` ::Can some other editor comment on this please? Perhaps John Carter?  ::It seems a peculiar thing that questions and arguments can be ignored in this way. We are supposed to be here for resolving differences.  JoelWhy's arguments have been clearly refuted. Again. And yet the response is that it is I who am not reading posts correctly?! -o 1.) The use of often and usually over primarily  has now again been demonstrated from another reliable source. Yet this is ignored. 2.) no reply at all to the reliable source that clearly and specifically states that: ``...many commentators agree, conspiracy theories have long been identified as a peculiarly American obsession.``  ::This I think demonstrates the nature of  discussion here: an ignoring of specific details, an ignoring of specific questions, but  still claiming to have the correct view without the specific supporting source material to demonstrate that. Just an appeal to unspecified ``substantive context``. Can this be addressed please? Otherwise how can this be said to be a reaching of consensus?  `