More like people DENIED them. The funny thing is I wrote a comment referencing some hashtags that the author used a few chapters back. Then, this one guy came along and was like "No you're wrong"
No, "this one guy"
pointed out that you completely mistranslated one of the chapter titles you brought up, produced inaccurate and incomplete Japanese language info, and couldn't even translate a single element of the other chapter title you chose to bring up.
Despite trying to use them as evidence. Despite not (initially) acknowledging your lack of confidence with that much Japanese.
"This one guy" then translated both, and acknowledged (for the second time) the possibility of the theory, and specifically that the first title could have had a double meaning referring to both Natsumi (in a hypothetical attraction to Futaba) and Futaba (in her explicitly stated attraction to Takeda)-- but was
absolutely applicable to Futaba given her predicament.
"This one guy"
explicitly didn't deny the possibility of the idea, not being able to rule out the possibility
given the incongruencies of another omake chapter-- incongruencies that "he" explored
in response to a user who alluded to the chapter as evidence that she couldn't have been interested in Futaba because she (allegedly) tried to give honmei chocolate to a guy.
Rather, "he" considered an argument that was one third poorly translated Japanese and one third minor feature with little substance absent definitive context, to be a deficient argument. "He" even said that it had potential merit, putting aside
you undermining it with the aforementioned.