(a) The statement I cited is misleading. It implies that the world-famous work Ender's Game wasn't recognized by the science fiction community, when it was - the novelette was nominated for a Hugo, the novel won the Hugo, the sequel to the novel won the Hugo, and the sequel to that was nominated for the Hugo.

Is Orson Scott Card currently disliked by many in the science fiction community? Yes. Has he always been? No. Does the statement I quoted ignore the history and imply that he has gotten no recognition? Yes.

The entire article is like that - it elides details to create an oversimplified picture that is in alignment with the polemical point the author wishes to push, while using those elisions to subtly mislead the reader into making conclusions which are broader and deeper than the explicit words on the page.

It's a common rhetorical technique, but it's an offensive one.

(b) I don't understand how what I have said in this dialogue with you can be construed as a lie. In my last comment, I said

(1) your linked article is full of misleading statements, which is at worst an overstatement of the factually true statement "I find a lot of the statements in your linked article to be misleading."

(2) my favorite example of this is [], a statement which (a) is true and (b) whose truth value you are not competent to judge as you don't have enough knowledge of my internal state to judge what is or isn't my favorite example of something.

(3) Orson Scott Card has won the best novel Hugo twice. This is a true statement.

(4) Orson Scott Card has been nominated for the best novel Hugo an additional four times. This is a true statement.

(5) Ender's Game won the Best Novel Hugo. This is a true statement.

I don't think there is any way for you to demonstrate that any of those five statements is a lie.

The most you can do is to demonstrate that the statement "Orson Scott Card has never been excluded from the sci-fi community", a statement which I have not and do not make, is a lie.

But that would be attacking an inference you made from my comment - a comment which was not intended to imply any such thing!

You could, and probably will, retort that I'm doing the exact same thing I allege the author of your linked article was doing - presenting an oversimplified picture designed to subtly mislead through elision. Out of context you'd be right; in the context of a response to such an oversimplified picture, though, pointing out the elided facts that you think gave rise to a misleading oversimplification is absolutely sufficient, and should not give rise to such an inference.