Really? I quite clearly said, in the bit that you quoted, that it’s bad enough even if it’s one without the other! I think you jumped to conclusions there and read something that I had not said.
That they are different things. The only thing I was doing was pointing out specific factual details that were either not correct or badly worded. A few details of the writeup did not match the facts as reported by ARS, and I was pointing that out. That’s not a value judgement, and I think I’ve made it as clear as I possibly could that I was in no way intending to defend or absolve anyone.
