That's a bit snide.
I have politely acknowledged any shortcomings or possible improvements in part of what I posted. You seem to have mistakenly interpreted that gesture as some kind of agreement that what I posted was essentially wrong or that your own post which prompted mine was immaculate. It wasn't. More surprisingly you seem to have misinterpreted politeness as some kind of an invitation for you to have a further pop. It wasn't.
You refer to the subject of 'thinking things through before posting'........if you wanna go there that's fine with me.......it is actually you who posted what the definitive 'real truth' was without
thinking through what you were posting before you posted it.
Had you thought it through then, or even if you go and read it again and think it through now, it should be realised by you that at the point in the thread when you first coldly stated what the 'real truth' was, most readers would have had no idea what factors had led you to that conclusion due to you not having previously mentioned anything at all in the thread about your conversations with Sang concerning the incident or about your past experience of his honesty.
All the reader saw was an out of the blue, isolated statement by you regarding what the 'real truth' was, without any hint whatsoever of why and how you had arrived at your conclusion that it was the real truth. Your own failure to 'think it through' is therefore essentially why the ensuing correspondence happened in the first place. Jeeesh!