Do you think I would be here if I had not read it? That I would be here on some imagined slight?
[Fortunately, perhaps, he chooses to not address the question about their respective levels of sanity. Frustrated and angry though he may be, he can still - on some level - recognize what frustration looks like in someone else.]
But by all means, let us use the conversation you have so kindly offered.
[He doesn't reach for Tony's phone, though. There's no need for him to - while he may not have anything like an eidetic memory (and just as well, perhaps - his memory is good enough to still recall the details of what he has just recently read even through the anger coursing in his veins.]
You claim she has placed a certain amount of blame and anger on another individual. You further imply that it is an undue amount. She explains - in some detail - her actions and reasoning.
[A flicker of a pause, and when he speaks again, it's clear he's quoting back fragments of the conversation in question. Not perfectly perhaps, but near enough.]
"I stopped being so open with her."
"She constantly oversteps boundaries."
"She shared the things I told her but not what prompted me to say them."
"I do not blame her."
"I wish her no ill will."
[Another brief pause, as he returns to speaking in his own voice.]
And yet you would have the gall to claim that she is channeling her anger at that individual? That she is vilifying them, even after she has offered clarification otherwise? Have you forgotten how much she cares to preserve what boundaries she can? Or had you simply not considered that hers might be worthy?
no subject
[Fortunately, perhaps, he chooses to not address the question about their respective levels of sanity. Frustrated and angry though he may be, he can still - on some level - recognize what frustration looks like in someone else.]
But by all means, let us use the conversation you have so kindly offered.
[He doesn't reach for Tony's phone, though. There's no need for him to - while he may not have anything like an eidetic memory (and just as well, perhaps - his memory is good enough to still recall the details of what he has just recently read even through the anger coursing in his veins.]
You claim she has placed a certain amount of blame and anger on another individual. You further imply that it is an undue amount. She explains - in some detail - her actions and reasoning.
[A flicker of a pause, and when he speaks again, it's clear he's quoting back fragments of the conversation in question. Not perfectly perhaps, but near enough.]
"I stopped being so open with her."
"She constantly oversteps boundaries."
"She shared the things I told her but not what prompted me to say them."
"I do not blame her."
"I wish her no ill will."
[Another brief pause, as he returns to speaking in his own voice.]
And yet you would have the gall to claim that she is channeling her anger at that individual? That she is vilifying them, even after she has offered clarification otherwise? Have you forgotten how much she cares to preserve what boundaries she can? Or had you simply not considered that hers might be worthy?