This interpretation looks flawed. You discredit the entire message based on a single word--a very general word whose meaning you pinned to a definition which results in the most negative interpretation--and you also ignore the fact that they explicitly state the damage it caused in the same paragraph.
To clarify: I'm not arguing this is a good or bad apology; just that the justification provided here looks flawed. Human speech isn't a programming language; it's not well defined and it's more than the sum of its parts. One can't derive conclusions about a text by analyzing a tiny subset out of context.
To clarify: I'm not arguing this is a good or bad apology; just that the justification provided here looks flawed. Human speech isn't a programming language; it's not well defined and it's more than the sum of its parts. One can't derive conclusions about a text by analyzing a tiny subset out of context.