Don't disturb my dinner with your autistic child!

[sprinkles]

Are you serious or is that just a pretty hilarious bit of witticism?

I'm entirely serious.

I was already of the opinion that consideration needs to come from both sides. There used to be a golden rule for some bulletin board systems and such which went something like "Don't be too annoying, and don't be too easily annoyed."

I've always been of that mind, in theory even if not always in practice. Things are going to happen both ways. I wanted to say it but I was so angry about stuff that it just wasn't coming out the way I'd have liked it to.

 

[Lark]

You want a mutual understanding?

Seeing threads like this over and over about all the ethical problems of the universe is really wearing me thin with negativity. Is that something that you can understand? I feel it is slowly choking me to death. It just never ends. Is that something you can understand?

I am so sick up to my eyeballs that people can't get along, that this is even a thing, that it makes me angry. So no I don't really trust people to be a good judge for things like this. From my view there's no blaming me because this is all I see lately and it makes me ill. Conflict makes me ill. But conflict seems to be all people want lately, so what's the use? I may as well get good at it if this is how the world is. Can you understand that?

I really like this post. Although I've got to say that I am the exact opposite.

Ethics and ethical dilemmas are all that matter to me, the right thing, justice, the world to come. I love to discuss them, on another forum I visited I started a thread about ethical dilemmas and the idea was you mentioned one, which could have been something like the OP, and you responded and then posted another one. I got the idea originally from a book called the good, the bad and the difference which was written by someone who had written a column on ethics in a newspaper in the US.

The thing is that it doesnt necessarily have to be negative but I know it does become that way frequently, although that in itself is a source of real interest to me, I dont see it as always arising from the issue or topic but emoting around the issue or topic and communication breakdowns, barriers and failures. Sometimes this is about maturity, other times its just people being assholes, especially online because there's not the same inhibitors as there are offline.

When it comes to conflict I tend to think if its a managed thing its good, the abscence of conflict can be sinister, like if its repressed or suppressed to the point that there is a crisis which amounts to greater harm than the initial conflict was presumed to pose. Although my reason for believing this is to do with parallels between sociology and individual psychology which not everyone agrees with. When considering social conflict, social divisions, social norms, social or interpersonal conflict, tradition vs. innovation etc. people ought, in my opinion, consider individual psychological conflict, psychodynamics, integration, splitting, complexes and archetypes. Some of this makes sense if you take Jung's theories about collective unconscious seriously or even if you think its bunk there were alternatives which were more to do with sociology than Jungian psychology posited by Erich Fromm when he speculated about social unconscious and social character.

Thanks for posting this because this sort of thing I think is a complete pretext to even beginning anything resembling a discussion.

 

[sprinkles]

I really like this post. Although I've got to say that I am the exact opposite.

Ethics and ethical dilemmas are all that matter to me, the right thing, justice, the world to come. I love to discuss them, on another forum I visited I started a thread about ethical dilemmas and the idea was you mentioned one, which could have been something like the OP, and you responded and then posted another one. I got the idea originally from a book called the good, the bad and the difference which was written by someone who had written a column on ethics in a newspaper in the US.

The thing is that it doesnt necessarily have to be negative but I know it does become that way frequently, although that in itself is a source of real interest to me, I dont see it as always arising from the issue or topic but emoting around the issue or topic and communication breakdowns, barriers and failures. Sometimes this is about maturity, other times its just people being assholes, especially online because there's not the same inhibitors as there are offline.

When it comes to conflict I tend to think if its a managed thing its good, the abscence of conflict can be sinister, like if its repressed or suppressed to the point that there is a crisis which amounts to greater harm than the initial conflict was presumed to pose. Although my reason for believing this is to do with parallels between sociology and individual psychology which not everyone agrees with. When considering social conflict, social divisions, social norms, social or interpersonal conflict, tradition vs. innovation etc. people ought, in my opinion, consider individual psychological conflict, psychodynamics, integration, splitting, complexes and archetypes. Some of this makes sense if you take Jung's theories about collective unconscious seriously or even if you think its bunk there were alternatives which were more to do with sociology than Jungian psychology posited by Erich Fromm when he speculated about social unconscious and social character.

Thanks for posting this because this sort of thing I think is a complete pretext to even beginning anything resembling a discussion.

Yes.

