[kjs3]

So...if you get to create narrow definitions of words the way you want, define your opinion ("they would not have found it interesting") as fact and use ad homen attacks ("You should learn something about the subject..."), you get to be right.

You are undoubtedly a joy at parties.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> narrow definitions

Like distinguishing between "plausible" and "not technically impossible"? If "plausible" now refers to anything not ruled out by the laws of physics, with no reference to likelihood, then anyone can make wild, unfounded accusations and say they're "plausible."

> define your opinion ("they would not have found it interesting")

It's not my opinion. Look at the scientific literature on SARS-related coronaviruses from before 2020. What viruses did the Wuhan Institute of Virology publish on?

> ad homen attacks ("You should learn something about the subject...")

I'm annoyed by people who have no idea what they're talking about boosting this conspiracy theory. This is an important enough subject that before making these sorts of wild accusations, you should actually understand something about the field.

[kjs3]

I'm annoyed by people who don't actually read what is actually written. I never "boosted a conspiracy theory"; I was explaining why self righteous, ideological twits feed the conspiracy theory by playing into the reasons why people believe in them.

I'm annoyed by people who can't divorce their absolute, unshakable belief that their oh-so-exhaustively Googled faux-expertise from how actual humans are interpreting what is being said. Because, you spent so much time becoming an "expert", you can't possibly be wrong.

I'm annoyed and Google-experts who think anyone who says "maybe you're looking at this the wrong way" turn into Donald Trump and accuse them of not just being wrong, but of "wild accusations" and "boosting conspiracies" and the rest.

I understand this far better than you. You are the problem.