[philodeon]

Very very incorrect.

EDIT: Adding more to my post here because it would be hypocritical for you to complain:

1. I feel like given how I can make accurate predictions about Henry’s sphere of influence, that might gain me a little credibility: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45495180

2. The reason I insulted you is because I know for a fact that when the mob came and demanded you shun and persecute someone, you caved.

[tptacek]

de Valence accuses Bernstein of specific academic misconduct and you come back with this Encyclopedia Dramatica stuff? Why bother commenting at all?

I don't think "I insulted you because" is ever a good way to start an HN comment, for what it's worth, but thanks for laying your cards on the table.

[philodeon]

Because Bernstein addresses this:

>>> There is a committee at TU/e charged by law with ensuring proper grading, and I have recently learned that claims by Mr. de Valence related to this topic have been formally investigated and rejected by that committee. Now that Mr. de Valence has issued public accusations, it would seem that a public resolution will be necessary, starting with Mr. de Valence making clear what exactly his accusations are.

He also points out that de Valence is himself likely guilty of academic misconduct based on his own admissions.

We have two people making contradictory statements. The only ways to resolve it are facts (which were presumably reviewed by the committee) and credibility. You clearly think de Valence is more credible because he’s one of your feline friends, and because your other feline friends accused Appelbaum of sexual crimes, and you hate that Bernstein worked with Appelbaum because in your mind a sexual abuse accusation is as good as guilt of sexual abuse.

de Valence chose the same credibility-destroying path as Lovecruft, Honeywell, et al. did: make serious accusations in the public sphere instead of letting our public institutions charged with addressing these type of accusations do their job. Wise people realize that you can’t be criminally charged for publishing a smear campaign online, but you can be criminally charged for filing a police report, and evaluate accordingly.

[tptacek]

The same credibility-destroying path of questioning the conduct of your hero, I do get what you're saying, we don't have to belabor this. If you had a real argument you'd have presented it by now.