My balance has been fluctuating a lot lately. I'm taking in way too much yang. I balanced this out for a few days and was harmonious, but from somewhere I got a HUGE yang spike that was out of control. And of course yang must eventually turn to yin. Too much fire and you get ash, whether you like it or not. That's how it goes.

My yin has come back and now I feel more receptive and balanced again. I need to watch this more carefully.

Not sure if that'll make any sense to you.

 

[Lark]

Yes.

My balance has been fluctuating a lot lately. I'm taking in way too much yang. I balanced this out for a few days and was harmonious, but from somewhere I got a HUGE yang spike that was out of control. And of course yang must eventually turn to yin. Too much fire and you get ash, whether you like it or not. That's how it goes.

My yin has come back and now I feel more receptive and balanced again. I need to watch this more carefully.

Not sure if that'll make any sense to you.

Well it tells me you think the whole yin and yang, harmony, tao thing is helpful.

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

That's incredibly kind of you to say so.

I sincerely apologize for any undue distress I caused you, [MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION], [MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION], or anyone else who may have unnecessarily believed that I was taking sides in the matter. If I had been more perceptive in the first place, I would have known to be clearer and to avoid any misunderstandings to begin with.

I will try harder, especially for you and to avoid any future embarrassment, to state my intentions more clearly.

 

[invisible]

@sprinkles

That's incredibly kind of you to say so.

I sincerely apologize for any undue distress I caused you, @La Sagna , @invisible , or anyone else who may have unnecessarily believed that I was taking sides in the matter. If I had been more perceptive in the first place, I would have known to be clearer and to avoid any misunderstandings to begin with.

I will try harder, especially for you and to avoid any future embarrassment, to state my intentions more clearly.

i dont find your apology to be truly necessary. i do get caught up in my emotions as you said. i think this is the good feature of an internet forum. i was taught recently in my study that online (or other similar) communities become more stubborn in response to alternative perspectives and i think thats sometimes true but not necessarily. we can sometimes discuss things angrily towards each other and gain insights according to our own directions without "real" consequences.

 

[Nixie]

Let the hugs commence eh?

Now this thread needs either a unicorn or a rainbow and it will be perfect.

 

[invisible]

has anyone got any spare money i can have?

 

[La Sagna]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

That's incredibly kind of you to say so.

I sincerely apologize for any undue distress I caused you, [MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION], [MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION], or anyone else who may have unnecessarily believed that I was taking sides in the matter. If I had been more perceptive in the first place, I would have known to be clearer and to avoid any misunderstandings to begin with.

I will try harder, especially for you and to avoid any future embarrassment, to state my intentions more clearly.

I do not feel that there is any need for an apology at all either. I do however personally believe that the situation described in the letter is not so much in grey territory.

The reason I posted this letter wasn't so much that I was upset at the letter writer, which I explained in what of my posts I will excuse because of the situation she is in which may cause her to be very self-absorbed, but more the number of people who posted comments online stating how they should not be subjected to any disruptions when they are in public places, particularly ones from children. So many people were saying that this woman should keep her child at home so as not to disturb them. This really upset me. Apparently these people are so important that their 'rights' to eat quietly in public trumps the right of a child and particularly a child with a disability from ever leaving their home in case they might cause a disruption, and also keep the parent of the child locked up at home if they don't have anybody to look after him. The main reason that such a child would be considered a 'burden' would be if these children and their caregivers were not allowed to go out in public and interact with others and with life in general. If people accept that children and people with disabilities have just as much right to be out in public places then they are as free as everybody else but if they are made to feel like they don’t belong out in the world then they become prisoners of other people’s judgment and opinions and that’s not fair.

I felt so bad for the mother described in the letter when she pleaded for some understanding but apparently didn’t get much. Shouldn’t people understand that this mother was in the worst situation of all. She is the one trying to stop the disruption and probably totally embarrassed by it and no doubt trying her best to stop it. I’m pretty sure she more than anybody else would like to have had a quiet dinner out.

