impure_tale

I would like to clarify a certain issue. There have been debates as to how Edward Sexby would be dealt with after he attacked me in my cabin. At the time I insisted that I would not have the Wardens vote on this for two reasons. The first, which most assume already, is that I would like to decide that myself. The second, and most important, is that I was not about to demand that a system work for me that I spat upon not two hours before I was injured.

I still will not. Sexby has since sent messengers like the craven dog he behaves as to express that he felt it unfair that the decision should be left to me. When two people of the same stature have a disagreement, why should one take authority over the other? I would see more sense in this were the querant not doing so after already deciding that I was guilty and how I was meant to be punished.

No, it's not fair. If we were talking about fairness I would have your last remaining hand, and fuck anyone that dares suggest I wouldn't have the right.

That he would have the audacity to send people and not face me and speak with me as one man professing equality would to another is enough to shake away the layers of medicine and drug. I am angry and my body complains with me.

I have not made my decision. This whining will not induce me to consider more quickly. It is my answer and I shall render it when I wish to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You are demanding for justice to be put into your own hands, instead of that of a collective authority, which sets precedent for retribution. Whether you enact it or not matters little - it is the principle. It is the principle that someone else may demand the same, and have it granted, and commit grave wrongs, legitimately.

Don't speak to me of principles. I care not for yours. I would just sooner see my opinion at least be considered before uninvolved parties pretend to rule over me yet again.

And, sir, from what I could see, your opinion would be considered by the general system suggested - from what I saw written, you have opportunity to make a statement and express both your wishes and your greivences.

I intend not to protest for your opinion to be ignored. I intend to protest for the very heavily influenced opinion of my victim to be tempered by some impartial mediation, if naught else.

I haven't the patience to impose any punishment on you that would require me to be within spitting distance of you. If other hands must carry it out it is with regret the least I can suffer.

I do not wish for others to carry out your punishment. I wish for a punishment to be reached through an impartial manner.

I consider this my right as much the next warden, and I will demand it. I would not refuse it from any other.

We are finished discussing this, Monsieur Sexby.

You were the one who did protest I came not to you to discuss it.

In the spirit of... all, I offer you a compromise. I will accept you offering the wardens an alternative punishment for myself - one which you have chosen, in addition to the others available to them. It is then down to them, and their authority, to choose which to enforce, but your opinion has clearly been heard and marked, and given an equal chance against other punishments. But it is still reached impartially.

Is that an acceptable compromise? If you still wish not to discuss it, I shall put the suggestion to a neutral party. Mr Narvin, perhaps.

I do not want offers from you.

I am trying to resolve the situation. Not further antagonise it.

And you wish for me to hear you when you would not afford me the same?

Leave it to someone else.

I listened to all of your points today with consideration.

I shall suggest it to Narvin as a compromise of position.

171

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject