Again, sorry, but no cigar, because since I am not the one saying we shouldn't call conspiracy theories and theorists for what they are,
If we decipher the double negative sentence construction, we end up with: "I am ... saying we should... call conspiracy theories and theorists for what they are..."
Something which you still haven't defined in a way that could be functional to all. And which theories exactly are you talking about? This is the point I'm trying to get you to acknowledge: we can't actually talk about "conspiracy theories" as an umbrella term because they encompass many thousands of theories, many with merit, many without. Some of which you probably subscribe to yourself. So it's an entirely subjective term which is not useful in intelligent, democratic debate.
Caissa's definition comes closer to providing a useful definition for our purposes, but it still leaves open the quagmire of which evidence is considered valid and which isn't, and by whom.
[PS: cross-posted with Sean.]