This is a continuation of the original blog, go back to Part I to read the one previous:
I also know the pattern with this friend being drunk, and can think of no instance in a period of 13 years, where he has done anything reprehensible in the face of women.
So, first off, from even this bit of data, I have a small convergence of evidence to go from.
Now let’s examine the same extent of the same type of judgment put unto the accusing friend, but this time, in reverse:
I know that there are many instances in which this friend has described times where he has had to ‘lay down the law’ at his parties.
I also know from first hand observation that ‘having to’ ‘lay down the law’ is quite the event, and somehow manages to ‘be necessary’ at just about every party I’ve been to.
I can cross-reference these two things already:
1) He brags about putting his foot down in numerous stories he tells to me just about every time we meet.
2) I have seen him put his foot down with quite the alacrity and even eagerness to do so, just about every time in some form, sometimes physically–i.e. one time he even punched in his own wall (which makes me wonder if he’d a done the same thing had others at the particular party had not been around), at another of his parties, I observed him ‘dealing with’ a unruly party guest, as he came sweating into his own door after having ‘removed’ him from the party.
To add to this, 3) I have seen a pattern of bravado and machismo in this friend, i.e. driving recklessly fast in his own car, with abandon, which is unlike all my other friends.
The common denominator of these three is a need to be and feel superior.
This common element runs across the board in many countless other little and bigger observations from THIS friend over the coarse of a very similar amount of time: about 12 yrs.
See how many convoluted sets of different types of information can be simplified by a few cross-referenced elements? The trick is to find ‘across the board’ common denominators and to omit elements which have a far narrower range.
Let’s look at the conflicting data which makes this a little less simple and more convoluted. Let’s call the friend of 12 yrs, the accusing friend, Todd, the other, the accused, Ed.
Todd has always struck me as being a person that does what he says he is going to do, and in fact, he does in many instances–in most cases. In fact, this is so good, that it is not really his issue.
I would say, that the danger in this is that i made more generalizations from this fact about his integrity than did apply: i.e. just because he does what he says he’ll do most of the time, doesn’t mean he won’t sell out his close friends in order to carry on the appearance of having a lot of friends, that is, of carrying on the appearance of popularity.
Todd, also, has in the past defended himself very well and with great ‘sincerity’ and articulation. His record of himself to me is able to give reasons for what others would describe as gaps of information leading one to his ‘obvious’ but (at the time) really alleged ‘superiority complex,’ which others have accused him of, with little resolve in doing anything about it, I might add.
Ed, on the other hand, doesn’t always do what he says he’ll do, though these are not fundamental errors but more menial careless errors. Ed also, speaks more often before he thinks, Todd is a much more careful creature.
I eventually found a pattern (and would have found it far earlier had I looked for it) of excuses for self-committed errors or things other people would accuse him (Todd) of.
To be Continued Tomorrow in Part III…