Part of my point is to look at it from the accuser's perspective. So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the ot

Part of my point is to look at it from the accuser's perspective. So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the other case didn't name the person. It seems like from the accuser's perspective, a witch-hunt and the destruction of my reputation would be great. So... why not do it? It seems like the most effective path would be to absolutely destroy the other person (corroboration, witnesses, detailed accounts) before they can play defense and start smearing you. You've spoken to and demonstrated why we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet, which is well and good and correct. But what you haven't answered is why someone making serious accusations of this nature wouldn't name the person who has done this to them? I don't think equality has anything to do with my point? It's more a game theoretic question.