mido9

"Testimonies aren't very unreliable" So thanks to that double negative, it means that they are reliable. And it's more than just one person. The Google Doc, again, multiple literally dozens of testimonies, from people who collaborated and confirmed each other's stories. This is not secondhand information; these are people expressing resentment based on years of abuses.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WZFkR__B3Mk9EYQglvislMUx9HWvWhOaBP820UBa4dA/preview#heading=h.v89be0jiemu0

Those are the actual allegations. There is evidence in the document for you to read at your leisure.

I wrote that as testimonies are unreliable, then as testimonies aren't reliable, but made a mistake.

Also, adding a lot of unproven things together doesn't make them proven, for all anyone knows they could all or most be wrong when many of these events are years old, and the confirmation bias of talking to only them.

I'm aware you made a mistake, but I saw an opportunity to tease and I went for it.

Considering that was a debacle that happened within the community, who the hell else did you expect them to talk to? It shows how much of a recurring issue this was, and  just to give one example, Linkara took care to mention that his memory might be faulty, so he focused on what he was absolutely certain about.

This isn't a matter of "they could all or most be wrong." That is absolutely ridiculous, and you have to be jumping through a lot of hoops at that point to deny the possibility that there could be even the slightest merit to what they're saying.