4 ms·

Please read the next paragraph. > I'm not saying that it's okay to sue Kleiner Perkins because they have deep pockets, I'm saying that she's not using the thre

• zamalek 12y ago
  My argument does not even concern Pao, my argument concern the bigger scheme of things and this Pao trial as one single battle. This specific battle should have never happened, but it did, and feminists (who Pao claims to be fighting for) need to disown this farce as fast as possible. That paragraph is relevant to defending Pao's virtue: which I have no interest in and was never talking about. I have no opinion of the woman one way or another, an opinion of her is completely irrelevant because neither of us is likely to ever meet her. It is clear that this isn't a debate about something important and, therefore, we're done.
  • dietrichepp 12y ago
    The easiest way to end a conversation is not to say, "we're done", bot to simply not say anything. It was my understanding that you were talking about Pao because you made specific claims about her case (that she was "crying wolf", in your terms) and I was interested in seeing how you would support that position, because I hadn't heard arguments that she had sued in bad faith and was interested in listening to those arguments if they existed.