A key feature of a "flame war" is long chains of responses. By not responding to amedvednikov, AndyKelley did not participate in a flame war on that post. It was a call-out. His criticism was quite relevant at the time, because the article was a false release announcement, and the project was garnering a lot of attention (and taking people's money) by making outlandish claims, with (at the time) nothing to show for it.
There is no such thing as "constructive criticism" of suspected fraud -- there were a bunch of red flags, and AK was not remotely alone in sounding the alarm. Do you have constructive criticism to offer, is AK still badgering AN, or are you just airing grievances about 2 year-old drama?
> There is no such thing as "constructive criticism" of suspected fraud
You can criticize anyone constructively. What they are today is not what they are in the future. People can change even Andrew, but if something is repeated over and over, it is a sign of their personality.
I see his act as harassment. I know that Vlang had red flags, but I feel Russophobia or Jealousy in his actions. I looked through everything, but the guy didn't let the man talk and explain himself. So, the other side of the story is hushed up. It's like asking someone to prove their worth, otherwise they'll be killed. Naive Bayes can uncover many cases of fraud, but bias can turn things upside down.