That's a very cynical (though not necessarily inaccurate) paraphrasal of his text. I am wondering: what kind of statement could he make, according to you, that is not amenable to such doubts?
So the rite of apology as enshrined in our society's mores is entirely irrelevant and inconsequential? (I wouldn't disagree either way, as I don't put much stock into words after events) but if you don't believe in apologies would you feel it appropriate for the alleged perpetrator just to remain silent?
