Three Sides to Every Story

There are three sides that form every triangle and not always are they of the same equal proportion. There can also be three sides of many a story told, and stitched with tenuous threads that loosely dangle. Each strand stretched and told in a dialogue of distortion. In one, a little of the truth blended in part with pure fiction. While the other view doesn't hesitate with contradiction. One person's version is the way she remembered it. The second rendering doesn't allow his pieces to quite fit and the judge's opinion is in between the two stories, ready to testify to what actually happened, the truth teller. It's become a battle for a bone of contorted contention. Each story is told somewhat differently, at least in part, but version three is always one of the more factual sort. Both storytellers refuse to agree on the situation, adhering to the condemnation of each other's rendition. They may go so far as to put on rhetorical gloves. Pugnacious pugilists ready to punch it out like two raucous roosters, each wanting barnyard clout. Perhaps, they just see things differently from memory, or maybe they could try to see things in a different light. Couldn't they at least agree to that? Maybe it's a matter of having a different perspective. Each believing that their perception is the absolute truth. But forsooth, when emotions come into play, they should keep in mind the most important objective. Things can too quickly get out of hand if both of them stubbornly believe what they say. Could there be somewhere deep within their consciousness, some teeny tidbits or insipid inklings of exaggeration? Or some unintentional undermining; let's not call it a lie, but perhaps a piddling pinch of fraudulent fabrication. Facts should always be presented in black and white. So, who's to be recognized as right; who unwittingly wrong? It could be that neither is willing to give in and get along. Nor am I sure they'll ever be able to solve the riddle if they both insist on taking an audacious approach by rejecting a truce in favor of a belligerent reproach. Is it really impossible to meet somewhere in the middle? I'm left questioning if they've tried to settle their dispute by bringing forth witnesses whose testimony would be true. Those who know firsthand as few seem to do exactly what happened and whose word none could refute. Now, such a telling would be the third side to the story, relieving the burden of truth to version one or two. But if there's no one who can shed light on the case, they should agree to disagree instead of fighting a verbal duel. Letting bygones be bygones is the higher road to take, and a better solution than both acting the part of a fool.