I would suggest that if you raise an issue, and say: This is a witch hunt, then you have the burden to show that. Of course, you can express that "this is a witch hunt" as an opinion, but if you are trying to persuade someone, then you have the burden, no?
I posted some evidence of "Witch Hunt" back on page 7, but it was dropped as off topic and it seems you didn't want to look too far into it..
Just because you raise a topic, and present evidence in support of that topic does not make it relevant, necessarily.
Seems to me that the more important point of relevance is whether OGNasty engaged in the alleged conduct rather than the supposed vindictive behaviors of the purported accusers. There are standards like this in all kinds of areas of life.
Let's take an employment example. Let's say that an employer can fire someone for any reason at all, so long as it is not based on a discriminatory category (such as race, age, sex). The employer had stated that it would like to get rid of Billy because billy is over 50, so therefore the employer has an unlawful motive; however, the Employer also has a rule that stealing from the company is a fireable offense. Billy is caught on camera stealing a $2k computer from the company, and he is clearly guilty of stealing the computer from the company. The company fires Billy. In this hypothetical, it does not matter that the employer has a bias and an unlawful motive against Billy that is clearly proven by evidence if the evidence shows that Billy had been fired for stealing the computer from the company, and everyone who steals from the company gets fired. So you can argue and provide facts until you are blue in the face that you have brought up a valid point about the companies proven bias about billy, but that evidence is irrelevant - even if you have established your burdens on that irrelevant point.
If evidence of "Witch Hunt" is now of concern for this topic,
I don't think it is, but I am not denying that there are people making claims that it is relevant and that there is evidence of it. My assertions about burden of proof in regards to that topic does not make it relevant, necessarily. It is just an example of how someone might have a burden who is attempting to make a point about a topic, but does not make the topic relevant, necessarily.
I'm sure I/we can provide a plethora thereof, all the way back to and including the creation of this thread by the OP in the first place..
That would be called going on a tangent.
Should we really go down that path?
Of course, you are free to try, but it seems mostly irrelevant... not completely, but mostly. Of course, opinions can vary about what is relevant and what is not too, and trolls, shills, distractors become very good at attempting to make irrelevance seem to be irrelevant, but does not cause irrelevance to become relevant.
Let me know if/when you would like abundance of "Witch Hunt" supporting evidence presented if it is now considered on topic and relevant to this case..
Maybe you could start a thread on such "witch hunt" topic, and if you provide a link to such topic here, that link might not be considered to be irrelevant to this thread, because at least the link on its own does not provide a lot of gobbledy-gook of tangentially possible distracting information.. and allows a bit better focus on the main topic here, which seems to be whether OGNasty did the alleged unethical or even misleading, fraudulent, conversion deed that he is alleged of doing or not and maybe what the remedy should be, if it seems to be true that he did those things?