What I said was that, when you can't find enough evidence, you create more.
Which contradicts what you've posted above ...
I don't see the contradiction.
You attack once you feel you have a strong case.
The target defends their actions.
You continue to push, creating new "evidence" along the way, once your initial case is proved not as cut-&-dried as you present it.
I would invite people to re-read you exchange with Vitek.
You accuse him of:
1, A panicked defense.
2, Attempting to dismiss accusations as nonsense.
3, Unable to present a good counter arguement.
At least 2 of these are subjective.
He made a defense. It is a stretch to state that it is panicked.
This 'present my opinion as fact & damn anyone who disagrees' is something I mayself see as very scummy.
You insist that your opinion is the only one that matters & that anyone who has other ideas better keep quiet or be labeled scum & hounded forever.
You also suggest that Stoic is scum for defending Vitek.
So far, I have seen nothing that convinces me that Vitek is scum.
If he is not, why is it scummy to defend him?