[joshuamorton]

My original claim was simply "firsthand accounts are evidence". Your said there wasn't evidence. I provided firsthand accounts. Multiple ones. You are now apparently claiming that these firsthand accounts are not evidence. This is a simple falsehood. You may disbelieve these accounts, but they are still evidence. And they justify what I said: evidence exists.

[hdfbdtbcdg]

These are not firsthand accounts. Nor are they accounts of actual bad behavior.

There is nothing in what you posted that merits me believing or disbelieving.

I engaged with your defamation in good faith. You provided no evidence of any bad behaviour so there is nothing more to discuss than you apologizing.

I won't be engaging further.

Edit: wow you even reposted the original hit piece.

[joshuamorton]

Please explain for each example I posted, including those from the original article[1], how it isn't a firsthand account, and why the behavior is acceptable.

I went to the work of providing specific examples, it would be polite for you to specifically and precisely explain why you think they're bad. You have repeatedly avoided giving specific reasons that the examples I provided are acceptable, instead you have claimed that these examples aren't evidence, with no accompanying reason. This is not a good faith interaction by you. It's avoidance of actually addressing the evidence provided. Since it's so bad, addressing it should be quick and easy.

Edit:

> Edit: wow you even reposted the original hit piece.

Of course I did! My statement was that the original article referenced firsthand accounts. That's a true statement. There are attributed quotes. Do you deny the existence of those quotes? Like, they're there in the article.

[1]: quoted in this https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...