You didn't contend Premise 1. Premise 1 exists outside of your claims, and is the only premise in the mix that holds some legitimacy. You could know that if you had bothered reading my post, as I already explained where it comes from.
Premise 2 comes directly from your claims. You first ask:
Surely FET's "conspiracy theory" isn't really a "theory", right?
to then conclude from the answer that:
So FEers don't use the word as the referenced article suggests they should.
You assume that "theory" and "conspiracy theory" intrinsically share the same context. Since you tried describing the latter in terms of the former, you contended that you'd like to interpret it as a subset. Premise 2 stated.
Premise 3 comes directly from the post linked in the OP, which claims that other uses of the term "theory" are "wrong".
The fact that you keep mixing your questions up and blending the contexts together works
against your claims here, not
for them. Do try to keep up.
The bottom line: FEers (at least jroa) use "theory" in a different way than scientists in the context of "conspiracy theory".
Fixed for coherence. But even then, you're still wrong. I've already demonstrated that "conspiracy theory" is used in exactly the same fashion by FE'ers as other scientists, by way of providing you with a long list of papers that use that term in the same meaning.