And why should I take what you say seriously?
Incorrect.
The sequence was as follows:
1. you demanded, of others, repeatedly (#229 et alia), to be given exact citations of in-thread mendacity.
2. at post #235, I set forth specific parameters with implicit questions (which "ifs" you have not as yet answered), then explained that meeting your challenge would violate the specific command of the Mods, and finally laid down a set of two logical if-then statements concerning your issuing that challenge - raising the *possibility* of your malice, not making a positive assertion thereof.
3. You then heckled (#299) without addressing the ifs, without asking for confirmation of the Moderator command, without refuting the logical statements, and included a rather petty insult (paranoia)
4. At post #303, I refuted your heckling and insult, asserting that it has indeed been the creo side who have engaged in the three forms of specified behavior - the behaviors you have yet to confirm constitute "lies" under the terms of your challenge. I also set forth a third logical if-then statement, noting the apparent limited option set between a) your illogic, and b) your mendacity.
5. at #305 you responded with "ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
6. at #310, I indicated that such insubstantial response was "typical"
7. at #12, you posted yet another bandwidth-waster: a tinfoil hat jpeg, with the text "Ready for the creationist conspiracy"
8. at which point, #326, the duckpond-in-winter jumped in with a definition of paranoia. This led to a brief spate of the two of you caressing each other's egos in public in a most unseemly manner.
9. I interrupted your mutual admiration fest and responded to the both of you with a slightly annoyed brief of the situation (#341) and note concerning the continued insubstance of your entries.
10. to which the both of you have now at this point replied. This post forms a terminus to the direct reply to your #392, 396, and 400. There is no need to detail the remainder of duckpond-in-winter's contributions, aside from noting that in that dialogue the Mod's will was verified.
so - there above is the *actual* sequence.
It bears little resemblance to your characterization of the sequence ("You say people are lying. I ask where. You say you can't tell me and that I'm part of some malicious plot for asking. LOL.")
If you cannot address implicit questions, debate clear logical sets, or even keep straight the sequence of posts in a hypertext forum conversation in which you have been directly and significantly active, why should I or *anyone* take *you* seriously?
I no longer shall.
good day.