He wouldn't have had to name names. His "apology" went along these lines: > I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was cl

He wouldn't have had to name names. His "apology" went along these lines: > I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate [...] I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong. Dave made it sound like he'd hit on women in the context of offering them a job or investment. His one example re: Sarah Kunst specifically mentions he hit on her in a group. All of the above -- while clearly unethical -- are a world away from getting drunk with an investee / business partner in her apartment, waiting until everyone else had left, and making aggressive physical advances towards her, including having to be told no multiple times. Dave's message underplayed his behavior and, I think, really reinforces that he doesn't understand that what he did was wrong. He could have apologized for all of the above and only Dave, Cheryl, and the handful of people Cheryl told would have any idea he was referring to Cheryl. I frankly think Dave was still hoping to underplay his behavior to keep his job. Also, the fact that 500 let Dave represent them in Australia with no warning to their Australian partners makes Christine Tsai seem complicit [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kept-australian-lp-in-the-dark https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kep... edit: fixed Christine's name