First off, I dont know the men in question, but do one of the women. I don’t care how much the actual dialogue is softened as a counter and damage control. These guys clearly took part in the type of discussions that make women (and most men) uncomfortable. And I’m not saying uncomfortable like,”Gee, it’s chilly in here, I’m uncomfortable”. I don’t care what their excuses are, or their version is, that clearly is damage control, it’s enough for me to decide that I have no interest in them, their speeches or their group. What can anyone say that convinces me that any version is okay? Blaming embellishment doesn’t work. I especially am not interested in sponsors who would support them. Why? Because the judge and jury is my opinion and my opinion alone. I don’t have to justify it, and neither do the members, the sponsors or any associations. No one has a right that says I can’t have my opinion without court approved evidence. I don’t like any version of what the blog said or even what they admit to. If it quacks like a duck… no excuse or version will change my mind. And with that, the customers…in this case event coordinators, affiliate companies and associations can decide whatever they feel is in their best interest and more importantly, those of their customers…the members. Turning the attention to the, not one, but THREE professional women who were there is deflection. A common tactic used constantly in elections. Slowing the roll on whether or not a group or individuals want to be associated with them and more specifically what they said, is sort of condoning it. If you aren’t outraged, you are part of the problem called complacency. and that why this problem never goes away.