Again, your reading comprehension is failing you. I said there is no evidence to persuade one over the other. The circumstances warrant suspicion, but the evidence does not.

Edit: to clarify, nothing about my "stance" has changed. The rationale is the same, how you seem to be interpreting is what is volatile... which speaks to reading comprehension.

I didn't say it wasn't, again your reading comprehension is failing you.

That rationale didn't change from my first comment, if thats mental gymnastics that just tells you're having difficulty.

And me edit was to further prove my point. Now you're resorting to just calling something incorrect as if your word is God. Good luck with that. I see you did it once already.

They said not suspicious sarcastically. Sarcasm used to emphasize the opposite opinion. Emphasing suspicion in this context is ubiquitous: it is to suggest a strong suspicion. You could argue there is still doubt and it not strictly an assumption, sure, but what is not subjective is that there is no evidence at the moment to persuade one over the other. That's the point. That's why the commenter said "seriously?"

Edit: I said no evidence, but in fact there is evidence to the contrary which is not to suggest there was no foul play, but that it's ridiculous to have formed a strong opinion already

The comment remarks "seriously?" Because the origjnal comment strongly conveys a lack of doubt that something nefarious is the CoD. I.e., it assumes foul play. The remark "seriously?" Is in regard to that assumption. This is reinforced by the final sentence in that comment that says "don't make assumptions"

I don't mean to be rude, I agree all is plausible right now, but you should aim to improve your reading comprehension. Not only did the other commenter not state that assumption, there is no way in which is was even implied. What's funny about the exchange between you two is that, ultimately, you're both on the same page about the most important point: it's all possible.

They didn't say it disproved it, it adds context which happens to be on the contrary of the assumption that it was something nefarious, which is how the original comment reads.