> If you don't intend to write misleading stuff that makes Zig look bad

What misleading stuff? Makes Zig look bad how?

The posts I read were appreciative to Zig.

The only “misleading” piece of either blog post that I recall was the Andrew Kelley claim that Bun wasn’t fuzzing, which was easily refuted by pointing to their fuzzing work.

If there’s something more then I’d like to see it, but every time I ask nobody can point to anything other specific.

I think we can quibble about the Bun post’s factual claims. But I don’t think the post was deceptive or dishonest in its claims. Like most technical writing, it represents a vantage point.

As for ghosting in meetings: sure, that seems bad. I would also be upset if someone did that to me. But you can state that factually without making it into a personal attack. It would even be more convincing.