> I genuinely think it's worth self-examining one's motivations if someone's first instinct is to defend the man in such a case. Why do you assume it was his (

> I genuinely think it's worth self-examining one's motivations if someone's first instinct is to defend the man in such a case. Why do you assume it was his (or her?) first instinct? This HN thread has already well-established that Caldbeck's behavior is repugnant. Do we need every single poster to +1, or can people propose questions for discussion without being accused of being part of the problem?