9/22/2011

Rebuttal Post: Hands Across Hysteria

(Ted, given the name "George" in Hands Across Hysteria, has submitted his own version of events on that date. Ted says, "This is definitely about me. Callie got a few details wrong and I want to correct it.")


Rebuttal Story Sent in by Ted:

Callie and I sat down in the union together and things went fine. My ex, Tracey, did walk in, and it was my first time seeing her since our breakup. I was a bit shaken, although I didn't "sink down nearly beneath the table."

Callie definitely noticed that something was wrong and asked me about it. I told her, being honest, "That girl over there, Tracey Pelton, is my ex."

Callie glanced over at her and asked, "Do you think there's going to be a problem if she sees you with me?"

"No. She probably won't come over, even if she does see me."

She asked, "That kind of breakup?"

I said, "It was bad. She accused me of trying to run over her pet rabbit."

Then it was Callie's turn to turn rigid and give a stare. I was quick to reassure her, "I didn't. I helped Tracey move out of her sublet and I didn't realize that she had piled a few boxes and her rabbit's cage behind my car. Maybe it was stupid of me to not check before backing up, but she screamed and stopped me in time. I apologized to her about fifty times. It was an accident, but she screamed that I would have done it on purpose. Of course, I wouldn't have."

I doubt that Tracey cheated on me, although I really have no idea. Either way, that line was fiction on Callie's part. I never said it.

Callie seemed incensed. She asked, "You didn't even check behind the car to see if the rabbit was there?"

I replied, "I didn't know that Tracey had put anything back there. The car was packed to capacity and I was just trying to help–"

"You should've checked behind the car for the rabbit!"

I said, "I'm not going to check behind my car for rabbits every time I need to go someplace, and to be fair, it was irresponsible for Tracey to put anything right behind the car, out of view, to begin with."

Callie stood up and said, "Okay, I have to go."

I did reach across the table, but not to grab her, and I didn't lay a finger on her at all. She stomped away. No tipping table, no toppling drink, no spilled food, nothing. She just left.

I wrote her an email afterward in which I again explained the situation and asked for her understanding. I didn't insult her or blame her for anything, as that would have been nuts.

Not as nuts as making up a fictitious version of actual events, but still…


(See Callie's original post here.)

21 comments:

  1. YAY REBUTTAL STORY! Though, I was so much happier when I could be super judgy about people on the internet without interference. This version is so... normal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't fret. Some stories are in the pipeline that will turn you white.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This definitely sounds more believable than the original... unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah...no. Not only does the conversation from the first one make more sense, but your narrative syntax doesn't match your reported verbal one. Someone who types sentences like "Then it was Callie's turn to turn rigid and give a stare" wouldn't then go around saying things like "her car was packed to capacity" outloud. I vote story #1.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @JMG - You mean, like, I'll want to throw dinner parties after a long day of shopping at Bed, Bath and Beyond? I'm content to stay black, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rebuttal posts are the BEST. Anyway, even aside from the outright wackiness of the original story, I'm inclined to believe this one as it makes a whole lot more sense.

    1). Nobody would say "I may have run over her pet rabbit." if they didn't actually run it over. The "She accused me..." line is much more like something someone would actually say.

    2). Threatening to kill a pet during a breakup? Doubtful. People's goals in a breakup are either to keep the relationship or sever it, and threatening a pet doesn't further either goal. Yes, crazy shit sometimes happens in a breakup, but the near-accident explanation in the rebuttal is far more plausible.

    3). The real smoking gun, IMHO, is that the original version claims he was trying to avoid the gaze of the ex yet caused a scene with toppling drinks, etc. Not the actions of someone trying not to be seen... and frankly, sounds more like something that would happen in a cliche romantic comedy than in real life.

    So yeah, rebuttal all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My vote also goes for the rebuttal. It makes more sense, and even in the original, she sort of sounds like an overreacting/hysterical bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If I didn't know that there are some people out there crazy enough to threaten peoples' pets, I'd go with the rebuttal for sure. But I have faith in insanity, and I know that there are (nutjobs) people out there capable of resorting to that kind of low blow. Plus the flow of the rebuttal sounds odd to me, it feels forced.

    Verdict: I'm officially torn between the 2 versions.

    Looking forward to the Crest whitening post, Jared!

    ReplyDelete
  10. ^Me too. After spending more time than I'd like to admit keeping current with abcotd, I have come to believe that crazy isn't only possible, it's really real. On the one hand, the rebuttal might sound forced simply because of the writing. On the other, since crazy is really real, pet bunny assassination may have, indeed, occurred. Torn.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, I side with the rebuttal too - this OP just seems so much more rational and grounded. I guess if he really IS an insane bunny killer, he's at least smart enough to get away with it...

    ReplyDelete
  12. This version makes more sense, as its not so easy to run over a rabbit that is NOT in a cage. Unless you are driving along a country road. At night.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I lean more to this post than the original too, I wonder why he was reaching across the table though if he had no intention of touching her?
    This version of events makes a lot more sense, yay for rebuttals! They're the best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Him reaching across the table reminds me of the Simpson's episode when Homer was driving a babysitter home and as she's getting out of the car, he sees a piece of candy stuck to her butt. He grabs the piece of candy off her butt, and she thinks he is sexually harassing her. But it is weird that he didn't say what he was reaching across the table for. So some of this seems a little off.

      Delete
  14. I'm with wolfdreams01 :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. REBUTTAL POST WINS!! It just makes way more sense. (Occam's razor anyone?) What is up with people analyzing the syntax? So he apparently writes awkwardly. Big deal. At best, that's a shaky reason to dismiss it. Its overanalysis minus common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm not sure that this version is how it went down, but I believe it more.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just post the e-mail that was sent after the date:

    If it's similar to OP's para-phrasing then OP wins.
    If it's similar to Reubttal's para-phrasing then Rebuttal wins.

    Unless it's been altered, but lets hope it's not.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah i agree with the guys version of events. Maybe the Girl was a compulsive liar, you kno how those types of people lie and twist things to make it seem outright crazy LOL. But this just doesn't make sense. She seems like a wack job and why would a bunny be behind the car ? Atleast w.his version he explained he was still with his ex and they were moving so that explains the bunny in a cage behind the car with other boxes. And she made it seem like he was studdering like ''Uh,, I might off..um..killed...uhh''... people don't do that even if they are lying it comes out more naturally then that, that's something you see in movies or something... Definitly voting for this version (Rebuttal)

    ReplyDelete
  19. my money is on this one. sounds way more real and normal.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't know what's true in this particular case, it does sound like it was probably an accident, but you people really underestimate the extent to which psychopathic abusive men threaten women's pets. Threatening to kill your pet if you break up with them, hitting your pets, actually killing them, etc...these are all behaviors that are frequent among men who beat their wives and kids. So even if the girl overreacted in this case, I don't really blame her. Any guy who may or may not have threatened to kill a pet is a huge red flag, especially if you don't really know him before you go on the date.

    ReplyDelete

Content Policy

A Bad Case of the Dates reserves the right to publish or not publish any submitted content at any time, and by submitting content to A Bad Case of the Dates, you retain original copyright, but are granting us the right to post, edit, and/or republish your content forever and in any media throughout the universe. If Zeta Reticulans come down from their home planet to harvest bad dating stories, you could become an intergalactic megastar. Go you!

A Bad Case of the Dates is not responsible for user comments. We also reserve the right to delete any comments at any time and for any reason. We're hoping to not have to, though.

Aching to reach us? abadcaseofthedates at gmail dot com.