Spunk stated that Torah4me might have been referring to himself and not his daughter. If I am understanding you correctly, you took this to mean that Spunk thought that Torah4me said that he was referring to his daughter but he was really lying and referring to himself. (I’m not even sure what that means – how can you be lying about what you mean? But whatever, that’s not important)
In any case, I did not understand Spunk’s words that way at all. When he said that Torah4me might be referring to himself and not his daughter, the reason for the words, “and not his daughter” was that Spunk felt that other posters (such as myself) THOUGHT that Torah4me was referring to his daughter and he/she (Spunk) thought that WE were wrong.
In other words, the words “and not his daughter” were referring to MY misconceptions and not to any dishonesty on Torah4me’s part.
Spunk thought that I must have misunderstood Torah4me’s point since I was bringing an example as a daughter. So I had to explain to Spunk that I had not misunderstood his point, and there was a reason why I brought my example.
Based on Torah4me’s response, it seems that Spunk and I were correct in our understanding of his original post.
You write, “The question posed was should Torah4Me be concerned about the child’s behavior. Not does Torah4Me have OCD.” But as can clearly be seen from Torah4me’s last post, his concern was that he may have OCD.
So I really do not think that there is any reason whatsoever to think badly of Spunk and to assume that he/she was accusing Torah4me of lying.
But I appreciate your concern that I was speaking Motzi Shem Ra and your attempt to spare me from gehinnon. That was very kind of you.