You didn't really say much other than some platitudes like "Nobody can be 100% reliable narrator" and "Whether you think Trisha is a reliable narrator is a personal call." What am I supposed to respond to? Those are empty statements. They go without saying. Yes, nobody is a 100% reliable narrator. Yes, it's always a personal call. It's filler statements.

I responded to you (fairly, with disagreement) because you response was ignoring the crux of the issue: Trisha is not a reliable narrator because in the exact-same-event, she could narrate (A) "teddybelle was helping the homeless, she fed them sandwiches, distributed blankets, all by herself, what a saint," then 6 months later (B), "teddybelle was pelting bread at the homeless and running away with their blankets as a joke, he's the meanest person I've ever met, like who does that?"

The way you framed it was, "It's important to keep in mind the context of, "Trisha is now trying to get back with her Ex" and I'm telling you, the context doesn't change anything. It's like saying, "well, Trisha no longer likes teddybelle which is why she falsely accused teddybelle of abusing homeless people." If Trisha lies about you, the context, that she doesn't like you, does not absolve her from lying, nor dictate on the spectrum of whether or not she's reliable. Her conflicting narration is what dictates that.

You didn't like my rebuttal, so you responded with the most passive aggressive bullshit I've heard all month. You deserve an award for that. You're just mad because your excuses are weak.