It says I'm frustrated by somebody playing dumb. At least for your sake I hope you are just playing dumb and don't actually believe your own stupid statements
We dont have to agree, its ok for people to have differences of opinion. No big deal.
I dont accept your arguments that they are accessories to copyright infringement (assuming thats a law); From wikipedia
An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.
IMO It is reasonable to expect the site administrators to know that there is copyright infringing material on their site. But it is not reasonable to expect the site administrators to know if downloading material from a specific torrent would constitute a copyright infringing. Nothing you have said about the words they use or the way they organise their links has any bearing on that.