> I'm not saying that it's okay to sue Kleiner Perkins because they have deep pockets, I'm saying that she's not using the threat of bankruptcy to coerce a settlement out of them.
That paragraph is relevant to defending Pao's virtue: which I have no interest in and was never talking about. I have no opinion of the woman one way or another, an opinion of her is completely irrelevant because neither of us is likely to ever meet her. It is clear that this isn't a debate about something important and, therefore, we're done.
It was my understanding that you were talking about Pao because you made specific claims about her case (that she was "crying wolf", in your terms) and I was interested in seeing how you would support that position, because I hadn't heard arguments that she had sued in bad faith and was interested in listening to those arguments if they existed.
I thought this hand-to-mouth mentality was something that was exclusive to the 3rd world. Apparently I was wrong. People smell blood and attack. This is not about KPMG. Have "big" corporates like Microsoft, Apple, Samsung and Google ever had problems fending off patent trolls? No.
The "crying wolf" story goes a lot further than the mere once-off act of laying false claim: which is why I specifically use that phrase. You might read the story and find out what happens to the boy who cried "wolf."
Everyone is determined to win every fight, instead of actually reaching a goal. Feminism is going nowhere at this rate.
> I don't see why "being wrong in court" would be worthy of punishment.
We're done here. Was that ever a suggestion of mine?