Sure, it's obviousness that I did not frame the post correctly, to gain such a response (it is what it is now though). I still take issue with being called a liar though. If that fact was remotely in doubt I would have refrain from using that word. Further even if they had admitted to lying I would let their words stand as testimony to their deceit. It is a word that detracts from one position and adds to the others without truly rebutting the position. It is therefore disingenuous to use, if the fact is in question.

That being said, I can see where the post could be construed that it was not the true reason for the initial contact. I still think there is enough ambiguity that I should have been given the benefit of the doubt.