[mannykannot]

> Whether or not your accusation directly refers to GP is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is of the essence, as you posed your accusation explicitly as me accusing GP of being wrong and lying or being lied to ("what I’m reading here is “you’re wrong and lying or lied to because of an ‘agenda’” and that’s it") - which raises the question of what position you think GP holds, and how you came about that knowledge.

> I included the “lied to” because I knew you would try and sneak out of it like this...

As you wrote this in the first line of your first post, in the middle of your accusation, this just demonstrates that you have been acting in bad faith from the beginning, uninterested in finding out what my actual position is. This will be of little surprise to anyone who has followed the conversation, or just picked up on the tone of your first reply.

It is also completely unclear what you think you are proving here. As I explained in my previous post, your accusation is not wrong on a technicality; it is fundamentally mistaken about where, and about what, I think someone would be lying (hint - it's not GP, as far as I know - but you should know that already from my previous post.)

> Normal people...

Normal people do not like wild, personal and unjustified accusations followed by badgering questions predicated on the false propositions of the accusation, and they are not keen on the people who make them, either.

Your final paragraph shows that you have not learned anything from my previous post, which is probably not surprising, now that you have revealed your intent to trap me on a technicality rather than find out what I am actually saying.

[augustulus]

Despite your plethora of deeply hypocritical accusations, I’m going to cut this down to the central tenet

Who are you accusing?

What are you accusing them of?

Why do you think they’re being dishonest?

Next time you say something, remember to be confident it makes sense, or you’ll have to go through your politician’s poor-faith smugly-avoiding-the-question-manual all over again when someone asks you to—shock of all preposterously unhinged shocks—actually explain yourself when you make a controversial claim

[mannykannot]

So, having nothing to say in response [1], you fall back on badgering again. That isn't going to work any better than it did before, except to reinforce the impression you have already made.

[1] Except for a presumably unintended but rather accurate self-portrait.

[augustulus]

one day you’ll have to deal with a person like you, and you’ll remember this and have to sit down and ask yourself some difficult questions

[mannykannot]

Here, I have met a person who immediately attacks with a personal allegation ("what I’m reading here is “you’re wrong and lying or lied to because of an ‘agenda’” and that’s it"), does so in bad faith ("I included the “lied to” because I knew you would try and sneak out of it like this"), and who repeatedly resorts to badgering me with questions. If this sort of behavior was directed towards someone unprepared for it, it would count as bullying, and I have no difficult questions arising from my responses.