1) My understanding of this "scam artist" stuff is that she worked for some weird marketing company that engaged in weird practices and/or had ties to PUA culture. There were some videos I saw a long time ago of her giving 'testimonials' for some product, as well as being a pitch woman for something.
Secondly, there's some people who argue that she's being used as a figurehead. People with way too much time on their hands than myself have compared tweets purportedly sent out by Anita and compared them to tweets sent by McIntosh. Some of the tweets were making specific examples to things and were spread out by long periods of time and it was thought to be unusual that the same phrasing/examples/tone/etc. was used. Therefore, it's argued that the FF account isn't actually run by Sarkeesian, but is done for PR purposes.
Coupling Anita's prior work history and the fact that she doesn't seem to be in control of her own Twitter account gives critics the impression that her heart isn't in it and she isn't actually a believer in her cause (or whatever.) This, coupled with the fact that production on promised content has lagged far behind (while they've continued to collect money and have branded themselves a non-profit for tax purposes) makes people think that there's something fishy going on. Especially if you take things like the lifting of someone else's artwork (the whole logo debacle that inflamed a bunch of people) or lifting YouTube footage that other YouTubers have compiled and not really addressing/apologizing for it.
COUNTERPOINT
A lot of what I described above can be rationalized in other ways.
One, as far as I know, Anita "working for a PUA" or being affiliated with someone involved in PUA is simply conjecture. I honestly cannot remember the specifics on this and I can't be arsed to do the research on it. I'm sorry. But regardless, it could be explained that this was a 'past mistake' and that isn't who she is now. Not a big deal.
Second, the Twitter stuff could be explained simply as being people absorbing stuff from people they are working closely together with. It might be a little irritating if you're not inclined towards what McIntosh/Sarkeesian are espousing to see two people readily chiming in on the same thing, but it doesn't mean that there's proof of anything nefarious going on.
Thirdly, the lack of work in producing more videos can be explained by them being overwhelmed from a PR perspective and the sheer amount of attention that's been turned on them. This comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is more important: university and media talks or producing content. I'd say that if there was a promise for Video X to come out by, say April 2015 and they haven't met that goal, they should be given shit for it, but I don't think that you can say they're being 'scam artists' when they're apparently still very much involved in their 'movement.'
Finally, I don't really have a defense for stuff like lifting content from other sources and using it for themselves without asking permission. That's plagiarism, and is not really excusable. I guess you could say it was an honest mistake, but given that Sarkeesian is an academic, she should honestly know better.
2, If I say the sun rotates around the Earth and that anyone who says otherwise is wrong, I'm not lying, but I could be misinformed. If I have knowledge that proves my assertion (that the sun rotates around the Earth) is wrong but I insist on it anyway, I could be dishonest, though.
3, Mr. Rogers is dead and I doubt his moldering corpse would give two shits either way.