As the story was told, a man we know was confronted by another customer in a store for bringing his dog in with him. The man we know assured the other fellow that the store policy allowed dogs. Adamant, the other fellow insisted that the dog be removed. The guy we know said no.
The guy we don't know complained to the manager, who explained the dogs-ARE-allowed-policy. In my mind, as someone who wasn't there, that should have been all there was to tell.
But as the story was related by people who also weren't there, the guy we know went over to where the manager was talking to the no-dog-guy, and a REAL confrontation began, resulting in the other guy intimidated, and the guy we know being celebrated as a defender of things that matter, like wives, and dogs, and intimidation.
The story bothered me more than it should've, and when I told the only person I can tell that it bothered me, it bothered her more that it bothered me than the actual story bothered her, because she knows the guy we know as part of a group of people she thinks I don't know well enough to criticize. She is right. But the story would bother me even if we didn't know the guy she knows better. And so, rather than read the stuff about the people she knows in order to know them better, I'm better off not knowing, because she never hears me when I think they are wonderful, but only when I'm bothered. So, I'm letting it go to avoid more conflict whether or not I'm right, because from what I hear from mature adults, that's the right choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment