......

Basically, I'm too lazy to make quotes and stuff. But the gist is this: As you noticed, you don't fully understand the situation. You based your opinion on Lizard's statements (who, by the way, was a direct participant in the dispute but didn't express any negativity, unlike you – who was completely uninvolved). However, you allowed yourself to call me a "dirty player," dishonest, and a unscrupulous cheat (not all the words were quoted by you, but they emerge from the context), which, naturally, upset me. And notice, you're doing this not by saying that this is how the situation seems to you, but by stating it as an established fact. Even in more heated situations, people on this forum usually only allow themselves to do this if they are parties to the conflict, not just observers. Let me paint a picture. There was a banquet, there were guests, and as is usually the case, there was some overindulgence, an argument, and even some shouting in places, but overall, the feast was a success, and the satisfied guests left with full bellies and even lifted spirits. And when everyone had left the empty table, and they wanted to clear it, suddenly, that very guest (as he thought of himself) barged in, who, for sure, was missing. Because, "how could this be?", it was he who knew how the event should have been conducted properly, and, waving a gnawed bone (not by him, and this could also have been the reason for his dissatisfaction), he continued to threaten the kitchen staff (who didn't know what to do) and majestically repeat: "because I, I, and he, he..."
Yes, I also want to add. I especially remember when Psaki was asked why Russian military exercises were a provocation, but American ones were not. She answered quite logically: well, it's obvious that the Russians are doing it provocatively, but there has never been anything provocative in our exercises. Apparently, you decided to do the same to me, using the same logic. Well, it was quite an experience, thank you.
I don't want to rake up the past with Darkello (there was sex, but no orgasm), but the essence of the complaint there concerned not so much the subject of the dispute, but the parties involved, but that's not what we're talking about now.
And if we remove the sarcasm, I would have allowed myself to be less malicious, and the rebuttal wouldn't have turned into (whatever you said it turned into, I didn't have time to catch it), if you had been part of the group, two - if you had added that this is your personal perception of the world (and I feel sorry for it), and three - if you had been less categorical, especially since you are an observer and especially if you are not completely sure and don't quite remember.
Well, now there's a slight aftertaste, and for that, I can really apologize, for all the shouting in front of Lizard. I find it absolutely disgusting, as does Lizard, I'm sure, who, by the way, said the minimum and got straight to the point. It's a pity I'm not always so restrained.