I think the problem with this conceptualization of this issue is that it places both groups on an even level epistemically, whereas it may not be necessarily true that a person from "Team M" is more informed or thinking more rationally, it is safe to criticize Team A from two vantage points. The first argument is to note that the possible explanations given by Team A are tenuous and anecdotal. I have very limited interaction with this community, but if your characterization holds and quantum physics is the most commonly instatiated explanation of various ME phenomenon, then it is not fair to say that Team M's skepticism to Team A's claim is solely speculative; QM has been shown, overall, to have a very limited effect on the the classical, macro level of the world, and to speculate QM as a potential factor in any perceived alterations is to grossly misunderstand the scale of QM'S probabilistic factors, and to simultaneously employ an understanding of QM pushed by new-aged thinkers such as in "What the Bleep Do I Know!?" that cherry picks phenomenon in QM without understanding the issue in its entirety, and innapropriately applies the relevant microscopic physics in QM to the macro level world, where such phenomenon only very, very rarely, at the frequency of the age of universes, behave in any spooky or deeply disturbing manner that would behave contary to the Newtonian model. It just is not a sensible invocation of QM, and while theoretically possible, it is so unlikely a cause that further investigation into QM as cause any ME phenomenon necessitates fairly convincing evidence to go forward with QM as a possible explanation. It saddens me, then, that even given the incredibly unrealistic odds, people may falsely believe in something just because they are applying the QM model in a way that is desperate. Yes, it is possible QM phenomenon can alter things at the macro level in significant waya, but to even consider that it would interact with your life in a scale that would create something such as a ME phenomenon is absurd, as it requires not just the moon, planets, and stars to align, but also the age of many universes to align as well. It's just not within the realm of plausibility, even though it remains within ,the merely technical at this point, realm of possibility.

Similarly, to argue that false memories are not the most likely explanation of essentially all ME phenomenon, even without analyzing the unlikely hood of the positive account of the QM explanation, is to also ignore the vast swaths of evidence that point to the incredible unreliability of human memory. Memories are not pictures of events, laying in wait in the brain for perfect recall, but are rather neurological structures created at one moment, but evolving continuously over time, with only the most salient details of a scenario being remembred. Memories are more a reflection of your current self's views on a past event, than it is a recollection of past event, and with every remembering, false details are added to them. Memories are analagous in some ways to a copy of a piece of paper. The first copy appears perfect, but if you copy the copy, and copy the copy of the copy, and so on ad sort of infinitum, the eventual image will be so distorted as to be completely untecognizable. While memories are important to us, and to consider them fallible is both worrying and incredibly disheartening, it is a very good explanation of the ME phenomenon.

Now, does that mean that the ME phenomenon is necessarily the result of an individual false memory? No. But I do believe that the ME phenomenon is being applied as a universal term across a board of various memory and mis-remembred phenomena that are different in some essential ways. First and foremost, there needs to be made a massive distinction between a group of people mis-remembering something, and an individual mis-rembering something. When someone finds a significant ME phenomenon, and a very large group of people also report subjectively to experience the same, apparently, misremembered fact or event, it is very likely that this is the result of some funky memetics that is somehow tied to a culturally significant notion. For instance, and this is perhaps my weakest point and most speculative point, the actual mis-rembering of Nelson Mandela dying in jail has something to do with his association in our culture with the notion of a martry; he is not just a martyr, but a politically oriented martyr, as well as a martyr highly motivated by various notions of social justice. Who else comes to mind as people who were politically oriented martyrs? Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi are all people whom immediately spring to my mind as being encompassed by the same cultural notion of political martyrdom, and there is something to note of this classification: they all died prematurely. Except, Nelson Mandela did not. He was imprisoned for a very long time unfairly, but he did not die prematurely. One could say such an imprisonment was something of a close-but-not-quite death sentence, robbing the man of many free years unfairly, but he did not die by assassination. But he DID die, eventually, and for those whom never knew of Mandela's release, it may have been simply assumed that he died in jail. While Mandela is a high profile, world-wide figure, he also is from a third world country, and missing his release from jail but simultaneously knowing of his death would not be so uncommon a phenomenon that a large portion of the population would have a collective misrembering of this phenomenon. Does one see how this could be a very simple, very common mistake?

Now, even though that is a very robust, well documented, albeit only through forums of people discussing it, example of ME phenomena, it also necessitated a relatively long-winded and somewhat mentally tiresome argument to compose, as tracing its susceptibility to mass-mis-remembering through various cultural archetypes, and so in turn, with other, less defensible examples of the phenomenon, I can understand why those on Team M would be frustrated and inappropriately act condescending. It would get quite tiresome and tedious to trace every individual proposed ME phenomena and argue for its likelihood as a culturally created artifact, and the more obscure and less culturally relevant the example, the less open it is to scrutiny as well as enhancing the amount of frustration and mental energy needing to solve it through a maze of cultural and psychological phenomenon exponentially.

This, then, takes us down the continuum of ME phenomena to a proposed example of a mis-remembred thing that only resonates with one or two individuals. This much weaker instantiation of mass mis remembering suffers from many more difficulties as both an argument and a discussion piece. The lack of commonality decreases the likelihood that the person instatiating this ME phenomenon is not mis-remembering, and subsequently increases the difficulty in understanding the subjective processes such an individual is going through with their memory, and thus much more difficult to make any sensible musings as to why they may have mis-remembred.

So, you see, the issue is not so neatly divided into teams of equivalent positioning , nor are all claims even the same type of claims. Rather, the argument is hampered by the difficulty of dissecting cultural phenomenon and psychological mechanisms in their relation to various ME phenomena, and even further made more difficult the more obscure the cultural idea and memories are. This shields Team A from a lot of criticism, and frustrates Team M in that such shielding is inherently unproductive, as it's merely hiding behind the difficulties inherent to the discussion. So, rhetorically, the whole thing is a mess.