> We have a murderer, we have (...) It sounds you lost track of the discussion. If you browse back through the thread you'll notice that the whole point is tha

> We have a murderer, we have (...) It sounds you lost track of the discussion. If you browse back through the thread you'll notice that the whole point is that without evidence this sort of accusation lies deep inside conspiracy theory territory, among all nutty baseless conspiracies. The key difference in this case is that, unlike all other conspiracy theories, there is indeed evidence that provide substance to accusations. Stating that an accusation is obvious is not evidence nor enough on itself. As I pointed out, the accusations in the Supermicro case we're also immediately obvious. Too bad they were not grounded on reality and after all these years there is no evidence to support them. But they were obvious, right?