Every time these types of discussions come up (deifying or demonizing someone), I try to take a step back and look at it a bit differently. I think the collective we often make judgments about a person as a whole based on snippets of if information we get from them. Contrasted to that by people who personally knew them or spent a lot of time with them.
An example is the whole blow up at Rob Kuntz in a board meeting. Isolated, that seems inexcusable to me. An abuse of power and horrible treatment to an innocent young kid (one you called an adopted son) because of what? Pride? It's a situation that makes it easy for me to make a judgement about Gary. To me, that was as big deal and upset me when I heard about it. Largely because of my own experiences.
But Rob isn't an idiot. He's a smart guy. And he pretty much grew up in Gary's house. I doubt he has Stockholm syndrome. Most likely, is that he has the luxury of experiencing a whole bunch of good experiences with Gary that when everything is taken into account, Rob doesn't judge him like we do. His past comments on here seem to support that.
I'm willing to bet every single one of us is the same. We have people in our lives who have said or done some pretty bad things. Good lord, I know I do especially when we were younger and stupid. But we probably judge those people under the umbrella of everything we know about them. Probably give them more benefit of the doubt than people who don't know them.
I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion of Gary one way or the other. Only to consider that if you (general you) really like him, he was probably worse than you think, and if you hate him, he was probably better than you think. I mean, how often do we hear about something some celebrity said--just one thing one time, and we blow up on them as if they were monsters all the sudden based on that one blip of time from their entire lives? No account of how they may have changed. Liam Neeson comes to mind.