Comment by praptak
2 days ago
I hadn't even read the original accusations when I wrote this, just this fragment, so I don't think I got exposed to any tricks by the accusers (except maybe indirectly by the author).
I am only saying that even the person being accused does not directly confront the accusers about any facts.
You concluded that these "accusations" (your word) are perhaps "the truth" (your word) based only on the information that some facts are worked into the accuser's story (we can assume some details are factual as neither side disputes them).
Fwiw I spent a few dozen seconds trying to read the primary source (accusations) but it was mostly a blow by blow of internal emotional state and my interest in this soap opera was quickly exhausted. No real lesson to be learned here unless you didn't already realize not to stick your ... in crazy.
No, that's not what I concluded. I used the word "perhaps" to indicate that accusers telling the truth is a possibility. And it's one that cannot be ruled out even if we believe 100% of what the author wrote in this article.
There is an assertion at stake here along the lines of "he took advantage of me" which is either objectively true or is not objectively true. It may be impossible for us to know what his actual motivation was at the time the undisputed events took place, but if everyone agreed his intentions were pure, then he wouldn't be ostracized. So there is no way for everyone's statements to be in perfect alignment with objective reality.