There's no need to even take it with a grain of salt. The factual circumstances described in the article are extremely mundane, but the article tries to paint her participation as a problem by supposing that anyone participating in a public event should only do so if they can answer for every disparate opinion of everyone else there.
Part of the hacker news guidelines is to assume that everyone read the article, so obviously you read the sentence that started with:
> One can never control what others say or do at any public gathering but if actions take place that I disagree with, once this has been pointed out, it is right and important to explain one’s own position
I did. Are you trying to make a point here? If so, what is your point? I see a lot of weaseling around what you want to get across, but no actual comment on anything I wrote.
