I didn't check that thread after I wrote it.

I am satisfied that my apology was enough.  I was following orders of my priest, who didn't ask any more of me than that.  

The rest of the thread didn't make any sense to me.  It looked like Tele was defending me but people took it to be that he was attacking me, maybe due to our recent conflict.  Or maybe he really was attacking me.  

Then Matthew starts talking about my "faults" as if he's defending me when in reality I'm not sure what these faults are supposed to be.  

Caminus was acting as if my apology to him wasn't sufficient; but I didn't even apologize to him.  I once called him a liar and then apologized immediately afterward.  I have nothing else to apologize to him for.  As everyone knows, he has far more to atone for on this site than I do but has never come close to giving any semblance of an apology that I've seen, so I can safely disregard his ramblings.  Sophists like to play the emotion card when they are completely trounced again and again in debates.  

I will say again, far from apologizing, that Caminus is intellectually dishonest, a sophist, and bad-willed, who runs from thread to thread avoiding arguments, and then acts as if he's never heard what you said, and he does this over and over again.  Now he has come back with a more mild and genteel -- passive-aggressive -- tone but he's still doing the same thing.  Every argument with him starts right back at zero; it's like you never spoke at all.  So why would anyone speak with him about these matters?