I have been in the exact situation as the letter writer, sitting in the hospital cafeteria having dinner with my family as my mother was dying. We were so numb and sad that I can’t believe we could have been bothered by the things going on around us. To go to the point of writing a letter about it seems to me way over the top. I remember my whole family standing outside the hospital after my mother had died and having somebody ask us for some sort of favour, I can’t remember what exactly, but I remember thinking that this person probably did not realize that we had just lost our mother and wife and that we were in terrible pain. We were not curt or impolite to the person at all even though they were interrupting our grief with something that seemed quite insignificant to us at the time. We smiled and we helped the person out. I’d like to think that is what good people do even when they are in deep mourning. I realize that not everybody can be like that but certainly if you have enough presence of mind to complain in a letter you would have enough to act decently towards somebody who was in a difficult situation.

 

[Nixie]

I don't understand why you would put yourself into such a lose/lose kinda situation. Not only over empathizing with the person dealing with grief and the mother with the autistic child and then being outraged at comments which indicate people want parents/people to stay home rather than be subjected to messy/awkward scenes with emotional overtones.

I would say that nobody is ever 100% comfortable with awkward social moments. That there is going to be discomfort when someone, even small children or the disabled, is acting out (yelling, running, screaming, crying) in public places. The same way there will be social discomfort when a couple is going at it hot and heavy and groping each other in public. The same way there will be social discomfort when two people argue and start to say hateful things to each other. There is an inherent belief that such scenes should be done outside of the public arena. That is just a social norm within the US.

I don't think it does any good to think that somehow everyone will always have cheerful and compassionate thoughts about anything. While people posting are expressing their inner feelings about these type of situations, I would venture to guess that in a real life situation, they would not move to censure or criticize someone who is experiencing a messy (non-violent) emotionally charged situation, even if they think it is inappropriate and bothersome.

I don't think it is ever healthy to ignore your feelings or suppress your emotions with some contrived bullshit about how your thoughts are not compassionate enough. Thought and feelings are contained within the realm of the mind and most people are socialized enough to not broadcast needlessly negative ones to complete strangers having a personal emotionally charged situation, even if they are feeling them.

At the same time though, in certain environments people are willing to give a voice to these negative thoughts even though they wouldn't necessarily choose to act on them. Hence, people being more honest in an online forum or comment section about how annoying disruptive people, regardless of their age or physical limitations, can be when they "act out" in public, communal places. Personally I see it as frustration and venting because again, most people are aware that emotionally charged situations are often times unplanned and somewhat unavoidable and part of the human condition.

 

[muir]

I think people who waste energy worrying about autistic children making noise in public need to get a grip on reality

There are a million things going on in the world at the moment worth peoples attention

A noisy autistic kid did not destroy the economy or create the shitty culture that embittered those bothered by noisy autistic kids

There is enough social energy out there to change society if only it was directed in the right direction

Autistic kids are not the enemy

If people want to get pissed off with something why don't they get pissed off with the source cause of all the shittiness?

Which, if folk haven't worked it out yet, is not autistic kids

 

[Matt3737]

I do not feel that there is any need for an apology at all either. I do however personally believe that the situation described in the letter is not so much in grey territory.

The reason I posted this letter wasn't so much that I was upset at the letter writer, which I explained in what of my posts I will excuse because of the situation she is in which may cause her to be very self-absorbed, but more the number of people who posted comments online stating how they should not be subjected to any disruptions when they are in public places, particularly ones from children. So many people were saying that this woman should keep her child at home so as not to disturb them. This really upset me. Apparently these people are so important that their 'rights' to eat quietly in public trumps the right of a child and particularly a child with a disability from ever leaving their home in case they might cause a disruption, and also keep the parent of the child locked up at home if they don't have anybody to look after him. The main reason that such a child would be considered a 'burden' would be if these children and their caregivers were not allowed to go out in public and interact with others and with life in general. If people accept that children and people with disabilities have just as much right to be out in public places then they are as free as everybody else but if they are made to feel like they don’t belong out in the world then they become prisoners of other people’s judgment and opinions and that’s not fair.

I felt so bad for the mother described in the letter when she pleaded for some understanding but apparently didn’t get much. Shouldn’t people understand that this mother was in the worst situation of all. She is the one trying to stop the disruption and probably totally embarrassed by it and no doubt trying her best to stop it. I’m pretty sure she more than anybody else would like to have had a quiet dinner out.

