There is little to suggest to us that one account is more credible than the others. Our main take-away here should be uncertainty. We don't know what happened; we can only know what some people think happened. Considering other viewpoints, even anonymous viewpoints^, serves to highlight the inherently uncertain nature of the truth.
^ Non-anonymous viewpoints could perhaps be considered more trustworthy because there is the threat of a libel/slander lawsuit if they are complete fabrications. However on the other hand, all/most of the non-anonymous viewpoints that we have are the viewpoints of people directly involved in the scandal. We can assume that the anonymous viewpoint, if it is not a fabrication, is not from somebody involved in the scandal. However since they were not involved directly in it, it is also possible that they received an incomplete picture of everything... Everything is uncertain. I am reminded of the closing dialog to "Burn After Reading".
I don't think I could ever so narrowly define "how people actually behave," personally. I'm not even sure what you're implying the implausible behaviour in Horvath's account is.
Honestly, I found Horvath's account to be fairly implausible from the first time I read it. The kinds of things she alleged don't happen in a vacuum: if what she was saying was true, there should have been a lot of other instances of that sort of harassment, or at least indicators that something like that could happen. Horvath described some very extreme behaviors that just don't appear out of the blue.
The anonymous account just makes the whole store make a lot more sense.
> I don't think I could ever so narrowly define "how people actually behave," personally.
Really? I can. They behave messily and almost always with a keen eye towards advancing their own position, whatever it may be, rational, honest, or otherwise.
> I'm not even sure what you're implying the implausible behaviour in Horvath's account is.
The part where complex, multi-party, interactions are dramatic in the extreme, bad behavior is completely one-sided, and the entire situation ascribed to a simplistic (gender bias) narrative.
That never happens.
Putting the pieces together, what seems to make a more convincing narrative is that Howarth was a bully herself.
> The part where complex, multi-party, interactions are dramatic in the extreme, bad behavior is completely one-sided, and the entire situation ascribed to a simplistic (gender bias) narrative
I am incredibly curious how this doesn't describe the anon account much better than Horvath's, only changing 'gender bias' to 'relationship insanity.' Who has bad behaviour other than Horvath in that account? How is it not incredibly dramatic?
