5 ms·

> Forget he said she said - the company admitted the employees claims were true after investigating the situation, having previously (when he was in control) pu

> Forget he said she said - the company admitted the employees claims were true after investigating the situation, having previously (when he was in control) publicly refuted them. The employee's claims weren't true for the part you were talking about - the article linked said that most of her claims weren't, and since you used "female engineer" like it meant something hedious had happened, your comment absolutely was bullshit. The article I linked spells it out pretty well. None of the incidents related to her gender were found to be true, so you shouldn't bring it up. Just say "Engineer," because otherwise it sounds like they sexually harrassed her or something, which is libel. Her gender wasn't relevant for the topic, and shouldn't be brought up.

stephenr 8y ago
> The employee's claims weren't true for the part you were talking about I was talking about Tom Preston Werner harassing a staff member and the company then publicly denying it happened. If you read some other meaning out of what I said, that's on you. > since you used "female engineer" like it meant something hedious > Just say "Engineer," because otherwise it sounds like they sexually harrassed her or something I don't keep a notebook on me at all times with the names of every developer who's ever been harassed at their job. I just happened to remember that a woman had made allegations against the guy who wrote this fucking blog post, while he was CEO of the company. Not everything is a fucking feminist "plot", ok? We're not all amorphous grey blobs and any further distinction is not automatically a pro/anti gender political platform.
- Mononokay 8y ago
  You were implying, with your statement, that her gender was relevant. It wasn't. You implied Werner had harrassed a person because of their gender. There's no other way to interpret that there.
  - stephenr 8y ago
    > You were implying, with your statement, that her gender was relevant. It wasn't. No. You read intent where there was none. > There's no other way to interpret that there. Well clearly there is because it's not my comments getting down-voted to oblivion.
    - Mononokay 8y ago
      Mine certainly aren't; collective total of five up on them. I have to wonder what you feel the need to prove to the world.

stephenr 8y ago

> The employee's claims weren't true for the part you were talking about I was talking about Tom Preston Werner harassing a staff member and the company then publicly denying it happened. If you read some other meaning out of what I said, that's on you. > since you used "female engineer" like it meant something hedious > Just say "Engineer," because otherwise it sounds like they sexually harrassed her or something I don't keep a notebook on me at all times with the names of every developer who's ever been harassed at their job. I just happened to remember that a woman had made allegations against the guy who wrote this fucking blog post, while he was CEO of the company. Not everything is a fucking feminist "plot", ok? We're not all amorphous grey blobs and any further distinction is not automatically a pro/anti gender political platform.

Mononokay 8y ago
You were implying, with your statement, that her gender was relevant. It wasn't. You implied Werner had harrassed a person because of their gender. There's no other way to interpret that there.
- stephenr 8y ago
  > You were implying, with your statement, that her gender was relevant. It wasn't. No. You read intent where there was none. > There's no other way to interpret that there. Well clearly there is because it's not my comments getting down-voted to oblivion.
  - Mononokay 8y ago
    Mine certainly aren't; collective total of five up on them. I have to wonder what you feel the need to prove to the world.