I'm not asking you to take them at face value, I'm asking you simply to consider them at all without immediately jumping to possible alternative explanations of the same set of facts that are a lot more complicated than the original one, that she claims that she was harassed and then ignored and that was the end of it.

Occam's razor and all that.

Harassment does happen, and in cases like this the person that steps up has enough problems on their hand without being dealt more crap.

The prior situation has no bearing on what she claims happened, it either did or it did not, and even if it did not the complaint should have been taken serious.

So we're not even getting to 'taking the complaints at face value', we're simply establishing that she claims that her complaints were ignored. That's a pretty low bar to have to jump over, if someone claims sexual harassment and you ignore them then you're simply wrong, regardless of whether or not the complaint is true.

Do you agree that Occam's razor slices differently for others? For example, if you agree that women are human beings, you also agree that they are just as prone to any human to misrepresent the facts in their favor. And Ms. Pao stands to make a great deal of money from this suit if it goes through.

I'm not a VC, but, to be comprehensive, you'll need to put the negative impact of the suit publicity - whether she wins or loses - on her career against what she might gain by winning.

If you sue McDonald's for food poisoning frivolously, have the bucks to do so, and are somehow immunized against a countersuit, there's no downside.

Pao, win or lose, is going to have a very different VC career than if she never filed suit. That's a pretty big downside.