[bhouston]

If the allegations were unsubstantiated it would not have gotten this far, especially if he dealt with this in a mature fashion by engaging and showing he is just a reasonable person. If they were totally unsubstantiated the only way it would get to this point is because he dealt with it in the worst ways possiblle.

People wouldn't have quit to make what is essentially a useless fork if it were truly unsubstantiated. Those people are truly angry about what happened. This means there was something to resolve but it wasn't resolved, we just get grandstanding and massive effort into polemical defenses.

He tactically argues like a really smart guy, but his overall strategy is the wrong one.

[freeone3000]

This reads akin to the logic behind a witch hunt - a bunch of people are very upset at a person, therefore the person must be a witch. I disagree with the premise.

The people are indisputibly angry. They may have reason to be angry. I don't see it, but they may have it. But the entire line that "he's accused, therefore he must be guilty" is flawed.

[CrystalLangUser]

If it was substantiated there would be evidence. I see nothing beyond inane things that aren't worth this fuss.

It seems like another example of CoCs being used maliciously to hunt someone out of bias.