You know, I was being graceful, but then you had to do that. So, you asked.
1. The reason the original article on Kotaku (and, presumably, the upcoming documentary) are attracting some attention is because they are using your quotes. It does sound like you're being a little self-aggrandizing (you are quoted, paraphrased, as saying "Everything (other people) know about the creation of the tabletop role-playing game is, in (Kuntz's) opinion, sorely mistaken or flat-out wrong."). Or how about "(r)egardless, Kuntz describes himself as the first 'dungeon master.'" Or "(Gygax) was jealous. Just stone-cold jealous."
2. Now, you have a lot of first-hand experience! But are you saying, now, that all the other people (like Gygax) agree with your current characterizations? That Gygax was just stone-cold jealous, for instance?
3. Or how do you square your recent descriptions of Arneson at TSR and how he left with what Kask said, and with what Peterson reported based on conteporaneous documents (for instance)?
4. And how can you claim experience in one thing (the experience at being at the table) to then say that you fully understood the two years before you met Arneson?
A lot of this is complicated. A lot of this suffers from people with agendas, and differing memories, and hurt that can still linger. I can understand that, just like I respect you for the seminal role you played in my favorite game (it's not Gygax and Arneson, it's Gygax and Arneson and Kuntz and Kask and Ward and so many artists and so many many others ...), and I love to hear what you have to say!
But it doesn't mean that I uncritically accept you theories. Just like I didn't accept it when Gygax said that Tolkien had little to no influence on D&D. Or failed to mention where Chainmail came from.