Post by Zemail@example.com
Michael Pendragon wrote on Wed, 01 January 2020 20:55
Post by Michael Pendragon Post by Zfirstname.lastname@example.org
Edward Rochester Esq. wrote on Wed, 01 January 2020 20:27
Post by Zemail@example.com
So I bought myself and friends dinner, tipped the waitress and still had money for smokes...... no booze....
Doc then paid the $$$ back to you so in effect it was Doc that paid for the dinner and smokes in the end up...... and he and Dave have done many times before and since......
Time to let it pass I daresay, as was agreed upon.......?
Agreed the matter is settled.....?
When he hit Dave
That is not your business.....
I made my apology the next morning and Dave accepted.... we are friends to this day.....
Here you are, Pendragon, trying to stir up anther flame war...... the matter is settled on agreement of Rochester and Doc......
Will is the one who'd originally informed the group about the incident. How do you think we all came to know about it?
I don't believe your story that it was just over some cigarettes -- although that may have been the incident that triggered the reveal.
I don't believe it for the following reasons:
1) A few cigarettes is not enough cause for anyone (drunk or sober) to attempt to murder a friend of 40 years by repeatedly bashing him in the head with a metal pipe.
2) Discovering that the $50 your "friends" just shared a steak dinner on had been sent to tide over your landlord until your VA benefits arrived might well inspire such an attack -- and justifiably so. Granted you went after the wrong Dockery, but they look alike, and it was dark and you were drunk and mistakes happen.
3) Will's email message telling you that Jim's money was on the way and *inviting you* to steak dinner conflicts with your story that the dinner was your suggestion.
4) Will's email does not mention that the money was intended to be yours. Nor, in typical Dockery fashion, does it imply that it was not. In his arguments here, Will often leaves out such pertinent information until he's called on it. In this way, Will doesn't lie so much as not tell "the whole truth."
Based on the above, I believe that you and Dave quarreled over a cigarette (or several cigarettes). I also believe that in the course of the argument, Brother Dave (who is not the sharpest tool in the shed) let it slip that the steak dinner had come out of money intended to pay off part of your rent. Realizing that much of your "artistry" (guffaws) might be lost as a result, you went into a state of white hot rage and starting beating on him with the blunt instrument nearest at hand.
I also believe that Will later convinced you that you *owed* him and Dave the dinner in return for all the meals and smokes they'd treated you to in the past.
So... either you're a drunken psychopath prone to murderous bouts of violence, who should be taken off the streets immediately; or Will (who suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder) decided that he deserved a cut of Jim's money and acted accordingly.
The latter option makes the most sense, because Will would sincerely believe that you owed him something in exchange for the dinners he'd bought in the past; and that the money only came into your collective hands because he had a) solicited for it online, and b) had provided the P.O. Box for it to be sent to. I've not the slightest doubt that he honestly felt he was *entitled* to a share.
Will has also rationalized his having dined on the money by claiming that it was a preferable alternative to giving it to you to spend on booze, drugs and whores. I'm sure that he convinced himself that by ensuring you got a steak in your belly he was doing you a good turn by dining off the donation as well.
Furthermore, you don't appear to have been involved in any violent incidents since, so the drunken psychopath scenario option seems less likely.
That's my understanding of the events (based on Will's posts relating them and on your relatively few attempts to corroborate Will's account). If you want to bring the matter to a close, you'll need to either admit that my conclusions are correct, or *successfully* refute each of the points raised in my above argument.