&gt;You&#x27;ve used a lot of emotive words - like the article seems &quot;fishy&quot; or that you don&#x27;t believe this article due to &quot;experience&quot; and now that believing this account defies &quot;rudimentary common sense&quot;.<p>&quot;Fishy&quot; isn&#x27;t at all an emotive word.  And of course I don&#x27;t believe I used the word &quot;rudimentary&quot;.<p>&gt;You seem to quite often attempt to signal that you are aligned with an unbiased and rational view, but you seem to just discard arguments based on your emotions.<p>I&#x27;m not the one making emotional arguments.  This is the situation:<p><pre><code>  1.  Woman does her job very well.
  2.  ???
  3.  Harassment.
</code></pre>
Obviously if step 1 is actually true there&#x27;s a step 2.  You want to be the white knight and protect her, emotionally.  But that&#x27;s infantilizing her.<p>&gt;There&#x27;s been a few threads on this article that you&#x27;ve abandoned. Its becoming more and more clear its because you simply can&#x27;t satisfyingly state the reasons for your judgements.<p>That&#x27;s silly.  At this point you just keep repeating yourself without addressing anything I&#x27;ve written.  Couple that with the timeout on HN they&#x27;ve added to discourage this conversation and it&#x27;s literally not worth the trouble, so I&#x27;m going to end it here.  Of course you&#x27;re welcome to reply, though frankly I&#x27;ll be very surprised if you include anything new.<p>&gt;Again, source? Or is this another one we can tack down to &quot;common sense&quot;.<p>Again, do I really need a &quot;source&quot; to explain to you people don&#x27;t do things for no reason?  Really?