Okay, Emily, it seems to me you& #39;re the one trying to mislead other people here.

I& #39;ll just talk about one thing - the reposting issue. You clearly tried to steer away from the fact that yukilynn couldn& #39;t have been the reposter as accused, and focus on her disclosing 1/ https://twitter.com/cataclysmiceve1/status/1317543902547685379">https://twitter.com/cataclysm...

-the work ID information claiming she was doing so without the consent of the people providing that info. When /you/ yourself clearly had no idea whether consent was provided.

Can I ask, again, why is it that yukilynn cannot use that piece of evidence to prove her innocence 2/

-in that matter, when 1) it& #39;s not a confidential thing (if people pay attention they would know), and 2) she has already received what turned out to be a baseless accusation?

In short, either Alex& #39;s fabricated the repost story, or someone else having access to her devices 3/

-did so, but you seem hellbent on fussing over the way yukilynn provided her evidence without giving weight to either possibility.

Yes, I acknowledge you did say the only other possibility was for Alex& #39;s to have fabricated the whole thing at the beginning, but you clearly 4/

-wanted to twist it the other way, going so far as to flat out deny even the most robust part of yukilynn& #39;s claim to frame her of manipulating the reader& #39;s emotions.

Emily dear, aren& #39;t you doing the exact same thing, though? Appealing to authority, isn& #39;t that also a fallacy? 5/

If yukilynn is appealing to the reader& #39;s emotions and trying to forge a connection with them, then you& #39;re doing basically the same thing, appealing to the supposed fact that you know better and can judge fairly when it& #39;s obvious that you& #39;re clearly just using your professional 6/

-experience to justify your biased stance.

I used to be your reader, your follower, but this is it. Goodbye.