You intentionally made a ridiculous analogy to make me look stupid, but really belies the fact that you aren't arguing in good faith. Typical reductio ad absurdum argument that doesn't even try to address the points. That's on you, not me. You're intelligent, but dogmatic. You literally have to preclude all of the things we know to make my position asinine. So, let's entertain your terrible analogy....

Is the government known to have the capability to control mosquitos? Is there an expressed purpose for using that capability? Are there any indications that differentiates one mosquito from another? I mean, I could keep going, but it's pointless. If the answer to all those are no, then why do you think I would believe that? Because you think I'm stupid? If the answer to all of those is yes, then it's certainly a probability, and only a blind zealot wouldn't acknowledge it.

The point here is not to say that the government could use mosquitoes in a top-secret way. Rather, it's to point out that you need to use the context around you to determine what is beyond the pale from what is plausible.

We know our government uses plain clothes agents and informants. We have sworn court testimony they did you plain clothes agents. We know that Epps was on the most wanted list. We know that people were arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted for much less serious crimes. Yet, Epps avoided all of that. Why?

I have never said we KNOW he's an agent. Only there is enough evidence for it to be probable. And, with that in mind, agent or not, why are people on the left not outraged he isn't behind bars? That's the only question I'm asking of YOU. Why shouldn't he be prosecuted? Because a news article told you so? You and I should be asking the same questions.

---