@Mistwell
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt once, then I'm done with you. I'm not interested in any whataboutist sealioning, thanks.
What we know:
She used a purposefully made email to email Mearls about Zak. She says that she didn't use that email address to email anyone else.
That email address was subsequently sent harassing and abusive emails from Zak and his thugs.
Now, a reasonable person would connect those two things and come to the reasonable conclusion that Mearls must have forwarded it to Zak. There's certainly enough between the lines if not overt admittance from Mearls that he did send the email. I can see how he did so thinking he was trying to defuse or investigate the situation; again a reasonable conclusion in Mearls' favour. In addition, why would she make this up? What possible goal would she have for doing so?
So, if that's not good enough for you, where exactly do you have a problem? Do you believe that she was lying when she said that she'd emailed Mearls and then got abuse from Zak etc? If so, why? Do you believe she was lying when she said she got abusive emails back to that address? If so, why? What was her goals for doing so?
I've always found it useful to see how a person responds to a situation. As with people who get all "it's the real racism" and "reverse racism" in the comparatively fewer cases where a white person has undergone abuse from a black person, but are conspicuously silent about white on black racism, it's often enlightening to see where a person's instincts push them. If your initial reaction to hearing that a woman has suffered abuse is to defend the alleged abuser, to demand that the victim explain herself, that she prove to your goal-post changing satisfaction that there's absolutely 100% evidence to back her up, that if there's even a slight chance that she might have gotten a minor point wrong ("but she said she emailed at 1.30 and yet the time stamp clearly shows 1.32") to somehow score a point, then it shows more about you and your own beliefs than you'd perhaps want to openly express. It certainly fills me with distaste for anyone that does immediately jump to defend an abuser rather than listen to his (multiple) victims, or to pile on to a victim and demand more and more evidence despite a clear progression of events from the data available as with Mearls.
It might behoove you to consider your position and ask yourself why you're so quick to jump in to defend someone who was almost certainly an accomplice to an abuser, no matter how well-intentioned Mearls was, rather than to think about the victim here and tacitly accuse her of lying for...reasons?
So that's me done with you. You can huff and puff and sealion some more if you wish, but I won't be answering your posts any more, or seeing them. Others will no doubt regard you with their own opinions if you continue in your current way of thinking though, as I've outlined above. You might want to bear in mind how you come off if you do so.
