[naasking]

It's gotten a little off topic, but this subthread has been great, so thanks. I knew the instant I saw your phrasing that some people fond of pushing a certain narrative were going to read you wrong because of the assumptions they carry. I don't hold out hope that they'll take this as a wake up call, but I'm glad I bookmarked it all the same.

I think your advice is completely sensible for people who are a little more risk averse. Sad that such measures are necessary, but we all decide our acceptable level of risk.

[tptacek]

Which advice? His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness". That is not just terrible advice, it's actually unlawful in the US. He's walked that back since then, I think? At least: he says his actions are other than that which he originally recommended. Fair enough --- but now it's incumbent on you to be clear about what you're advising other people to do.

(Advising people not to meet with anyone without a witness is not good management advice, for obvious reasons, but at least it's not unlawful).

[naasking]

> His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness".

Except you read it that way because you're biased to see bad faith and sexism everywhere. And look what happened: you uncharitably condemned and berated a fellow human being for literally no reason. And you're not even remotely apologetic for it. This pattern is sadly not at all exclusive to you, or uncommon.

As others have pointed out that this thread has gotten off-topic, I'll not be replying further. I'll merely suggest you learn from this mistake.