I have been in the exact situation as the letter writer, sitting in the hospital cafeteria having dinner with my family as my mother was dying. We were so numb and sad that I can’t believe we could have been bothered by the things going on around us. To go to the point of writing a letter about it seems to me way over the top. I remember my whole family standing outside the hospital after my mother had died and having somebody ask us for some sort of favour, I can’t remember what exactly, but I remember thinking that this person probably did not realize that we had just lost our mother and wife and that we were in terrible pain. We were not curt or impolite to the person at all even though they were interrupting our grief with something that seemed quite insignificant to us at the time. We smiled and we helped the person out. I’d like to think that is what good people do even when they are in deep mourning. I realize that not everybody can be like that but certainly if you have enough presence of mind to complain in a letter you would have enough to act decently towards somebody who was in a difficult situation.

Let me start off saying that it is fine to sympathize with one side and not the other. That comes from your own personal experiences and is perfectly valid. The misunderstanding comes from judging the situation based on your experience rather than theirs.

Let's assume that it is a clear case of them being in the wrong. What can we say is the reason for their behavior then? That they weren't deeply in mourning, at least not seriously enough to be any different than any other day, but used that as an excuse to yell at a mother and her autistic child for fun or maybe they were angry but lied about being in mourning in the first place? Then why write the letter at all? What is there to gain? Start a public movement to ban all children from any and all public places or maybe just their restaurant? None of that really seems a productive use of their time. There seems to be a disconnect between the display of anger and a reasonable motivation to being angry that we need to address.

Try imagining how you see the other side being at fault and what motivated them to do so rather than why you sympathize with the mother and her child and seem unable to sympathize with the family in mourning. Your experience of bereavement may not have been the same experience that they had. Anger, depression, denial, and mood swings could any or all be at play here:

Grief is a multifaceted response to loss, particularly to the loss of someone or something to which a bond was formed. Although conventionally focused on the emotional response to loss, it also has physical, cognitive, behavioral, social, spiritual, and philosophical dimensions. While the terms are often used interchangeably, bereavement refers to the state of loss, and grief is the reaction to loss.

Grief is a natural response to loss. It is the emotional suffering one feels when something or someone the individual loves is taken away. Grief is also a reaction to any loss. The grief associated with death is familiar to most people, but individuals grieve in connection with a variety of losses throughout their lives, such as unemployment, ill health or the end of a relationship. Loss can be categorized as either physical or abstract, the physical loss being related to something that the individual can touch or measure, such as losing a spouse through death, while other types of loss are abstract, and relate to aspects of a person’s social interactions.

......

An adult may be expected to cope with the death of a parent in a less emotional way; however, the loss can still invoke extremely powerful emotions. This is especially true when the death occurs at an important or difficult period of life, such as when becoming a parent, at graduation, or at other times of emotional stress. It is important to recognize the effects that the loss of a parent can cause, and to address these effects. For an adult, the willingness to be open to grief is often diminished. A failure to accept and deal with loss will only result in further pain and suffering.

wikipedia on grief

Remember though, we are not in possession of all the facts, so we are relying on just reasonable guesses here. It may be the fact that she is omitting, distorting, or flat out lying about what occurred, so we are left just guessing.

There are some other issues at play here. One is that you refer to the responses in the column that bother you, but those are separate issues that may or may not be related to the given instance. It's important to separate those responses from the initial issue because they have no bearing on it. They are after the fact and any discussion about consequences are contingent on the ability to determine fault.

Did you wish to assume potential guilt for the family in mourning and discuss consequences or reactions that we would imagine? There is nothing wrong with performing hypothetical situations, but you might have to clarify the story in a way that better suits the ability to come to clear conclusions for some people to participate.

 

[La Sagna]

Let me start off saying that it is fine to sympathize with one side and not the other. That comes from your own personal experiences and is perfectly valid. The misunderstanding comes from judging the situation based on your experience rather than theirs.

Let's assume that it is a clear case of them being in the wrong. What can we say is the reason for their behavior then? That they weren't deeply in mourning, at least not seriously enough to be any different than any other day, but used that as an excuse to yell at a mother and her autistic child for fun or maybe they were angry but lied about being in mourning in the first place? Then why write the letter at all? What is there to gain? Start a public movement to ban all children from any and all public places or maybe just their restaurant? None of that really seems a productive use of their time. There seems to be a disconnect between the display of anger and a reasonable motivation to being angry that we need to address.

