>>150458942
Dishonesty is dishonesty, and again, "I'm dating a model, you don't know her, she goes to a different school" is such a stereotypical lie it REQUIRES confirmation. If a high schooler who took karate lessons told their friends "I'm a black belt, I can do a hundred push-ups and punch through steel", their friends calling bullshit isn't some unfair gang-up, it's basic common sense.
>>150459143
>She certainly didn't support them
Except when she did, like in the collage posted, which isn't even exhaustive.
>Only if you equate open hostility with a lack of support.
Yeah, open hostility would indicate a lack of support. No shit. On the flip side, showing open excitement and happiness for a friend's relationship, like Sue did, WOULD indicate support.
>Given Paulo's behavior outside of that? No, obviously not.
Up until that point he thought Mike was bullshitting.
>He also didn't support the two until Mike helped Paulo through his bisexual crisis
That's just not true; Paulo was an asshole about it, but he DID support them, not least because in his mind it cleared his way to Lucy.
>Far more often they were not, either openly hostile to the idea or apathetic.
That's also not true. They were hostile to the idea for about 3 seconds, then Mike said his piece and they apologized. After that, every time Mike brought up Sandy his friend(s) were openly supportive and happy for him, UNTIL Mike started getting all mopey and buried in his phone constantly.
It's true they weren't constantly singing Mike's praises, but Mike doesn't spend HIS time telling his friends their relationships are great and he's happy for them either, does that make him a bad friend? In fact, most times Mike comments on other people's romantic lives, he's either busting Paulo's balls for being a manwhore, or calling Lucy pathetic for rebounding to whoever's available. Which is fair enough in both cases, but Mike doesn't really have a leg to stand on in terms of "being supportive".
