3 ms·

Yeah, OP, I agree with all your points, the fact that you responded violently kinda undermines the whole thing. Throwing glass around could have gone really bad

Yeah, OP, I agree with all your points, the fact that you responded violently kinda undermines the whole thing. Throwing glass around could have gone really badly as well. You acknowledge that it would have been better to calmly walk out, but this seems in your mind to be rather a matter of style and grace, rather than the fatal loss of the moral high ground that it is. Physical violence is worse than sexist language, full stop. But yeah, as I say, I agree with you. This kinda shit is what makes me puts me off the whole tech scene and makes me glad that I'm kind of an outsider at the moment. That and the fact that if I'd been there I'd probably have been tempted to shout "FOOD FIGHT!" EDIT: I see that it was plastic, not glass. Still, play nice children.

michael_dorfman 15y ago
It's clear from the OP that the intention was not violent, but rather, to toss the bottle back in the way that Kagan was tossing them to the audience. In other words, the primary error in judgment was one of distance and trajectory, not malicious intent.
- jawns 15y ago
  Yeah, but in the case where Kagan was tossing them to the audience, I'm assuming he gave them some indication that he was about to hurl something at them so they'd be ready to catch it. Did the OP give Kagan the same heads up?
  - frankdenbow 15y ago
    The point of the hotsauce was that Noah was rewarding people who asked good questions. She didnt warn anyone that she was throwing it back, i just heard a big thud and saw hotsauce everywhere. As was said earlier, it was more an error in trajectory and force than malice.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ovi256 15y ago
  Because there's no way and it's never been done to disguise malicious intent as incompetence or error of judgement.
- chc 15y ago
  And it seems pretty clear as well that Noah didn't mean to offend her with the slide. People are mad at him for the effect his presentation had. There's hardly enough evidence to establish malice on his part — much less than on Anne's, since at least she was admittedly angry when she threw the sauce. Both actions were ill-considered.

michael_dorfman 15y ago

It's clear from the OP that the intention was not violent, but rather, to toss the bottle back in the way that Kagan was tossing them to the audience. In other words, the primary error in judgment was one of distance and trajectory, not malicious intent.

jawns 15y ago
Yeah, but in the case where Kagan was tossing them to the audience, I'm assuming he gave them some indication that he was about to hurl something at them so they'd be ready to catch it. Did the OP give Kagan the same heads up?
- frankdenbow 15y ago
  The point of the hotsauce was that Noah was rewarding people who asked good questions. She didnt warn anyone that she was throwing it back, i just heard a big thud and saw hotsauce everywhere. As was said earlier, it was more an error in trajectory and force than malice.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ovi256 15y ago
Because there's no way and it's never been done to disguise malicious intent as incompetence or error of judgement.
chc 15y ago
And it seems pretty clear as well that Noah didn't mean to offend her with the slide. People are mad at him for the effect his presentation had. There's hardly enough evidence to establish malice on his part — much less than on Anne's, since at least she was admittedly angry when she threw the sauce. Both actions were ill-considered.