Try imagining how you see the other side being at fault and what motivated them to do so rather than why you sympathize with the mother and her child and seem unable to sympathize with the family in mourning. Your experience of bereavement may not have been the same experience that they had. Anger, depression, denial, and mood swings could any or all be at play here:



Remember though, we are not in possession of all the facts, so we are relying on just reasonable guesses here. It may be the fact that she is omitting, distorting, or flat out lying about what occurred, so we are left just guessing.

There are some other issues at play here. One is that you refer to the responses in the column that bother you, but those are separate issues that may or may not be related to the given instance. It's important to separate those responses from the initial issue because they have no bearing on it. They are after the fact and any discussion about consequences are contingent on the ability to determine fault.

Did you wish to assume potential guilt for the family in mourning and discuss consequences or reactions that we would imagine? There is nothing wrong with performing hypothetical situations, but you might have to clarify the story in a way that better suits the ability to come to clear conclusions for some people to participate.

Thanks for the lesson on grief. Believe me I didn't need it. I understand it very well.

You seem to read things that aren't written in the post. I did not question at all that the writer was in mourning or anything of the sort and even excused her for being self-centered in that moment. What I feel strongly about is that because she is in mourning doesn't give her the right to tell a mother with an autistic child that she shouldn't be allowed to be out in a public restaurant in case her child might act up.

If you read my post you can see that my personal experience is more similar to that of the writer. I have sat in a restaurant while my mother was dying so I know how that feels. I have never experienced what the mother with the autistic child was experiencing. What I didn't do while I was in mourning is decide that my rights as 'a mourner' was more important than other people's rights. How was the mother of the autistic child supposed to know there were people in mourning at his particular restaurant? At the same time the letter writer had no way of knowing what was going on in the life of the mother. Perhaps she was in mourning as well or she was in other difficult circumstances that the writer wouldn't know about. That's always a possibility. Perhaps the mother was nowhere near home so had to go to a restaurant to feed herself and her son. The main thing that I objected to in the letter itself was this line: If a mother knows her kid might act out, does she have the right to bring him to a public place, where his actions might disrupt others? Perhaps the child doesn't always act up. Perhaps the mother had no choice but to bring her son to a public place because she had nobody to take care of him. The writer doesn't know this lady's story and her attitude is very condescending. Of course the mother has a right to take her son to a public place just like you have a right to go to a public when you are in mourning. That's why it's called a public place and not a private place.

I really believe that the letter writer's attitude has nothing to do with her grieving because grieving doesn't cause everybody to start telling others what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do. For me, my experience going through the difficult times surrounding my mother's death helped me become a much kinder person because you never know what people are going through personally when you deal with them in public. I feel for the mother with the autistic child not because I had the same experience but because I can imagine that it must be a difficult experience to have to deal with and having people tell them to keep quiet probably didn't help things at all. I feel for the grieving family, particularly because I've been there, but that doesn't excuse their negative attitude.

As for the many who posted negative comments they were pretty much saying that kids who may act out in public should be kept at home at all times so that is definitely a completely unreasonable position to take. In my opinion if you can't handle hearing a kid act out then you stay home to have your 'quiet' dinner.

 

[Tin Man]

children are not little robots who can be programmed to behave in normal ways.

Not yet, soon though.

 

[Matt3737]

Thanks for the lesson on grief. Believe me I didn't need it. I understand it very well.

You seem to read things that aren't written in the post. I did not question at all that the writer was in mourning or anything of the sort and even excused her for being self-centered in that moment. What I feel strongly about is that because she is in mourning doesn't give her the right to tell a mother with an autistic child that she shouldn't be allowed to be out in a public restaurant in case her child might act up.

If you read my post you can see that my personal experience is more similar to that of the writer. I have sat in a restaurant while my mother was dying so I know how that feels. I have never experienced what the mother with the autistic child was experiencing. What I didn't do while I was in mourning is decide that my rights as 'a mourner' was more important than other people's rights. How was the mother of the autistic child supposed to know there were people in mourning at his particular restaurant? At the same time the letter writer had no way of knowing what was going on in the life of the mother. Perhaps she was in mourning as well or she was in other difficult circumstances that the writer wouldn't know about. That's always a possibility. Perhaps the mother was nowhere near home so had to go to a restaurant to feed herself and her son. The main thing that I objected to in the letter itself was this line: If a mother knows her kid might act out, does she have the right to bring him to a public place, where his actions might disrupt others? Perhaps the child doesn't always act up. Perhaps the mother had no choice but to bring her son to a public place because she had nobody to take care of him. The writer doesn't know this lady's story and her attitude is very condescending. Of course the mother has a right to take her son to a public place just like you have a right to go to a public when you are in mourning. That's why it's called a public place and not a private place.

