Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkerside | Hacker News Reader

Knowing they were in the midst of an on-again off-again relationship, Lane may have had a reasonable assumption that there was still an intention to continue the relationship, without Pao explicitly stating that she was interested in a serious relationship. At this point, the fewer conclusions we all jump to the better.

View on HN

If someone in a relationship goes to their corporate HR manager for relationship assistance, I don't think your assumption is reasonable at all!

If they were a marriage counselor, or a close friend, sure, but somehow I think nobody willing to salvage a personal relationship is going to bring it to their office's attention for assistance...

>If someone in a relationship goes to their corporate HR manager for relationship assistance,

frequent practice back in USSR. To the HR of the factory/institution, to the local Party committee, etc... :)

Not sure why you got downvoted: I think your anecdote is pretty interesting to contrast cultural differences! :)

Oh, that depends on framing. In some situations employees are asked explicitly to approach HR at the emergence of a relationship in order to prevent conflict of interest.

That would indicate the presence of some kind of HR policy. Something that appears to be lacking in this case.

Lane may have had a reasonable assumption

the fewer conclusions we all jump to the better

So it's OK for Lane to make assumptions about Pao, but we must be very careful not to make assumptions about Lane?

I think this is a form of "privilege"?

Yes, playing armchair jury is different from being a direct participant in events.

But they weren't in an on-again off-again relationship.

The was no "again".

It was on, she found he lied, and the it was off "with extreme prejudice" as the old Unix manuals used to say.

The 'on and off again' quote was from Pao, from the article:

> Pao said that once Nazre had told her that he and his wife had indeed separated, they started “seeing each other” in an “off-and-on relationship that lasted between five and six months.”

The conversation with Lane was when the relationship was over. On-again, off-again may indeed have a terminal date.

Well, I think asking people to refrain from passing harsh judgments is too much to ask even of the educated and erudite set.

If a Michael Arrington - a major power broker in the Valley , by any measure of the use of the term - was not immune to this rush to judgment in the Jenn Allen case [1], I guess expecting the innocent-until-proven-otherwise rationale to be applied to some small-fry immigrant is too much to ask.

[1]

Fifteen Months Later

http://uncrunched.com/2014/06/24/fifteen-months-later/

Letter To Jennifer Allen Regarding False and Defamatory Statements

http://uncrunched.com/2013/04/11/jennifer-allen-false-defama...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com