First, I'm in very good company. Darwin Fish has also denounced virtually every man of God in the annals of church history as a liar and deceiver. I am frankly flattered to be categorized with men like John Calvin, John Owen, the Puritans, Charles Spurgeon, and John MacArthur—all of whom have influenced me greatly, but none of whom I am worthy to be compared with.
Second, notice that Darwin seems incapable of believing anyone might ever be mistaken or miscommunicating. And he doesn't appear to recognize that language can sometimes be misunderstood or ambiguous. So when he reads or hears a statement he disagrees with, he immediately insists the other person is guilty of "lying," "deceit," "false teaching," or some similarly abominable misdeed. His Web site targets me in particular with a laundry list of ungodly accusations about "lying," "deceit," "slander," and truth-twisting. I have responded to some of his specific accusations by correcting or clarifying my own statements to remove ambiguities or unintentional inaccuracies. But Darwin's response in return was merely to suggest that I "changed some of [my] deceit"—ostensibly out of wicked motives.
Here is one example of how unreasonable Darwin's incessant finger-wagging about "deceit" can be: In the original version of this FAQ, I wrote, "Darwin has been known to show up on Sundays in the Fishmobile at Grace Community Church, with his entire 'congregation' in tow. They stand on the streets surrounding the church . . ." The sentence contains an unintentional ambiguity: The participial phrase "surrounding the church" naturally modifies the noun closest to it (streets); but it could be read as if it modified the main verb of the sentence (standing). I meant it in the former sense: Darwin and his group stand on the streets and sidewalks that surround our church. Darwin insisted on taking it in the latter sense, as if I were claiming he had brought a group big enough to link arms and surround our church's entire campus at once. He wrote, "[We] stood on the public sidewalk near the front of the church. We in no way surrounded the church (it's too big!)." Since I had already stated that Darwin's congregation is a small, living-room-sized group, my meaning would have been perfectly clear to most readers. But Darwin insisted on citing his misconstrual of my words as "proof" of my "deceit."

The truth is, if I wanted to reply in kind, I could accuse Darwin of "lying," because some of his followers have also stood and passed out their literature and insults from behind our church (not just "near the front" of it). But I'll extend him a courtesy he rarely extends anyone else: I'll assume his inaccuracy was neither deliberate nor essential to the point he was making.
In any case, I do not intend to be goaded by Darwin Fish into wrangling about words to no profit. But I do invite readers to analyze his accusations carefully and notice that despite the harsh and insistent tone of his complaints about my supposed deceit and duplicity, his "proofs" are without any real substance. Notice also that he loves to nitpick about the incidental details of his critics' statements, but he consistently misses the big picture.

Update: Apparently, sometime after 2001, Mr. Soto quietly removed most of the material "exposing" my "lies" from his Web site. Perhaps it was pointing too many prospective converts to this FAQ, where they were fueled with questions Soto and Fish had difficulty answering. I'm not certain what led to its removal. I certainly never complained about their little "expose." I am quite willing to wear any odium they want to pour on me (Matthew 10:25-26).