I really believe that the letter writer's attitude has nothing to do with her grieving because grieving doesn't cause everybody to start telling others what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do. For me, my experience going through the difficult times surrounding my mother's death helped me become a much kinder person because you never know what people are going through personally when you deal with them in public. I feel for the mother with the autistic child not because I had the same experience but because I can imagine that it must be a difficult experience to have to deal with and having people tell them to keep quiet probably didn't help things at all. I feel for the grieving family, particularly because I've been there, but that doesn't excuse their negative attitude.

As for the many who posted negative comments they were pretty much saying that kids who may act out in public should be kept at home at all times so that is definitely a completely unreasonable position to take. In my opinion if you can't handle hearing a kid act out then you stay home to have your 'quiet' dinner.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps! Perhaps you just want to be angry and upset. Perhaps you don't actually care for a rational answer or others' opinions. Perhaps muir is right and this is all a distraction to keep us from the bigger issues. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Perhaps can lead to whatever you want it to lead to, so perhaps you want to be upset and perhaps that is all there is to discuss.

 

[La Sagna]

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps! Perhaps you just want to be angry and upset. Perhaps you don't actually care for a rational answer or others' opinions. Perhaps muir is right and this is all a distraction to keep us from the bigger issues. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Perhaps can lead to whatever you want it to lead to, so perhaps you want to be upset and perhaps that is all there is to discuss.

I think you're reading things that aren't there. Did I say I was upset? I'm just trying to explain why I believe it is inappropriate to ask if people with autistic children should be allowed to bring them to public places. I feel very strongly about this. You are completely entitled to your opinion and to state it so I don't know why you think I shouldn't share my opinion. I started this thread so I was expecting to interact and have a discussion with people and perhaps disagree. That's ok. In my personal opinion your reaction is odd. Explaining why I think we shouldn't come to a quick conclusion that we have more rights than others based on only knowing our own side of the story makes sense to me. I'm just trying to get my point across and my point is certainly as valid as yours so it is not very nice of you to dismiss it as irrational. I don't see your posts as being any more rational by the way. Just because you think they are more rational doesn't make them so.

 

[Matt3737]

I think you're reading things that aren't there. Did I say I was upset? I'm just trying to explain why I believe it is inappropriate to ask if people with autistic children should be allowed to bring them to public places. I feel very strongly about this. You are completely entitled to your opinion and to state it so I don't know why you think I shouldn't share my opinion. I started this thread so I was expecting to interact and have a discussion with people and perhaps disagree. That's ok. In my personal opinion your reaction is odd. Explaining why I think we shouldn't come to a quick conclusion that we have more rights than others based on only knowing our own side of the story makes sense to me. I'm just trying to get my point across and my point is certainly as valid as yours so it is not very nice of you to dismiss it as irrational. I don't see your posts as being any more rational by the way. Just because you think they are more rational doesn't make them so.

I am saying that I believe the woman wrote the letter and asked the question as a grief coping mechanism due to a confusion of emotions while in mourning. Her reaction was irrational. Nothing more than that.

 

[La Sagna]

I am saying that I believe the woman wrote the letter and asked the question as a grief coping mechanism due to a confusion of emotions while in mourning. Her reaction was irrational. Nothing more than that.

You may be right about this, although that may not be the healthiest way to deal with grief.

 

[Matt3737]

You may be right about this, although that may not be the healthiest way to deal with grief.

I think both parties just had an unfortunate run in with each other under poor circumstances and it led to a misunderstanding. I feel pretty sure that both have had time to recover from it and move on with their lives.

I hope it didn't overly stress you.

 

[La Sagna]

I think both parties just had an unfortunate run in with each other under poor circumstances and it led to a misunderstanding. I feel pretty sure that both have had time to recover from it and move on with their lives.

I hope it didn't overly stress you.

No worries. I'm fine . I just have a strong urge to defend the marginalized people of this world.