I've used my words many times and all that ever happens is that I get shouted down or called a conspiracy theorist, so I decided to lead with evidence directly responding to the OP's points, and then follow with words. Did you not see those?
If you frequently get called a conspiracy theorist it's most likely because... you're a conspiracy theorist. Like, you claim in some of your posts that NPR is a mouthpiece for Lockheed Martin, and that Jeff Bezos decides what the Washington Post will print.
Now, maybe those conspiracies are real, and you're seeing something the rest of us are too blind (or too deep in the pockets of Deep Hacker) to see. But then you have to work extra hard to build the case and persuade, with a cogent narrative. That requires a lot of work! It's not very fair. But it's the only way you're going to get people to listen to you, if that is an outcome you want.
Then your arguments weren't convincing, which I sympathize as being very frustrating.
Certainly this approach was likely far less convincing - I feel no motivation whatsoever to click a bunch of random links having no idea their content. Furthermore, should I do so, I may arrive at a very different conclusion than you intend. I do give you props for coming to the table with so many sources, whether they're quality or not I have no idea.
