>>2080370 (l/b)
>you have been lied to anon
That's quite an assertion, anon, especially since you have chosen not to explain in which way you believe I have been lied to, as you put it. In my day we used to call that kind of statement "a sweeping generalisation" which does not qualify as a valid argument.
Perhaps you might alsi qualify in which way exactly you find me to be "so near to the truth yet so far away."
Until then, I'm not sure I want to receive any blessing from your "god" with a lower case g. Could be Moloch for all I know.