3 ms·

> I think "the guy who she wouldn't let fuck her" was her previous boyfriend, which was confirmed in one of the chat transcripts she posted? No, those were two

> I think "the guy who she wouldn't let fuck her" was her previous boyfriend, which was confirmed in one of the chat transcripts she posted? No, those were two different people, @tnm and @Holman. http://valleywag.gawker.com/ims-and-email-support-allegations-about-the-toxic-cultu-1567175545 http://valleywag.gawker.com/ims-and-email-support-allegation...

revelation 12y ago
I stand corrected, thank you. I shall show myself out..
nailer 12y ago
The weird thing is there's no actual denial of anything in the medium post by Horvath: > "That blog post has nothing to do with my job, the quality of my work, or what kind of coworker I was. People reading that should wonder why any of those things are relevant to me being harassed and HR sitting idly by. Would this happen to a man in the same situation? No." Addressing the distraction: if a man said a woman reverted his code because he wouldn't sleep with her, and withheld they were in a relationship, then yes, that would be relevant and should be raised. Unlike what ValleyWag claims though, that's not actually a denial.
- nymph 12y ago
  The patently evasive language of Horvath's non-denial -- contrasted with the very specific language in the (albeit anonymous, but credible-sounding) medium post -- make it increasingly difficult to take anything else she's saying seriously, moving forward. In particular -- if she's going to level tacit, but just the same highly public and career-damaging accusations of sexual harassment or other misconduct against other GitHub employees -- which, going by the language of her recent j'accuse tweet ("Don't do business with ...") would pretty much have to be what she's implying (even though she won't say it directly)[1,2] -- then she had better be prepared to back up what she's saying with reality-based specifics. Being as, going by her "uneven", to say the least, track record on veracity thus far, we just don't have much reason to give her the benefit of the doubt. [1] https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/459358875213238272 https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/459358875213238272 [2] also http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/24/horvath-names-names/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/24/horvath-names-names/, since deleted.

revelation 12y ago

I stand corrected, thank you. I shall show myself out..

nailer 12y ago

The weird thing is there's no actual denial of anything in the medium post by Horvath: > "That blog post has nothing to do with my job, the quality of my work, or what kind of coworker I was. People reading that should wonder why any of those things are relevant to me being harassed and HR sitting idly by. Would this happen to a man in the same situation? No." Addressing the distraction: if a man said a woman reverted his code because he wouldn't sleep with her, and withheld they were in a relationship, then yes, that would be relevant and should be raised. Unlike what ValleyWag claims though, that's not actually a denial.

nymph 12y ago
The patently evasive language of Horvath's non-denial -- contrasted with the very specific language in the (albeit anonymous, but credible-sounding) medium post -- make it increasingly difficult to take anything else she's saying seriously, moving forward. In particular -- if she's going to level tacit, but just the same highly public and career-damaging accusations of sexual harassment or other misconduct against other GitHub employees -- which, going by the language of her recent j'accuse tweet ("Don't do business with ...") would pretty much have to be what she's implying (even though she won't say it directly)[1,2] -- then she had better be prepared to back up what she's saying with reality-based specifics. Being as, going by her "uneven", to say the least, track record on veracity thus far, we just don't have much reason to give her the benefit of the doubt. [1] https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/459358875213238272 https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/459358875213238272 [2] also http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/24/horvath-names-names/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/24/horvath-names-names/, since deleted.