This "debunking" is a ridicule job. That's its problem.

It's effectively calling RRN a conspiracy theory. Now who else does a lot of that?

To really be effective a "debunking" would expose the "obvious fallacies" RRN publishes. That would be very easy for someone with firm contrary knowledge to do because RRN stories are full of name and rank and firm-worked-for detail.

ANYONE with real contrary knowledge who wanted to could easy cut RRN down with one stroke of his truth sword but (to my knowledge) that has not yet happened.

Now on the other hand many people are scared of ridicule.

This "debunking" is a ridicule job. That's its problem.

It's effectively calling RRN a conspiracy theory. Now who else does a lot of that?

To really be effective a "debunking" would espose the "obvious fallacies" RRN publishes. That would be very easy for someone with firm contrary knowledge to do because RRn stories are full of name and rank and firm-worked-for detail.

ANYONE with real contrary knowledge who wanted to could easy cut RRN down with one stroke of his truth sword but (to my knowledge) that has not yet happened.

Now on the other hand many people are scared of ridicule.