No less amazing than how some people insinuate things they have no basis for in a way that frankly amounts to a disgustingly underhanded and cowardly ad hominem, based on expression of scepticism to
one specific case, based on the extremely unusual facts of the case.
You're particularly far off base given that I explicitly point out I don't believe it's a conspiracy at all, rather raise the possibility that it might amount to an unfortunate combination of the motivations of two separate parties that I explicitly don't believe have been conspiring.
I also most certainly believe Assange did act like an asshole in - we can conclude that from what he has not disputed. It's even possible he did commit rape.
But we don't know.
And those possibilities those not negate the other things I wrote.
What we do know is that there's no open and shut rape case here, but some statements that may or may not amount to allegations of sexual assault and/or rape - the statements that have been published during the extradition hearing have not been contested in a court (the UK extradition hearings are conducted on the basis of whether or not there is a case to answer assuming the prosecutions statements are true, not whether or not the prosecutions representation is correct).
In terms of the case in Sweden, there have been (substantiated) allegations of police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct; statements were provably illegally leaked to the press by police; at least one of the women have not signed statements and have refused to deal with the case after the new prosecutor took over. All of which puts us in a situation where we have a highly unusual case, with several we might likely never know one way or the other without a trial.
So forgive me for stepping on your sensibilities for not being prepared to just automatically assume guilt for someone who has not yet even been charged, in a case where the first prosecutor claimed there were no indications a crime had occurred, and where just what we do know about the case includes a laundry list of violations of police procedures, violations of Swedish law (on behalf of at least one police officer or prosecutor), and outright lies from the current prosecutor.
Clearly having an opinion based on what is known about this specific case must mean those of us who not automatically assume Assange is guilty must be trying to deny that rape ever happens.