Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I'd tell, but not expect her to dump him as a direct result.
    
    I'd make sure to mention a couple of things: 1) from how many people
    you've heard these stories, 2) how removed the stories are from the
    actual people (is this 2nd, 3rd or nth-hand information), and 3) how
    likely *you* think they are to be true.
    
    I'd also include all the details I know - general rumors are hard to
    track down and verify/debunk.

    If you'd only heard that the guy is a "real creep", I might feel
    differently.  However, if you've heard that guy gets violent with women
    I believe that you should tell your friend.  I'd want to know.
    
    I'd tell her that you'd heard somethings about her "friend" and you
    really weren't sure if you should tell her.  But, because you're afraid
    that she could be physically hurt if they're true, you decided that
    you'd better say something.  Then tell her what you heard and let her
    make the decision as to what she wants to do.  If she continues to see
    the guy, at least a corner of her mind might be alert to any signs that
    he might be heading towards being violent and she may be able to get
    out of the relationship before it happens and/or she gets hurt.

    You might make it a point to get to know this guy yourself.  Then you
    can tell her what *your* opinion is of him, not just what you've heard
    through the grapevine.
    
    
    > Would I want to be told?
    
      Yes, but I'd also tend to trust my own judgement.
    
    
    
                                   L.J.

    I'm having difficulty with your suggestion.  Suppose the general
    talk is true?  I can't help but think of "The Case of the Illustrious
    Client" by Arthur Conan Doyle:
    
    Holmes to Damery:  "...I am as sure that he killed his wife when
    the so-called `accident' happened in the Spl�gen Pass as if I had
    seen him do it.  ...  Well, what has Baron Gruner been up to? ..."
    
    Damery to Holmes:  "...To revenge crime is important, but to prevent
    it is more so. ... It is this daughter [of General de Merville], this
    lovely, innocent girl, whom we are endeavoring to save from the
    clutches of a fiend. ... To say that she loves him hardly expresses
    it.  She dotes upon him, she is obsessed by him.  She will not hear
    one word against him. ... The cunning devil has told her every
    unsavory scandal of his past life, but always in such a way as to
    make himself out to be an innocent martyr.  She absolutely accepts
    his version and will listen to no other."
    
    [Later.]
    Violet de Merville to Holmes:  "...I am aware that Adelbert, that my
    fianc�, has had a stormy life in which he has incurred bitter hatreds
    and most unjust aspersions.  You are only the last of a series who
    have brought their slanders before me. ... understand ... that I love
    him and that he loves me, and that the opinion of all the world is
    no more than the twitter of those birds outside the window.  If his
    noble nature has even for an instant fallen, it may be that I have
    been specially sent to raise it to its true and lofty level."
    
    Whether Anonymous is the first or "the last of a series" hardly
    matters.  What technique is there which would make `Violet' aware,
    or at least willing to entertain an unpleasant possibility?
    
    The only idea I can think of is to have `Violet' `accidentally'
    meet `Kitty' (A third party who had suffered at this guy's hands.)
    and have `Kitty' act suddenly uneasy and embarrassed and close-mouthed
    upon learning who `Violet' was seeing.  It would depend on how
    smart `Violet' is as to how blatant `Kitty' had to be before she
    picked up on it and started pumping `Kitty'.  It wouldn't be easy.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  In the end, the Baron Adelbert Gruner gets his.  His former
    mistress, Kitty Winters, blinds and disfigures him with acid, and
    his diary of seductions is turned over to Violet de Merville, who
    promptly breaks off their engagement.

    Since I'm a slow typist, .2, .3, and .4 were entered while I was
    still writing .5.  It refers to .1.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    I would suggest that if you are concerned for your friend, that you
    might ask one of the women who claim they have had bad experiences 
    with this man to speak with her instead. I would advise you to avoid 
    involvement with an issue you don't have first hand experience with,
    or proof of.
    
    If the statements are unfounded, your intervention in your friend's
    affairs may well damage your friendship. If true, your friend should
    discover his true intentions and nature soon enough, and will have
    to make her own decisions about the relationship in any event.
    
    Give your friend the credit of being an adult capable of making
    up her own mind about who is, or is not, good for her. And remember
    that regardless of what happens, your supportive friendship will
    be the one gift you can give her that she will be most gratefull
    for.
    
     
                                   

    I tend to agree pretty much with everything that's said here. I'd want
    to know. But .7 had a point. Take a little time (not too much, if the
    possibility of danger is real), then tell her what you know. Better to
    get her upset at you then to have her get hurt by not being told.
    
