It is not, but there is a strong correlation, and you should bear it in mind when evaluating how likely you think those accusations are to be true.
I am sure I have read other more direct accusations, but unfortunately I am not finding the sources at the moment.
I still think these articles are more than enough to cast some pretty strong doubts over the claims of his defences, and I think nobody who has read them should be quite so eager to run to his defence.
I don't think that's accurate, as far as I can tell he had one accusation against him which he denied vigorously and which may have been retracted by the accuser. You should at least link to the quote in question, it's rather damaging to someone's reputation.
I don't particularly understand the claims against this man, but as this organization and its discussions happen (almost) entirely online [is this correct?], surely it must be incredibly obvious whether or not allegations brought against him are true or not?
Nah. These accusations are exaggerated and without proof. Put yourself in his shoes. Would you like random internet people to accuse you with dramatized statements
and/or exaggerations?
You're not helping your argument by pretending there's only one person accusing him of such behavior, when in fact there are many and doing so from a variety of perspectives.
You would still be entitled to be skeptical of such allegations, of course, but their multiplicity is an empirical fact that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
I am sure I have read other more direct accusations, but unfortunately I am not finding the sources at the moment.
I still think these articles are more than enough to cast some pretty strong doubts over the claims of his defences, and I think nobody who has read them should be quite so eager to run to his defence.
reply