All lawyers know, and bad ones make extensive use of, the old adage: "if you can't win an argument, attack its proponent." Comments to the effect that so-and-so is a crank, or "nobody believes ...," etc., unaccompanied by viable supporting arguments posted where the victim can respond, are ethically reprehensible. Not to mention, egregiously unscientific. The real issue is never what any particular person "thinks," but rather which "thoughts" are logical syllogisms or well grounded in empirical evidence.
Einstein gets the last word: "To be a faultless
member of the flock, first, one must be a sheep."