[jarek]

> The successful advances were unwanted? Are you kidding?

No.

I see you have difficulty distinguishing between harassment and advances, unwanted or otherwise. You do, however, appear to know or are ready to presume a lot about this case, including things that are on a man's phone, so there is nothing more I wish to add to our discussion. Thanks for engaging me!

[temphn]

Just want you to know that there will be people who utterly reject your worldview (in a phrase, "yes means no") and all it entails. In your mind consent can be retroactively revoked years after the fact (to wit: "the successful advances were unwanted"). This is Kafkaesque and a frontal assault on the rule of law.

Fortunately, in a digital age, the past is not something Ellen Pao can rewrite at will. Future rule of thumb for anyone so unfortunate as to be caught up in an office romance: get her to put it in electronic form. Just one photographic expression of affection is enough to demonstrate to all and sundry that yeah, at the time, yes did mean yes. Since even admissions of consent no longer seem to preclude bogus charges, it's the only way to avoid being railroaded in a spurious lawsuit with people like you cheering on the travesty of justice.

[jarek]

I'm not saying wantedness can be rewritten. All along I've been saying that wantedness cannot be measured by success of the advances. If I ask you 100 times for a $20, and on the 101st time you give up and give me $20, my requests have been ultimately successful but I doubt at any point they would have been wanted. This lawsuit isn't about the $20, it's about the requests.