Thanks for your answer. I see how my post could be perceived as trolling while in fact that was not my intention at all. I certainly did not write about being

Thanks for your answer. I see how my post could be perceived as trolling while in fact that was not my intention at all. I certainly did not write about being genuinely interested while I'm actually not. You're making a good point about how the situation I described is hypothetical. However, I did not write that you as an onlooker would be 100% convinced that all of the things she claims were true. The article actually only names some accusations she makes, and I referred to these in my original question. Therefore, the things she posts may in parts be correct in my thought experiment, and the onlooker knows about that, while other parts of her posts may still be incorrect ("smear"). Note that even with the actual article, i.e., without any knowledge about what actually happened other than what is written in the article, we are all "random onlookers". And we're all forming opinions one way or the other when we read something like this. I am interested to know how these opinions would perhaps be influenced if we had additional knowledge that isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. The thought experiment I sketched certainly is on an extreme end of the spectrum. If anything in my post was purposeful, then that it was hypothetical. Since your reply I'm thinking now that perhaps it was indeed "ridiculous" to think something like this up. But again, it wasn't my intention at all to troll. I appreciate that you took the time to answer.