> That's just one example of "conspiracy theories" that were true.



No, it isn't. First, "conspiracy theory" has come to have a fairly specific idiomatic meaning -- specific enough for most people that I dare say you will not find any actual example of anyone calling speculation about NSA spying a "conspiracy theory." That would be because, unlike the typical "conspiracy theory," such speculation would not have been preposterously implausible and would have been justified by what was actually known.



Second, since there weren't any "conspiracy theorists" talking about NSA spying, it's actually a good example of how "conspiracy theorists" are too preoccupied with their absurd theories to pick up on anything real. That special intuition that they believe they have about such matters appears to be just another figment of their imaginations.



Third, the existence of any real conspiracies does not provide a rational person a reason to believe totally absurd theories like controlled demolition of the WTC. Contrary to popular opinion among "conspiracy theorists," calling those theories absurd bullshit is not based in any way on denying that conspiracies exist.



> It's hard for me not to believe those who still label some of us conspiracy nuts actually have evil intent. Or a brain eating amoebae.



Having a difference of opinion is one thing, but when you spew abject bullshit like that, it's clear that you simply do not understand how rational people think. If you are going to make extraordinary claims about highly implausible versions of history, then a rational person will expect you to provide sufficiently credible evidence for believing that incredible version. If you can't, then a rational person is likely to call that version a "conspiracy theory," using a colloquial definition that's derived directly from the types of belief systems that "conspiracy theorists" proselytize, not from FBI propaganda.