The ‘Apology’ Paradox

With so much to regret in such a short time frame, I often wonder what constitutes a perfect apology or to say it simply how to get the ‘wrongs’ right.  Some arbit dictionary defines it as --
 “An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense, a statement that excuses or defends something, such as a past action or a policy”, definitely a literature definition, can't expect to be more useful than a discussion report we submit in our labs.

Some people are actually very smart, rather than a regret expression, playing with a few words makes an apology turn into a win-win situation. For instance, consider this apology “I am sorry if I behaved in some way that offended you and you think I should apologize but believe me, I didn't do anything wrong.” So, from 0-1 down you are actually 2-1 up, because not only did you apologize but rested your case in your favor.  It’s like saying “I’m sorry that you are stupid :p "

Sometimes it’s the other way out, when you really regret and want to make amends to what you had earlier done in the wrong intent or result and you turn up to the ‘offended person’ realizing your mistake and put it simply “I am sorry, it was my fault, how do I correct it” and the other person (in most cases the fairer sex, P.S. I’m not a sexist) gets a ‘Brahmashtra’ he/she would save your apology in the memory bank and since he/she is 1-0 up, he/she gets a license first to do anything to you, to offend you and then get released without the ‘apology’ bail.

So, this is what confuses me, if Apology is nothing more than a tool to set scores right, then how does one actually feel sorry and communicate it to the other end? If the two ends of the apologetic channel are not on the same page in the definition of apology, how do you actually expect error free transmission? L

(suggestions definitely needed)