[aroch]

>For how many years were people dismissed as nutjobs and "conspiracy theorists" when they talked about NSA spying? Now we know it was all true.

Just because it is true, doesn't mean those people aren't nutjobs or conspiracy theorists.

[toki5]

It's also not at all logical to say:

[Unlikely thing X] came true! Therefore, [unlikely thing Y] will, too!

Even if X and Y were incredibly similar -- in this case they aren't, at all -- that's still not a logical assumption. It's not even evidence toward Y.

[cdash]

There is your problem, you think unlikely thing x came true when in truth it was likely.

[baddox]

I'm curious what your definition of "nutjob" is, given that you would apparently apply it even to people who are correct about all of their theories.

[aroch]

>I'm curious what your definition of "nutjob" is

I don't really have one but if you must, it's probably someone with a dissociative disorder. I'm just noting that you don't have to be sane to be right.

>given that you would apparently apply it even to people who are correct about all of their theories.

When exactly did I say that?

[baddox]

You clearly implied that nutjob status is not correlated to the correctness of one's claims.