I think a lot of people are going against the author's narrative because they don't agree with her conclusions based on the evidence she presents. I think even

I think a lot of people are going against the author's narrative because they don't agree with her conclusions based on the evidence she presents. I think even the people who sound like they're defending Mark would admit his behavior is inappropriate and immature. But this article started out with 'I've faced harassment constantly in my decade-long career, and this was far and away the worst of it.' The evidence points to the author dealing with a weirdo who's acting like a jackass, but equating that to harassment seems non-obvious to me (and a lot of the critical comments state as much). On top of that, I think a lot of HNers see themselves as people who have a good idea and are afraid of being pushed out, rather than as people who push others out. So right off the bat readers from HN may think of the author as an antagonist, rather than someone to sympathize with, regardless of how justified the author is.