I suggest that before you object to something being called a YEC lie, you actually find out for yourself whether it actually is a lie, and don’t just assume that there is no evidence, only anecdotes.
In this case there is Snelling’s article in which he claims there is no fracturing, including a poor-quality picture which supposedly shows no fracturing; which can be compared to better quality pictures of the same formation which not only show the fracturing which Snelling claims isn’t there but also show large fractures that are large enough that they would be visible in Snelling’s picture if not for people standing in front of them.
So when Snelling says “The whole sequence of these hardened sedimentary rock layers has been bent and folded, but without fracturing.”, and provides a picture that would show fracturing if it was better quality and didn’t have conveniently placed people, I am fully justified in calling it a YEC lie.
This is the same Andrew Snelling, btw, that uses conventional dates when publishing in geological journals but YEC dates when writing for AiG [source].
I note you only objected to my criticism of Andrew Snelling, of which you claim to be unaware, and not my similar criticisms of Jon Sarfati, Kent Hovind or Duane Gish.
If you really take exception to YECs being labelled as liars, you should have objected to those as well. Perhaps you already know that those cases are even more damning than Andrew Snelling’s.
Added:
P.S.
You haven’t assessed the evidence.