Not sure what you're referencing as rude.
Let me go back to my original hypothesis, and then try to restate your arguments, and you can tell me where I'm restating them incorrectly.
My original hypothesis:
1) Major point of differentiation for this virus is that compared to it's closest known relatives, it has acquired a furin site (eukaryotic protein cleavage site) that enhances its virulence.
You said:
>And in there, I describe exactly how wrong your point 1 is.
I honestly can't find anything that refutes what I said. Please, just paste the line that points out how this is, to quote you, wrong. As in, disproves that compared to its closest known relatives (RATG-13) it has acquired a furin site, which increases its virulence"
I can find absolutely nothing* in either your Reddit posts, or your posts here on HN, that refute this. I can find plenty of things explaining how natural evolution could cause it, but nothing saying that it hasn't acquired a furin site that enhances its virulence that its closest known relative doesn't have.
2) That furin site RNA contains a non-canonical amino acid codon
To be fair, you didn't dispute this.
3) That non-canonical codon contains a restriction site that could easily be used to track, whether, say, your added furin site is surviving multiple cell passages, by performing a restriction digest and running the fragments on a cell.
You said:
>how misguided your point 3 is.
OK, let's examine my point #3. It is non-canonical, as in only 5% of the arginines in SARS-CoV 2 contain it. I guess we can get into what exactly non-canonical means, and you do make some points there, but at the end of the day, 5% is 5%, and 5%*5% is 0.25%, so it seems to me that the usage of the term "non-canonical" to describe a site that has a 0.25% chance of occurring is fitting.
OK, so let's talk about the restriction site. You don't dispute the presence of it anywhere, at least not that I can find. Please, if you have something to dispute the presence of it, just paste it in reply to this because I legitimately can't find it. You also don't dispute the usefulness of using a restriction site to track genetic engineering, presumably because it's done all the time.
So with all this in mind, it seems to me like your disagreement with me is not with any of the 3 major points I made, or even the two of those three points you called out in your initial reply. So I'm thoroughly confused by what you're trying to debate. Are you debating the interpretation of those facts? Because that interpretation appears to be almost entirely of your own imagination. Nowhere did I offer (at least not that I can see) an interpretation of those facts beyond speculating that they are a possibility. In fact, my entire first post was just to reframe the argument as I understood it, and comment that it's very difficult to rule out because of the nature of the evidence. For the record, I find the likelihood that it was a lab leak extremely slim, but I'm not going to discount it, especially not concretely.
On the other hand, the post you linked to was very much dancing around any of the concrete arguments about the topic, making absurd insinuations like that people are claiming the 1200 mutations came from engineered Cas9 usage, which I've personally never seen claimed (by the way I'm still waiting for you to address this). All while ignoring crucial facts like that the furin site was an insertion, not a polymorphism.
I'm thoroughly confused by whatever point you're trying to make here. To me, it seems like you've been arguing against words you imagined me saying.