Motte and bailey here, the argument was con artist. The parent poster argued that con artists easily con anyone, and the people who are the most sure they can't be conned are the easiest to con. I'd argue that is 100% false, and you retreating to the motte here only serves as evidence that I am right, cons are easy to spot for most people and they don't fall for it.

My point is that a con artist isn't just a guy on the street, but can exude professionalism and officiousness.

My reference to a ponzi scheme is certainly in "con artist" turf, as is kickstarters and vapourware peddlers.

I don't see how I am moving an argument, when I am demonstrating cons which you seem to think are not cons?

The post in question used a video from a typical street con-man to argue his point. I argued against that, street con-men don't do very well even if the guy in the video tries to argue otherwise, so it isn't very good evidence that everyone are easily tricked.

You can try to argue that a group gets tricked in other ways, but that is a different argument, I just punctured the street con-man part of the evidence. You could even argue that the street con-man is good evidence that people actually aren't equally good at spotting cons, since some falls for it even though most don't. And since the effect is so dramatic for street con-men maybe the effect is similarly dramatic for marketing? Who knows, anyway it isn't good evidence in his favour at least.

From my perspective, conversation doesn't stay rigidly locked onto one specific case.

And, your comment appears (to me) more general, as you just say conmen...

But anyhow, no biggie. Have a good one.