[hydroxylGroup]

So, like maybe he gave her a black eye, and a fat lip? Did her clothes get ripped? Was there lasting evidence of a serious assault?

Did he knock her down a flight of stairs, and the kick her the stomach until she shat blood?

Or did he just kind of push her aside, or grab her by the wrist, and shove her around and yell a lot, after she stood in a doorway between him and his bongo drums?

Did he overpower her and then hold her down and spit in her face? That might constitute serious psychological abuse, and then again maybe it might not be abuse at all according to some people.

Maybe he put her over his knee and spanked her? (some people might enjoy that sort of thing at the time, and then complain loudly about it later)

What does "attacked" mean?

[i_cannot_hack]

What on earth are you implying? She talks about outbursts and violent rage. It is not relevant to wonder if she enjoyed spanking. Your whole post makes me feel rather uncomfortable.

[hydroxylGroup]

But that's how smears work. The whole point is to cause deep consternation, because dangerous questions might reflect poorly upon the person that asks them.

So, when confronted with a delicate social scenario that threatens our better intentions, an awkward silence is produced, and everyone's mind races at the grey areas, and 12 people will diverge in 12 directions, guided by assumptions based on personal experiences. But in considering the possibilities, we realize the fact that we are in a situation where we cannot comfortably clarify certain details.

It's important to pick apart details when two people are mutually compromising each other's reputation. It's important to discern who is the agressor, or the possibility that it's an equal match between evenly paired beligerents.

This is where "preponderance of evidence" comes into play. If the situation is criminal, often times that is immediately evident. Serious physical abuse produces serious results. Psychological abuse is more questionable, but criminal psychological abuse generally results in a person that is very obviously broken by profound events.

If something sounds like gossip, then it's more or less a civil disagreement. Sure, emotions may run hot with a gossipy scandal, but at that point it's the social implications of reputation at stake. Serious, within the scope of a professional career, and as an open-ended slow burning problem for the reputable, but that sort of damage is indirect and have yet to completely unfold.

But this is how blackmail works. Is it vapor, smoke and mirros? If there are Ugly dirty details, let's see them. Otherwise, it's simply mud slinging to produce voids of inormation, so that imaginations and simple minds can run wild.

[i_cannot_hack]

To imply that she accused Feynman of cruelty because she enjoyed getting spanked sexually and then 'changed her mind' is not "asking the dangerous questions"... it is just weird and uncalled for. You're not doing a hero's work, you're just being mildly chauvinistic, and on top of it all trivializing sexual abuse.

Be critical of the basis of her claims all you like. I encourage scepticism. But learn from the others in this thread and keep the criticism relevant and appropriate.

[javert]

I don't know why you're asking us this question.