If there were proof - emails, texts, etc - it would have been leaked to recode and other publications to avoid perceptions like mine. Public disclosures of these kinds of actions are meticulously calculated. Mr. Jurveston clearly disputes the allegations, to the point where he is promising litigation. The lack of evidence publicly presented likely means that it is a flimsy accusation - likely a “he said/she said” kind of thing. The sad thing is that in a post-Weinstein world, “she said” seems to be all that matters.

    Public disclosures of these kinds of actions
    are meticulously calculated

Are they? All we have is a FB post from one of their entrepreneurs. She probably (sensibly) thinks there’s a better authority for dealing with the situation than the general public.

> to avoid perceptions like mine

They totally would have assuaged your fears by emailing you the evidence directly. Your sensitivities were on the top of their list, because God Man, THEY HAVE EMPATHY!

Would you mind sticking to substantive comments, please?

You are just making shit up here.

+1. Although I'd call it a post-Trump world. After all that surfaced about Trump's conduct with women during elections, and him STILL getting elected, women are done with it and taking a stand. I believe Weinstein is merely a happy casualty of Trump's election.

OP just highlights the speed at which careers are getting destroyed on accusations alone (guilty b4 proven innocent), and pragmatically suggests that it is possible for a malicious user to exploit this vulnerability.

Also Steve wasn't fired from DFJ (not RFJ), he left to sue

I was gonna reply to your first draft (the one which started “reeks of troll”), but then it was already changed by the time I clicked the “reply” button. You’ve made at least five edits since then. Stop, think, write, post.

My bad, I felt I sounded a little passive-aggressive. New on the boards. Let me know your thoughts on the final draft:)