Once again, here I go.

What I thought was a done situation is apparently not. I got a nice accusation of “character defamation” today.

So once again, I’m on the Roommate Situation. Call it ass-covering, call it punking out, call it simple clarification, but those who read and made conclusions and have thoughts on the matter would do well to listen up, hopefully just this once more.

This includes members of Rose-Hulman’s administration, who will undoubtedly receive this post if they aren’t checking my blog themselves. I may even send it along myself.

The orders of business for the evening are 1) clarifying some things that were unclear in the conclusion of the story and 2) clarifying both my current [vs. past] understanding of the situation.

Pull up a chair and some dinner.

First, there are no grudges among the involved parties. I don’t include Tookie in this, because no one knows anything about his stance in this. Things have been resolved between me and the former suitemate completely. Following this post, things should most likely be resolved completely with the former roommate. That leaves the administration, which apparently wants to take a big chunk out of my ass for various reasons. C’est la vie.

This “no grudges” thing is important, though. I’ve posted before about my present-living concept–I don’t hold grudges anymore. They are a waste of my energy and my strength and reflect a tendency to linger. “My disagreements with various people are not cause for flinging bitter vitriols or eye-rolling for months. Learn, disagree, and move on.”

Others are [apparently] handling this situation differently. I can’t change that, and that should be recognized by all parties. All I can do, once again, is present my viewpoint, my perspective on the matter, and hope that people continue to listen as much as they did the first time around.

I cannot change what I thought about the situation when I posted my previous posts. What I wrote is what I thought–I thought there was a threat to my and Mae’s persons. I mentioned this. I mentioned wanting to carry a knife on my early morning runs. Absolutely; that bike path is dark and lonely and there would be no one to hear me scream for help.

Do I now feel threatened? Nah. Not from the women involved, and not actively from Tookie. I’m back in my own bed, safe and sound and an easy target for pranksters that wish to have some fun on a Friday or Saturday night.

I mentioned my frustration with the administration. I was frustrated with the administration; while the initial response was nice and quick, things seemed to quickly stagnate. The vandalism was discovered Sunday morning. Nothing was heard from by the administration until Wednesday, each night of which I spent not in my bed, jumping at shadows. I certainly understand the situation is/was sticky and that there are other things on everyone’s plate, but things escalated rapidly, and the people we counted on to help us feel safe weren’t there. Maybe my trust was misplaced in the first place; maybe my expectations were too high.

I think I’ve lost a lot of my faith in the administration. This is fine; you live, you learn, and again, the matter is done. No grudges.

I mentioned that, “If Tookie is involved, there is no telling what other entities (who I had previously thought friendly) are harboring resentment and may act on it.” Hell, yes, if there’s suddenly a third party involved, it’s going to bring into question how many other third parties are involved. We didn’t see Tookie coming, who else might be, too? Apparently, this was confusing.

One thing I will say was hypocritical of me was the statement that, “If that hobby should include […] further insulting posts […], let it be known that I advise the lot of you to find a nearby knob on which to slob.” It’s certainly not my place to dictate what anyone chooses to write on their blog. I may choose to make reference to it, of course, but I would never attempt to mandate what someone can and cannot post on their blog, no matter how offensive some may find it.

If I write for me, far be it for me to complain when others do the same.

So, some basic corrections: as I mentioned previously, the former room-people were not involved in the vandalism.

There was no scheme to remove Mae from the room; apparently, and I hedge here because I am relating what I was told rather than out of a desire to foster suspicion, the fact that Mae was upset, as well as the entire move-out process, was a surprise to the room-people. (That’s a lot of comma splicing, but I’ve got an entire night of writing and editing ahead of me so I’m saving strength.)

I’m still not condoning comment-attacks. Do remember to wipe your feet when entering someone’s home.

While I’m at it, I’m not condoning personal [as in, on one’s person] attacks, either. I mentioned twice that I avoided “paying the woman a visit” or committing “irrational acts”. I saw the former roommate that night. We exchanged words. It would have been irrational of me to say anything to worsen the situation or to cause things to come to a head before our RA returned to be of assistance in handling the matter.

There is one point that I’m going to mention and bow out of. There is some contention as to how much mention was made of the problems occurring in the room before the RA was brought in. I am in a position where I understand both possible viewpoints: too little mention of a problem, and there’s a lack of communication and things bombshell. Too much assumption about an implicit agreement, and there’s built-up expections.

Hmm… Have I left anything out? The room-people are not “monsters” (not my word), they didn’t scheme against Mae, there are no grudges, I’m going to be slaughtered by the administration, I tell it as I see it, I’m a hypocrite, there was a mismatch of expectations, and I am damned tired.

I think that covers it. I have pages of a newspaper to produce and homework/research to do.

Update: I forgot that my mention of dropping “a few dollars in someone’s medical fund to help the situation stabilize” was plain and simple bitchiness, and wrong at that. Not hypocritical, particularly, but wrong, immature, and spiteful nonetheless.