...it can be reasonablly inferred that these same people believe the OCTheory for the most part as truthful. ..TM7
No, I don't think that's a reasonable inference at all. You are familiar with Occam's razor? The simplest way to respond to the statement is to not read anything at all into it. Here let's try this:
Billy is riding a new red bicycle. Seems simple enough, but if we approached this statement the way our billy's poll has been approached, it would turn into.
Billy stole it from Timmy.
The bicycle isn't new, it's old, and only designed to bear a child under 50#, which Billy is not. In fact, our little fat Billy is only on the new government issued bicycle to demonstrate the severe problem of childhood obesity.
The government wants you to think its a bicycle, but in fact it was a polar bear.
The red is somehow racist in origin. Those who deny it was red (or insist it was red) are somehow racist.
I have a cousin who saw this happen, but 10,000 people on the internet doubt it happened.
The youtube videos of Billy riding a new red bicycle were all faked.
Billy was in fact a midget, dressed as a child.
There was no billy, no bicycle, and it wasn't red or new.
Soros bought Billy the bike.
So again, just because one agrees with the simple statement does not suggest that one can reasonably infer that they find the OCTheory to be truthful in the most part. Agreement in part does not in any way shape or form infer agreement in whole - that's as about as true and plain as you can put it.
Poll