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.