>>24
And as we're speaking of "lies", it seems to me I notice in this post of yours the same rather distasteful hypocritical rhetorical structure as I noted in another post some time ago (maybe yours too).
It's absolutely imperative, of course, that .71 show a "united front" and that nobody be seen to dislike or disagree with anyone ELSE apart from Alex Reynolds (after all, it's only 25 against 1 at the moment, and you wouldn't want these just-about-safe odds to shift against you).
So you begin your address to this poster with a compliment - "good job" - giving every impression, initially, that you approve of his post (which, yes, was indeed a reply to a post of mine).
Only in the third line does the actual intent and gist of your own intervention become clear, namely: "You musn't speak to this guy. You fucked up by even addressing him and if you do it again YOU won't be welcome in this den of totalitarian, compulsorily unanimous bullies either."
If you're going to accuse people of being "liars", please try to do some work on your own honesty and, if you're going to bully people and tell them what they can and cannot write, dispense with the pseudo-back-slapping.