My January 20, 2003 post, which could be referred to, I suppose, as The Pillow Fight – because it was not only as harmless and fun as a pillow fight, but also because it was a fight about pillows – has spurred more conversation.

In this continuing conversation, My Boy made it apparent to me that I needed to amend the story for what he believed to be a number of inaccuracies (and also because he felt, apparently, that these inaccuracies somewhat defamed him).

Because I am nothing if not fair (and, to a greater degree, because, the inaccuracies to which he refers are irrelevant – no, that’s not the right word. What I mean to say is, they aren’t pivotal to the telling of the story) and in spite of the fact that nothing keeps him from writing his own web log, and ultimately because whether or not I see much difference doesn't really matter, I, in deference for My Boy, have congenially agreed to make the suggested amendments.

Of course, to avoid any further confusion, and to ensure the impossibility of any further error on my part, I will present to you, my fellow anarchestrators, first a transcript of the continuing conversation between My Boy and Me in which he addressed these concerns and proposed the subsequent amendments, followed by a strategic course of action in which I detail exactly how I address his concerns, and the method for which these amendments have been made.

MyBoy (5:25:21 PM): is "blog" short for "my own twisted view of reality?"

SfMatMan (5:25:36 PM): Ummm why?
SfMatMan (5:25:58 PM): I suppose so!

MyBoy (5:26:24 PM): i just read your six sentence description of the bedtime conversation
MyBoy (5:26:49 PM): what you failed to mention is, as it was dark, you were piling your pillow re-arrangement on top of me.
MyBoy (5:27:04 PM): sparking the conversation in the first place

SfMatMan (5:27:19 PM): Was that a factor?
SfMatMan (5:28:11 PM): I thought I was just rearranging the pillows, and you were asking what I was doing... because I was wiggling a lot.
SfMatMan (5:28:25 PM): :-)

MyBoy (5:30:59 PM): i was commenting on the weight of pillows, not the wiggling
MyBoy (5:32:04 PM): and there is no way for me to defend myself, just to start my own blog

SfMatMan (5:33:03 PM): There is a need to defend yourself?

MyBoy (5:33:31 PM): against the scrunchy face and red words?
MyBoy (5:33:32 PM): maybe
MyBoy (5:33:49 PM): my face was scrunchy because it was mushed against a pillow

SfMatMan (5:33:54 PM): I could post an amendment, stating that it was not my wiggling whilst rearranging the pillows, but the piling of them on top of you whilst rearranging the pillows that spurred you to ask what I was doing.

MyBoy (5:34:01 PM): and my words were red because I was drunk on wine

SfMatMan (5:34:22 PM): Oh that's right, we were drunk.
SfMatMan (5:34:32 PM): I forgot to mention that part too.

MyBoy (5:35:43 PM): please change this line's beginning "So I was moving the pillows around, in order to pull the body pillow out from the bottom of the stack"
MyBoy (5:36:06 PM): to "So I was piling pillows on top of the boy , in order to pull
MyBoy (5:36:21 PM): it really changes the frame of reference
MyBoy (5:36:31 PM): but makes it less funny I guess

SfMatMan (5:36:47 PM): I'm not sure it is any less funny.

MyBoy (5:37:51 PM): you're right, down in the explaination about the arrangement, it would actually be MORE funny
MyBoy (5:38:00 PM): arrangement of pillows
MyBoy (5:40:03 PM): although, "I wasn't complaining either!" isn't entirely accurate. I was protesting being buried in pillows, which technically isn't complaining
MyBoy (5:40:19 PM): but with some wine, sometimes comes out as complaining

SfMatMan (5:40:31 PM): So you WERE complaining - even though you said you weren't?

Action Strategy:

The course of action need not be complex, and in fact, it isn’t. Quite simply, my strategy to amend this situation is:

1. Identify the points of contention
2. Make amends (accomplished by changing the text of the log entry, and doing so as suggested when suggestions were offered)

We (you, beloved reader, and I, your humble servant) have the same data to work with – the transcript of the conversation above. So you may follow along with me, and judge for yourself if I have succeeded in my charge.

I can identify no less than 3 (three) points of contention in the above transcript. They are as follows:

1. I failed to mention that I was piling the pillows on top of him.
2. His words were red because he was drunk on wine
3. “I wasn’t complaining either!” isn’t entirely accurate

So the procedure before me is simple. I must amend the log entry to:

1. Make it explicitly clear that I was not merely moving the pillows around, but had piled them on top of him
2. Make it resoundingly obvious that we (or, at the very least, he) had been drinking wine, and was drunk
and 3....

OK there is just one little speed-bump here. Point number 3. You see, “I wasn’t complaining either!” is a quote. They are exact words. He said them. For him to claim that “I wasn’t complaining either!” is not accurate is, well, not possible. If he is claiming that he has been misquoted, I would only point out that he has already admitted to being drunk, and that his memory of this statement can not possibly be reliable. He may, of course, be saying that his statement was not accurate – that he actually was complaining, but claimed vocally that he wasn’t. But that doesn’t change the fact that what he said was, word-for-word, “I wasn’t complaining either!” So, whether or not that was true, does not change the fact that it was said. And though I could add a point here that, in fact, he was complaining, and that this statement is, in fact, a lie, that would seem to potentially defeat the purpose of these amendments, which is, when you get right down to it, to appease him.

So, because no suggestions were offered, and because, in all honesty, the quote is entirely accurate, I have no choice but to leave this section of the log entry alone.

Methodology

Amendments, covering the two valid points above, have been made to the original log entry. These amendments appear in BLUE text. In cases where original material has been deleted and replaced with new material, the original text is struck-through and in GRAY and the replacement text in BLUE. (Note: the “STRIKE” HTML code is new, and as I understand it, therefore not universal. So, it is possible that the text will not appear to be struck-through to you, which is why I have also changed the text color of this deleted text to GRAY.)

So, that said, I have made the changes to the original web log entry. And I sincerely hope that helps clear things up. Upon re-reading it, I can say that, yes indeed, it did make all the difference.