    ....Bob

    
    
    
    I'm finally catching up after a week's vacation.  8-)
    
    
    My call to the anon author of the basenote is the following:
    
    1.  Everything you know about this guy is second (third? fourth? etc?)
    hand.
    
    2.  You don't know this guy.  (Have you made an attempt to really get
    to know him and judge for yourself?)
    
    3.  You're worried about your friend, and you owe it to her to warn her
    about what you've heard.  Do it.
    
    4.  You also owe it to yourself to find out the TRUTH about the guy
    yourself.  
    
    Look at it this way, there are three possible outcomes.  One, that the
    warning to your friend is right and you've helped her become more aware
    of potential danger.  Two, your information was wrong, you don't
    get to know the guy and your friend ends up disliking you for
    interfering and not trusting in her judgement....or....
    
    	Three.  Your information was wrong, you get to know the guy and you
    actually come out of it with a stronger friendship with her and another
    potential friendship with him.
    
    
    One thing I've learned over the years with all the sh!t people spout
    about me is that the people that really get to know ME to find out what
    *I* am really like without believing carte blanc what others say, are
    the REAL people.  The ones that believe misinformation others spout
    about me.....the ones that dislike me because of my notes persona or
    something they've "heard" that I've done without EVER taking the time 
    to get to know me.....are the ones that I would never want as a friend
    in the first place.
    
    Anon...if you value your friendship with this woman......tell her your
    fears.......but CHALLENGE your fears as well by getting to know this
    guy.  You might VERY well surprise yourself.  Don't let others rule
    your life, make your own decisions and draw your OWN conclusions.  You
    owe yourself, and your friendship with this woman at least that much.
    
    What have you got to lose?
    
    kathy

    It helps to keep in mind that most people acquire their reputations
    the old-fashioned way:  They earn them.
    
    Oh, sure, there are bum raps out there, and one should always
    entertain the possibility that that is the case, but keeping an
    open mind doesn't mean letting your brain fall out.  (I love the
    variations on that line.)
    
    The base noter probably got her/his information from former girl-
    friends, so the basenoter has `received testimony'.  But what the
    basenoter passes on is just hearsay.  (This is how it works.  When
    I pass on hearsay, I call it a rumor, but that's just me.)  Now,
    one former girlfriend might be just venting, or might even be being
    spiteful, but when it's multiple former girlfriends... I'd definitely
    pay attention.
    
    (Twice I've gotten information about my boyfriend-of-the-time from
    former girlfriends.  Both times I believed it.  The first time was
    a warning; fortunately about something that turned out not to matter.
    The second time the woman didn't know I was seeing him, so I took
    her complimentary comments about him at face value.)
    
    Pedantry warning.
    
    Now there are three kinds of evidence permissable in criminal law.
    (Civil law adds in hearsay (I think), but I don't approve of that,
    so I'll ignore it.)  In increasing order of reliability, they are
    testimonial, circumstantial, and physical.  Now, raise your hand if
    your surprised to find that circumstantial evidence rates higher
    than testimonial.  <Pause to count.>  Yup, that's a lot of hands.
    
    You see, testimony relies on the memory of the witness, while
    circumstances can be looked at from different angles.  (Physical
    evidence is best because it can not only be looked at from different
    angles, but can be pawed over and retested.)
    
    Circumstantial evidence would be noticing how old girlfriends behave
    concerning his presence.  Do they invite it?  Ignore it?  Avoid it?
    Move heaven and earth to never be in it again?  If the behavior is in
    the first class, doubt the reputation; if it is in the last two, believe
    the reputation.  (If it is in the second, keep the ol' mind open.)
    
    						Ann B.

    
    
    
    Ann (.10), unfortunately you left out one flaw in your argument.
    
    
    Most people are VERY different, and that includes the ex-girlfriends of
    this guy (assuming that this is where the basenoter got the
    information).  
    
    A man can have a very rocky, volatile relationship with one woman that
    can end in hatred, misunderstandings, internal justifications, etc
    while with another woman he can have a very loving, nurturing,
    wonderful relationship.  And the reason for this is that the two women
    are VERY different in personalities, experiences, ideals, morals,
    attitudes, and emotional stabilities.
    
    Neither one of the women are "bad", they are just different.  Neither
    is the man "bad" even though the first woman might internalize the
    problems they have had between them as implying that he is a "bad" guy.
    It's just that with the second woman, the man has found a better match
    for him........while the first woman might match better with someone
    else!  It's a matter of compatability.
    
    When I look back at my relationship with Pat three years ago and the
    breakup we had.  I HATED HIM, violently because of what he "had done"
    to me.  I remember going around spouting things about him to our
    friends, in fact, I even remember turning some of our mutual friends
    against him.  Had I known his new girlfriend, I might have even "warned
    her off."  And you know, I look back at it three years afterwards, and
    I look OBJECTIVELY at MY role in the relationship and I see that Pat
    wasn't really a bad guy at all.  In fact, I pretty much made life
    difficult for him because of my low self esteem and lack of security.
    
