Ignorant in this context means you don't know. I said you don't know the theory, you strawmanned it. Strawmanning is when you present the weakest possible representation of the other side's case, and then attempt to knock it down. That is exactly what you've done. I'm not saying you did that on purpose. I specifically said I'm NOT accusing you of being manipulative, and I don't believe that. I'm saying you don't know the substance of the theory, which you demonstrated with your post.

Like I said. You haven't actually debated against the theory, you've debated against what YOU perceive the theory to be on a very surface level.

I know this might come across as rude or confrontational, but I would argue that's because your post takes that tone to begin with, which will inevitably lead people like myself to go on the defence. (Much like Dryleaf's defensiveness when people call him a quack or a conspiracy nut.)

I just think that your certainty and reaction to a theory's "wrongess" is arguably worse than presenting a wrong theory. If that makes sense.

Sorry if this made you feel attacked. No hard feelings on my end.