.<\/p>\n

I was at first mystified as to why my post could have been seen in that way. I have now gone back to the post and looked at it again, and wish to elaborate on and apologise for the wording of some aspects of it which I now realise may have led to this misunderstanding. Ironic isnt it that a post on the importance of tone and how we need to be careful how we come accros was itself not written carefully enough!<\/p>\n