    But, you know....all of his actions were VERY damning at the time....
    but now I look back and his actions were very justifiable.  
    
    
    My only point here is that many times when we are emotionally close to
    someone and things don't work out (especially when it's a very volatile
    breakup and/or one-sided), our emotions sometimes cloud our judgement
    and we really truly BELIEVE that we are blameless and that the other is
    totally wrong.  It's a defense mechanism that MANY of us use to keep
    our sanity intact.
    
    
    
    Rule #1 in my interactions with people:  I do NOT take anyone's words
    at face value, I ALWAYS challenge their words by finding out for
    myself.  If I don't then I'm allowing SOMEONE ELSE to make my decisions
    for me.   (I'll take control of my beliefs, tyvm! 8-) )
    
    Rule #2 is, after my experiences with Pat and myself, never to put a
    lot of stock in an ex-girlfriend's (or ex-boyfriend's) account about
    their ex-, especially if it's negative.  Their judgement has a very
    good chance of being clouded.
    
    
    In a court of law, on cross examination of an ex- who makes damning
    comments, the lawyer will ALWAYS discredit their account by bringing up
    the fact that they were at odds with each other after the breakup and
    that there were a LOT of hard feelings.  You can't tell me that a jury
    is going to believe that over PHYSICAL evidence (ie, GETTING TO KNOW
    THE PERSON YOURSELF INSTEAD OF BELIEVING HEARSAY!)
    
    
    
    Ann, sorry, but I can't support the "ex-girlfriend" theory.  If I were
    to put any stock in believing another person, an ex- would be the last
    person I would trust their judgement.  Not because I would be accusing
    them of lying, but rather because their "truth" is QUITE OFTEN clouded
    by their emotions.
    
    
    kathy

    Kath,
    
    I direct your notice to the end of my third paragraph:  "Now,
    one former girlfriend might be just venting, or might even be being
    spiteful, but when it's multiple former girlfriends... I'd definitely
    pay attention."
    
    You might further notice that I ended with the advice to "pay
    attention." which is my usual wishy-washy sort of conclusion, and
    is in no way to be confused with "believe them implicitly."
    
    						Ann B.

    
    
    
    >but when it's multiple former girlfriends
    
    Ann, with the numerous relationships I've been thru in my life, I
    probably didn't have much nice to say with ANY of them after the
    break-ups.  
    
    Usually break-ups mean something wasn't right in the relationship.  A
    large majority of breakups are not mutual.  
    
    I wouldn't put any more stock in multiple girlfriends over just one.
    I like the feeling of knowing I've made a decision based on my own
    conclusions.
    
    Frankly, I'm learning more and more (and it's a DIRECT result of
    participating in this conference) that I shouldn't believe ANYONE's
    opinion about another person without verifying it myself.
    
    I'm not arguing with you Ann, I'm simply stating that I do not put as
    much stock in ex's accounts, and that for me it's more important to
    find out the truth myself.
    
    your mileage might vary..............the basenote author was asking
    advice about how each of us would feel in the situation.  And basically
    I would have a hard time having a lot of respect for someone who didn't
    take the time to get to know if the accusations they were repeating
    were true or not.  Yes, I would want to know her opinion, but I feel
    that if she stated such an opinion to me, she would have an OBLIGATION
    to follow through by finding out the truth (whatever that truth might
    be).
    
    
    kathy

    I listen to specifics in stories, and think about how *I* would act in 
    both sets of situations.  When I hear the same set of facts from two 
    (or more) people in dispute, I tend to trust those facts.  When all 
    sides are angry and hurt, I don't listen much to the interpretations - 
    probably neither is lying (remember their facts agree), but probably 
    neither is remembering that the other is human and subject to faults 
    (rather than evil character flaws).

    If the whole world (or multiple ex-girlfriends) decides to disagree
    with my judgment, that is pretty irrelevant.  After all, I have to
    answer to myself every night  in my dreams, not the rest of the world.

    And now, a story.  The following is true, although I've changed the
    names in case any of my old college friends are hanging around. 

    When I got back from France in 86, I had a chance to talk to David, an
    old lover of mine.  He was seeing this woman, Cheryl.  Apparently 
    Cheryl's last boyfriend, Todd, was a real toad and really, really
    mistreated Cheryl.  My friend David wanted to be extra good to Cheryl
    because she had had such an awful experience at the hands of Todd the
    ogre. 

