He could very easily have not read your posts and given your history between you and Ekko filled the gap with the presumption you two were arguing at length because you've got "a thing". That's probably what occured here, or he skimmed and got a bare impression.
If not - and he's feigning like he hasn't read your posts when he actually has, I don't think you need justification for suspecting him past that. But I don't see that as really something all that necessary to lie about.
This is all incorrect, and rather wildly so in fact. I just pointed out a specific post, allow me to quote it verbatim:
what's the point of that? No matter what i bring you will simply say ''that's not emotional'' rational ratchet wouldnt be fighting that's all there is to it.
his *very clearly* indicates that he has something *to bring* but will not do so because he thinks I won't accept it. For this to be true, he must have read some parts of it. This is further evidenced from his post where he says he twn reads Ekko, where he quotes a very specific portion of our discussion that, if he had not been reading, he simply could not have made:
All i saw was ratchet saying townies think a certain way even using an A and B example and ekko saying that because he doesnt think that way doesn't mean he's scum.
Emphasis mine.
Which in turn brings me to you. Frankly, I don't think your opinion on this is at all erudite, but yet you've clearly read the thread, so I don't see any reason to view it charitably. See, I can reconcile Pero as simply being stubborn and wanting to say *something* even if that something isn't very good, and instead of conceding it, arguing himself into a hole. He does that quite a lot. That's more of a personality trait, and thus is good enough for me to give some benefit of the doubt (though not entirely, hence my vote, and my questioning him in the first place).
In any case, questioning him on these grounds comes across as a forced "gotcha", and it's not very compelling.
I don't think you could be more insincere here if you tried. Why does it come across as a "gotcha" when the evidence speaks for itself?