Business is based on trust. The exchange of funds for service or products is
trusted to be fair and equitable.
When that trust is violated by one or the other (or both) it becomes a
matter for further discussion. Of course the first order of discussion
should be between the participants.
Sometimes it extends beyond that scope to include others (like a lawyer or
in the courts). Other times the matter becomes fodder for public discourse.

The details, if kept factual, speak for themselves. Unfortunately facts get
misconstrued or colored by passionate reflection (because injured parties
tend to embellish?) It's hard to discern where truth stops and conjecture
begins.

Is this list a venue for continued discussion regarding a violation of
trust?  Yes.
Can the facts of an issue get blown out of proportion and irreparable damage
be done to a party's reputation?  Yes again.
Are the members of the list a bunch of lemmings incapable of devising truth?
Yeah, I guess so (if you listen to a vendors point of view).