I sent Owen a private response yesterday as I prefer to avoid writing publicly about this topic, but seeing that there is some confusion about the importance of my pseudonymity I'm sharing an adapted version of it below.

--

No, I am not comfortable disclosing my identity to a trusted party because I want to minimize the chances that Torres succeeds in doxxing me, and any disclosure involves risks. More fundamentally, I fail to see how my identity affects the credibility of what I said. I merely pointed out that Torres had accused me of “stalking, harassing, lying about, impersonating, and threatening [them] with physical violence”, and that this was a complete fabrication. If these accusations were True, Torres should be able to provide solid evidence. But Torres can provide this evidence regardless of whether my identity is known, or who it is known to.

The only scenario in which I can see Torres being unable to publicly back up their allegations is if (1) they are in a position to show that a specific individual did all of those things, (2) they know that I am this individual, but (3) they are unwilling to reveal the identity between that person and myself out of respect for my privacy. However, I am more than happy to waive my privacy rights in this case: I know I never contacted Torres or posted anything about Torres other than in my Substack or Twitter accounts, so I know that (1) is false (as the only conceivable way in which (1) could be true is if I had done those things).

--

Owen then clarified that his comment was not about Torres’s accusations of my harassing etc them, which he found unconvincing. His actual concern was that knowing my identity would help readers gauge if I am "as much a disinterested observer as is implied". I agree that this is relevant, so feel free to re-read my essay on the assumption that I am not the person I claim to be. It might be useful to ask yourself how your conclusions would change if the essay did not include a "My story" section but was otherwise identical to the present one.

I do not plan to engage further, but if anyone wants to contact me, you may do so at wmarkfuentes@proton.me. Though note that I check this email rarely.

The point I was trying to make is that you probably would not take their claims as seriously as you seem to be, if you had properly assimilated the fact that these claims are being made by the same person who falsely accused someone of "stalking, harassing, lying about, impersonating, and threatening [them] with physical violence".

You then say that you "have no way to be sure" if those accusations are indeed false because I am writing pseudonymously. Why do you say this? What does my pseudonymity have to do with my credibility in this context? The reason you should believe me is that if those accusations were true, and Torres knew this to be the case, they would be in a position to share this evidence publicly. But they haven’t done so, because they do not have this evidence.

I posted a reply, but it was automatically marked as spam, likely due to the newness of my account.

My reply copied a screenshot of Emile Torres, whose claims of having received harassment and threats of violence you said you had found "plausible", falsely accusing me of "stalking, harassing, lying about, impersonating, and threatening [them] with physical violence".

Torres account of receiving harassment and threats of violence seem plausible to me

Here is one of Emile P. Torres’s tweets about me:

As I note in my post, this is a complete fabrication.