I wasn't being sarcastic. Nor was I being, at least intentionally, an ass.

MEM expressed doubt that anyone smeared Novak. I explained what I thought constituted a smear against him.

MEM, after describing what he saw as Novak's bad acts, concluded that, in effect, even if Novak hadn't been smeared, he deserved smearing.

I thereafter responded that to "smear" someone means to falsely accuse them and criticized MEM for writing that Novak deserved smearing. This meant, I pointed out, that MEM was saying Novak deserved to be the targe of false allegations.

Say what you will about MEM, but at least he, unlike you, constructs an argument and does so with commonly accepted rules of style and usage. The fact you can't follow his arguments, or mine, is neither of our faults.