Apologizing And Eating Crow
"I made a mistake and I apologize to the company and Granville Press readers," said Jack Thornborough, Editor of The Granville Press. "The Certified Oil Company wall sign on South Main Street is internally lighted, but the company has not broken an agreement with Granville." The Granville Press reported on November 26th that Certified had lighted its wall sign in violation of an agreement with Village Council.
The Granville Press was wrong - the old, apparently grandfathered, sign is lighted - the new sign isn't in place yet.
"I'm very sorry for jumping to an erroneous conclusion when I noticed the lighted sign on the front of their building. I try to carefully check the facts of every story and I simply missed this one and must eat crow," Thornborough said.
Random House defines "eating crow" as "to be forced to admit to having made an error, as by retracting an emphatic statement."
Crows are carnivores and scavengers and apparently they are not suitable for eating. The expression seems to have originated here in the United States during the middle 1800s. The British use an analogous expression, "eating humble pie."
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia contains more information about the expressions.
In a comment on the original story, someone using the name, "askquestions" wrote:
"The sign in the picture is the old sign, not the new Certified Oil Company logo. This sign has been in place and internally illuminated since the new building was opened. Maybe the Certified staff just replaced a burned out bulb. If they don't change the sign, it can remain turned on forever."
It appears "askquestions" is correct. According to Village Planner, Alison Terry:
"The existing wall sign at the Certified Station was set up to be an internally illuminated sign, it just wasn't 'lit' up until recently...whether it was on a separate switch that just wasn't turned on, or maybe the bulb was burned out, we don't know. The new, recently approved, wall signage will not be permitted to be internally illuminated, once installed. Certified requested to change their logo on both the wall sign on the building and the monument sign along the street."
| Old Sign | New Sign |
 |
 |
***
Wow
Talk about a class act...
First Jack puts an apology on page one with a large headline. And then makes fun of himself having to eat some crow fricassee.
I can't help but notice a contrast.
Some other papers, not mentioning any one in particular, hardly ever admit they got something wrong (in spite of frequent error). When they actually admit something was in error they put their "correction," with the smallest possible headline so meaningfully and enticingly worded "Correction", on page B17 wedged in among 27 ads, and then tend to phrase the "correction" to make it seem as if it was someone else's fault they got it wrong. And the idea of a palpably real apology? You must be kidding. Or anyone taking personal responsibility for the error? Surely you jest.
Thanks Jack.
Your honesty and integrity are noteworthy.
Sample apology
From A Fish Called wanda. Use whenever the need requires.
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
A classic
Beautiful. I had forgotten that one. A classic.
Thanks.
Hal
Eating crow prematurely
So the Granville Press was inadvertently correct -- the lighted sign is illegal. I now demand an apology, even more contrite than the first, apologizing for apologizing.
huh? Give Jack a break....
So,apologize for THINKING he was right and then apologize for temporarily being wrong and now he's right but for a different sign,right?
So, WHO'S on first, I DUNNO is on 2nd and I DON'T GIVE A D@@@ is on third....
BTW: I filled up at Certified tonight...under $25. FOR A TANK!!!!
Let's read the zoning ordinance...
I certainly don't want to interfere with the meal of crow. But it appears that with changing village personnel and the like we may have lost some context...
As I remember it, the sign (the "Old Sign" that is lit in your picture) was not originally approved to be internally lit. While it is designed to be internally lit, the company agreed to not light the sign internally. At the time the village agreed as the company really wanted to use their standard logo sign.
Contrary to what the article implies, when that Certified plan was approved years ago the zoning ordinance prohibited internally lit signage. The concept of "grandfathering" is inapplicable in such a situation. By the way, for an even older example of signage that was designed to be internally lit and was allowed only so long as the internal lighting was never used, take a look at the Remax sign in the first block of South Main Street. (In that case, the sign was put up before approval was obtained and was only allowed to remain under the condition that it never be lit.)
Of course, even if the sign was somehow "grandfathered," is is important to note, as stated by planner Alison Terry and quoted above, the company has not had the sign lit until recently. Under sections 1149.05 and 1149.06 of the village's code, the non-lighting of the sign for a period of time would mean that any "grandfathering" has been lost and the sign must remain unlit.
In addition, even if there was an original approval or there was grandfathering of the sign, the current request to change the sign itself to a new design and shape would require the changed sign be in compliance with the code (i.e., not internally lit).
All this means that The Granville Press was correct in originally stating that Certified broke their agreement to not light the sign. But as The Granville Press did not realize which agreement had been broken, perhaps a small portion of crow is in order.