Can we dissect the difference between "lies" and "being wrong" a bit? We can dismiss "mistaken", I feel, because you can't be mistaken about whether you contacted me or spoke to the one other person who had that information (for completeness's sake, Andy knew as well, but he was with Mink). That much is binary. You did or didn't. We know Scott didn't.

When I see him claiming that he had "credible information" that he had absolutely no way of having... yes, he's wrong about having the information he did not have. But he is choosing to present information he did not have to justify inviting a rapist to his part. The deliberate choice to use a fictional pretext here is what causes me to say "lie".

And that's the version of events that's actually most complimentary to them: their story that they were told I wouldn't be there, did not contact me to verify this, and invited a known rapist.

That's concerning all by itself. Even before you realize that they were told no such thing.

I'm not sure how I can help shift the focus here. I'm conversing honestly, calmly, and logically (with some understandable frustration), and he keeps restating things that are already proven to be factually incorrect, in one case making an entirely separate post to do so. I don't think I'm the one who is most in need of a tone shift here.