PSA: The Linked Post is Full of Lies and Misinformation

[UPDATE: February 12th, 2019: Given Mandy Morbid's claims about Zak and Patrick Stuart's substantiation of their likelihood, I no longer feel comfortable with a public post of support, but in the interest of transparency, I am not removing it. According to Mandy, the post linked below supposedly by her was actually penned by Zak, and is now inconsistent with what she supports. I have no idea if the Failforward piece is lying or not, but I  maintain my belief that the use of "kafkatrapping" is corrosive and wrong, so I continue to endorse that piece of this post. Feel free to contact me with any questions or to comment below if you'd like to learn more about my feelings on the matter.

To get Zak's side of things, he maintains this separate blog from his main one to post updates on the legal status of these complaints. 

Please consider these claims and make your own decision on their validity, and the implications thereof, before either supporting or shunning Zak.]

So, I don't have much time to comment on this, but this post from Failforward is chock full of lies, misinformation, and other untrue things. I don't know enough about the author to speak to intent, but it sucks. Read it only as a lesson in how not to make a point or as a lesson in how to destroy your own credibility.

http://failforward.co.uk/post/93348768153/how-dungeons-and-dragons-is-endorsing-the-darkest-parts

As an antidote to it, I post an earlier blog entry by Mandy Morbid, girlfriend to the Zak S mentioned in the first (lying, terrible) post and a more recent one spurred by the response to the terrible, lying Failforward post:

http://mandymorbid.tumblr.com/post/92910013775/more-reasons-people-found-to-hate-me

http://mandymorbid.tumblr.com/post/93368940635/people-who-hate-me-part-2

Finally, for an explanation of why the methods of faux-argumentation used in the (terrible, lying, and as far as I can tell wrong) Failforward article would be bad even if the article were right, here's a nice essay by Eric S. Raymond on disingenuous rhetorical techniques that use someone's assertion of innocence as evidence if their guilt:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

Posted as a public service to people not familiar with the events or people in question. If you would like to learn more, or would like some, you know, evidence, either way, I'll try to point you to some useful sources.