To me, this is nuts. I don't see any lie, nor any problem with what he said, here.
You want so much to make him look bad that you will try to twist absolutely anything (If it needs to be said, even if I find always this a little dumb: He isn't perfect, like most of us). This makes YOU look bad, because you indeed don't seem honest. Maybe you even believe yourself the BS you're peddling.
Was "an objective voice of reason" banned, or not? Well, "objective voice" is Rob's opinion, but was the account banned, yes or no? It seems, as per [USER=5381]@mr-x[/USER] post above, that you even actually can have a secondary account on NP if you pay. In any case, NP could have let the account continue, at least until this discussion was over. It was their choice to ban it (as it was their choice to let me participate for months on a non-residential IP until they used this as an excuse to ban me).
The fact is that they choose to let some accounts continue, whatever may be going on (IP, duplicate account, etc.), and they choose to stop some when it says some things they don't like and they prefer to stop (sometimes with BS excuses which aren't even true, what we cannot be sure about for the supposed "duplicate" part). So the second highlighted sentence is totally true too, IMHO. Even if it was indeed a "duplicate" account.
