Isn't "ideological emotional-string pulling" what the original historian was after by writing a story that fit the current popular narrative within academia?

Wouldn't holding one fraudulent historian accountable be withholding the credibility of historians, rather than 'despise'ing them?

Are you not the nihilist to be so pessimistic about the intentions of people who agree that the story was fabricated for popularity?

Honest questions that I would be interested in hearing a response to.