Ex-girlfriend of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt ordered to pay him $10M
latimes.com
latimes.com
Isn't it better that he choose a judicial (or quasi-judicial) method to discourage this behavior rather than extrajudicial?
“All the time” meaning, what, specifically? Is there a reason you added this clear load of bullshit at all, or is it pure “virtue” signaling, for your given brand of “virtue”?
That seems a bit absurd.
Uh huh. Everyone knows that it's physically impossible to lie under oath. I don't believe you, Mr. Arbiter.
I don't believe either of them.
<puts the tinfoil hat back on>
Lying under oath opens the liar to even more problems down the line should the evidence to their lies show up.
Also, it doesn't make sense to address this arbiter as "Mr." - You can read a bit about her here https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/bios/?fa=at...
It's not okay to misgender a person because you personally don't care. And if you truly don't care, why take the extra effort to use gendered phrasing in the first place?
Thinking something was supposed to sound funny is not an excuse to act like this, it's perfectly alright to just say "oops, didn't cross my mind", or even nothing at all as not every note of info needs acknowledgement. Digging in about it is just odd for something that didn't need a defense in the first place, unless it's really that important of you announce you intend to avoid acknowledging such things.
I also believe anyone reading, if at all, is quite welcome to come to their own varied conclusions rather than need to be instructed on what they are supposed to have thought by you.
Also the arbiters write up is incredibly biased and not at all what I would expect a neutral party to write. “One can also conclude that Ritter engaged in self-centered efforts to obtain revenge against Schmidt in a way that was more damaging than helpful to her cause.”
This is about a man who went after a girl less than half his age and then decided the power imbalance wasn’t severe enough so went into business with her as well. Are we really supposed to believe sexual assault is outside the realm of possibility in those circumstances?
This man took a major role in logging and selling every single thing about every single person without them noticing. He is sick in the head and a piece of shit human being for violating all of humanity’s privacy.
I'd absolutely do the same, including forcing her to publish apology on all her SM accounts and in the press.
"Also the arbiters write up is incredibly biased and not at all what I would expect a neutral party to write. “One can also conclude that Ritter engaged in self-centered efforts to obtain revenge against Schmidt in a way that was more damaging than helpful to her cause.”"
That just means the evidence is exhausting, this is not a criminal court, there is no innocent until proven guilty - the level is much, much less to prove and there was a coordinated effort which means if a neutral arbirter can write the above, thats probably most likely what happened.
"This is about a man who went after a girl less than half his age and then decided the power imbalance wasn’t severe enough so went into business with her as well. Are we really supposed to believe sexual assault is outside the realm of possibility in those circumstances?"
That's biased itself, you write about bias but write it more so. If there was sexual assault it would be a criminal case - easily.
So, why are you defending someone that openly accused someone of a sexual crime which did not happen?
And I did not want to be writing to defend a google ceo, but here we are - why do you believe someone can accuse someone of a serious crime and not suffer reprecusions for it?
Many people are accused falsely and have their repution ruined by it. There is no shortage of stories about it from all genders.