drumdude wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 7:13 pm
You cry wolf enough times and eventually everyone ignores you.
There's no one crying wolf here.
There is an incredibly complex set of evidence that can reasonably be interpreted several ways, depending largely on how you view issues like consent (especially as it relates to power imbalance), sexual harassment, non-profit ethics and mental health.
Have I presented my case as cut-and-dry? Of course, that's how I interpret the evidence. It's almost impossible for me to conceive that anyone could examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
You and others here, on the other hand, have painted this as a witch hunt with zero foundation and a personal vendetta.
Again, if I'm guilty of being on the end of the spectrum that is completely, 100% convinced that John is guilty, you and many others here who constantly get on your high horse about this subject are merely on the other end, arguing that there's zero evidence of anything and it's all smoke and mirrors.
So spare me your faux disdain for me and my interpretations. You've demonstrated clearly that you're not objective here, you're just arguing the complete opposite end of the spectrum.