    I asked David what evil things Todd had done.  None of it sounded too 
    terrible to me: mostly stuff people do when hurt, confused, shut-off.  
    I told David that I had certainly done nastier things than that to 
    some of *my* ex-s (including David himself), and that it appeared to 
    me that Cheryl perhaps was exaggerating a bit.

    David protested vigorously, maintaining that I was nowhere *near* as 
    bad to him as Todd had been to Cheryl.

    About a month later, Cheryl dumped David.  It seemed rather callously 
    done to me, but then again, I was biased.  What was telling though, 
    was the fact that Cheryl proceeded to blather endlessly about the 
    evils of David, his utter cruelty, etc, etc, to all her friends, his 
    friends, and their shared friends.  She also said that *he* dumped her 
    - though he felt that *she* dumped him.  They agreed on the facts of 
    the evening it all blew up, but disagreed strongly on interpretation 
    and fault.

    This created no small problem, as David's best friend was engaged to 
    Cheryl's best friend.

    When these two best friends married, Cheryl was the maid of honor.  
    Because she would not be maid of honor if David *attended* the wedding 
    (much less took part in the ceremony), David was not invited (it was 
    very carefully handled and worked out better than *I* expected).  Of 
    course, Cheryl was invited to David's wedding three years later, but
    did not attend.  Apparently, she still held some bad feelings.

    	What it all boils down to is evaluating the information *in
    context*.  If the base noter passes on info about someone that is
    not first hand, she/he is obligated to tell the friend where the
    info came from, and what the circumstances are/were.  If it came
    from one or more exes, and the breakups were not "clean", then the
    friend must interpret whatever is said based on that.  If someone
    told me "oh, I heard he's a creep and treats women really badly",
    I'd sure as hell want to know where my friend heard that!  

    	Sometimes to put things in perspective, it helps to seek out
    other people who know this guy and see what they have to say.  It's 
    often amazing how two people can describe the same person and come 
    out with very different descriptions based on their experiences, 
    relationships.   Of course, using your own judgement is best of
    all.

    	Different people bring out different qualities in other people, 
    and most relationships differ in at least some ways from previous 
    relationships.  Some people can bring out the good in us, some bring 
    out the bad.  Sometimes people's personalities can help mitigate 
    negative traits in others as well.  Just because this person *may have 
    had* a bad relationship with one (or more) people doesn't mean he'll 
    necessarily have a bad relationship with someone else.  (I say "may 
    have had" because it may actually have been that way, or it may have 
    been someone's *perception* of how it was.)  

    	And it goes both ways, too.  Someone can come "highly
    recommended" and turn out to be a real jerk.  You just never know
    how people will get along.

    	Personally, when someone passes on info about someone else,
    I'll listen, but make my own judgements.  And if the person who is
    giving me the info doesn't really know the other person, I have a
    hard time giving it much weight.  Ditto if it was an ex - there's
    usually too much emotion there and situations can be severely
    colored.

    	Again, the most important thing is to let people make their own 
    judgements.  If the basenoter feels that it would make her/him feel
    better to talk to the friend, then do so.  But also I think it's
    important to really listen to what the friend has to say and try and 
    stay objective if she/he doesn't know the guy.

     	If I listened to what people say about some people I know/have 
    known, I'd have missed out on some very good friends!

    	amy

    
    I'd tell.  I'd want to be told.  I _was_ told, actually, and my
    reaction was "P'shaw!"  However, when it started to happen, I
    remembered what I'd been told and it helped me to see what was 
    happening; the memory nagged at me when I tried to rationalize 
    it away.
    
    CQ

    re:.0

    Dear Anon,

    What did you finally decide? Was this guy really the creep you thought
    he was?

    It seems like so many people are willing to believe the bad things
    that are said in spiteful gossip and only a few people make the effort
    to get to the truth.  Did you?

    How about an update?

                                   L.J.

    
    whatsa "real creep" .. ?

    As if more advice is needed...
    
    I've been on the receiving end. The list of evils I heard about was
    LONG, and came from a multitude of sources. And my first reaction was
    that of a pseudo-sensible "Violet" type. I defended the guy, because
    he'd already told me everything I was hearing from others. Or explained
    it all.
    
    It didn't take long for me to come to the decision that these facts
    about the man's persona did not blend well with who I was, and I let go
    of the relationship. But I did so based on MY personal experience with
    him, backed up by what I had heard.
    
    I work pretty hard not to bad-mouth the guy, but just to say we weren't
    well suited. Someone will like him; it just won't be me.
    
    But in reference to ALL the advice I got, I must say, I didn't enjoy
    hearing it... but I'm glad I had it all, one way or another.