My vocal opposition is due to your shills
Then it is based on a false premise, since we have never employed any shills.
Given the foundation of your position being false, you might want to reconsider it, at least if you are going to be honest and logically consistent about it at all. Obviously you are not forced to.
You don't have to employ shills to have shills, and I don't have to take your word that you don't employ shills. Out of respect for my own well being I choose not to.
Not employing shills is not "having" shills. As it could not be considered to be his shills if they weren't employed by Smooth.
You have unfounded assumptions about shills being around.
Seems like you may have gotten the word shill and supporter mixed up. Or are they the same to you?
Technically, being a promoter of a cryptocurrency meanwhile having special interests (owning it, being a developer, etc) can be construed as being a shill.
The Merriam-Webster definition is:
1: to act as a shill
2: to act as a spokesperson or promoter
and
a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)
b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter
So, everyone is a shill for whatever coin they own (if they post good things about it and defend it) regardless of owning extra accounts. Multi accounting is just a different more sneaky form of shilling. When people tell me I'm using the word shill wrong I point to the dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill