And everything I saw supported my model of events, which don't need to be discussed here for the sake of all involved.

I only mentioned that I wasn't around for it to acknowledge anyone who might try and use that to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and dispel the counterargument before it even started, just to save time and Board space. This was apparently a less than good idea.

I don't see the purpose of responding as she did here, because this wasn't about her. If someone I had that kind of history with mentioned my name in a list of male members of an organization, I wouldn't really feel prodded to respond if I really wanted nothing to do with them.

As for the dogpiling, this just happened to be something that I felt was an unnecessary attack on a friend of mine, so my opinion should be voiced, regardless of how many other people were doing it.

I'll admit, I had not given too much consideration to the whole micro-aggression thing, and I do apologise for that. I'll also admit that I, personally, don't think that listing July's name in a general, nonspecific list of women ought to be cause for alarm, but then again, harassment's not defined by me, and if July feels harassed by that, then. Well. It's harassment, innit? Or insensitive, anyhow. At least, it's got to be treated like that. So, yes, fair enough.

And I am aware that harassment is causing trouble and is a Bad Thing, I simply don't regard Matt Cipher's current actions as harassment, and I really don't think it's fair to consider them as such. I am not taking, to any large extent, his previous actions into account, and I am not attempting to compare what July is doing to what Matt has done. I don't think comparing what they've done is helpful, either. But, er, do correct me if that is absolute rubbish, on that case.

I still ultimately think that July's post could have been more mature, constructive, et al. You've posted an interpretation, but that's it - an interpretation of a million things she may have said. Assuming your interpretation is totally correct, she could have certainly phrased it in a more mature manner.

It simply doesn't strike me as entirely fair - Matt is posting something that is (supposed to be, anyhow) innocent, largely unrelated and separated from July at all (other than her name, which, as mentioned, was a woman's name on a list of women, emphasis on the woman over July,) and July's response is so very accusatory. Again - even if what he did do was cause for alarm, stepping on old wounds, insensitive, et al, I don't think she responded correctly, at all. I understand it's a sensitive area, and maybe it was an impulse action, but she still has to be held to the same standards of etiquette and such as everyone else!

Ahem. Anyhow, I do feel like I'm not nearly as well involved/researched in this entire situation as a responder ought to be, and I do feel like my first response (while I do somewhat stick to it) was far, far too impulsive. Pardon for that. I shall drop out of this once possible - I'd hate to be the cause of a big argument, especially if the argument involves two people, neither of whom seem to want to be involved in the argument at all. And I do apologise for all the impulsiveness and whatnot. I could have probably handled that a whole lot better!

Yes, I was made aware of that after the fact. I have no explanation as to why I was certain you were a woman. It wasn't the username, that's what I'm sure of. Regardless, I would like to apologize for that.

1) I did say "this particular protest" and not "women's protests in general".
2) If an organisation keeps an unrepentant convicted terrorist anywhere near itself it loses any sort of moral high ground it has.