[duxup]

>Nevertheless, we didn’t expect a threatening reaction followed by several emails, Twitter DMs, persistent phone calls and Whatsapp messages. She even texted my girlfriend, one of the organizers of the conference, whose telephone number is not public and wasn’t given to her at any moment. At the same time, she started contacting other speakers of the conference.

At that point you know you made the right choice... the rest is mind boggling.

[clarityPhone]

Exactly. Her past pattern of poor behavior really speaks for itself.

I’d be interested if her husband has a similar reputation in his field. Shame we don’t have any names, if only so their actions yield some sort of consequence.

Hopefully court pans out in the author’s favor (assuming what he said is indeed the true rendition of events).

[village-idiot]

Assuming the story is true as presented. If he’s regularly getting in the habit of publicly attacking people his girlfriend is having conflict with, I am sure his reputation is about as toxic as hers.

[igaray]

Exactly this, you want to make the right choice and not be judgemental or act out of fear, but once the other party becomes needlessly belligerent one knows what to do.

[bduerst]

Right? If you're asked not to speak at a conference, why would you go on to consistently prove it was the right decision to remove you?

[stlHusker]

It is the bullshit asymmetry principle: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

As another person mentioned, DerbyCon got tired of dealing with it (https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-beginning-h...). And then had to respond to a bullshit storm related to their integrity a month later (https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-clarifications-inclus...).

[chrisseaton]

I could turn that around to you: why would you expect someone removed from a schedule for being known to be disruptive, to not be disruptive when removed?