Basically, these scholars try to explain that when a meeting is held behind closed doors and some kind of verdict is reached, it was a conspiracy, regardless of the type of meeting. However, their definition is proved to be invalid because if anything ever said or discussed in secret, would essentially be a conspiracy. No matter if it was members of a college board holding a meeting to discuss applications and scholarships or a big company getting together to decide what type of products they should put out next year, it would be considered a conspiracy. No matter what the definition, it can only be a conspiracy if it deviates somewhat from the normal. In other words, sending diplomats to steal information to sabotage a country and it's government or political party members digging up dirt against their opponent to win an election, can not be considered conspiracies because that is normal, that's what in their job descriptions. Now, if the diplomats were to murder a political leader that was frowned upon or wanted murdered by his nation so that his death would benefit the assassin's nation, then it would be considered a conspiracy. (Shalom 1).
Unfortunately, Webster went wrong by leaving out the psychological aspects of conspiracies as well as many other definitions of a conspiracy. Webster, along with the majority of the population, believes that you have to have two or more people to create or to have a conspiracy, and that's not the case at all. Yes, that is the most common definition of a conspiracy as well as the form most played out but conspiracies are in essence, originally created in one person's mind, whether assisted or carried out with help from another or not. When you pretend and ignore that you don't see what other people are doing or you ignore the obvious, simple explanations for tragedies and look for the more complicated and in-depth reasons, you have just handed your mind over too a conspiracy theorist, because that's exactly what they feed on.
