No, it had nothing to do with women, and I resent that implication. I notice you saw the subthread where I articulated that it had nothing to do with women yet

No, it had nothing to do with women, and I resent that implication. I notice you saw the subthread where I articulated that it had nothing to do with women yet still posted a comment insinuating it does: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621640 It's not a controversial observation that rich and powerful people can acquire enemies, and some of them have been slandered by the press. It was difficult to separate that situation from this one. I assure you, I'm a reasonable and thoughtful person and it's not fair to say that I basically said there's no amount of evidence that can satisfy a claim against a powerful person. The original comment was "Maybe we should wait to see how this plays out before making any judgements." Nothing more. This whole conversation was a request for more information, so if you're going to throw me under the bus for it, you'll just push those who want to ask harmless questions further into the camp of "I shouldn't say a word." And when people have beliefs that seem reasonable to them, this can be a harmful situation when those beliefs are false. For example, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that a journalist shouldn't wield the power to destroy someone's reputation without any independent oversight. It's a simple proposition with simple, obvious consequences. But pointing out that no investigation is going to occur helped me realize that it's an absurd standard. EDIT: Also, most of my comments received around 8 upvotes. They've been bouncing up and down, but the point is, clearly a lot of people felt similarly. So by voicing these concerns, it probably changed a lot more minds than my own. Talking this out and being open with it seems like a good thing.