> "When I tried to give you your book back, I knew what I was doing was innocent, but I offered it back in a manner that kept myself in a tactically favorable position, but would require you to take a tactically unfavorable position to retrieve it. I presume it is why you initially refused to take it. I was not being fair to you, to ask you to do something I was not willing to do myself. This is what is meant by 'trying to have it both ways'. I realized I had to give some to get some, which is why I volunteered to turn around, and then later followed your directions."
> "The situation now is similar in concept. You feel I have wronged you greatly, and this is why you are as angry with me as you are, despite my not knowing who you were in our first encounter, nor bearing any ill will toward you at any time. Other than our fight, if you wish to count that, though I do not, not as anything more than a technicality. Anyway, one can judge for themselves if my being uninformed about your situation is enough to justify how you have been wronged. At the same time, you did not know the celestials, nor did you bear them any ill will, but all the same, your actions lead to great devastation of their land and livelihoods, as I have described. One can, again, judge for themselves if your being uninformed about their situation is enough to justify how you have wronged them."
> "Whatever choice is the correct one is for people to debate until the end of time. A problem arises, however, when one judges in favor of the uninformed individual in one case, and then in favor of the wronged party on the other case. This is 'trying to have it both ways'. You wish to judge me as wrong for what I have done to you without accepting responsibility for what you did to my people."