Well that's sure an argument. You get that I'm not the one who accused him, right? What you think of me has literally nothing to do with the claims Henry de Valence made. My guess is that these two documents (or maybe just the one you posted) are literally the first time you ever heard that name. Am I right?
>>> 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.
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.
