Not in the least. By that strange logic almost anything you would want to say about Mary could be justified on the basis that there was a "cue." If you have to rely upon calling something a "cue," it means that you can't say it was explicit, definitive, certain, or clear.
I suppose, but no one has suggested that, so I don't know why you're mentioning it.
I'd agree. Again, what is the relevance of that statement? You now have called "moronic" two positions so extreme that no one holds them. Is that supposed to make correct the notion you support by some sort of process of elimination?
Good one. Keep saying that. It's not true, of course, but it sure sounds right at first glance.
NOW, let's try to be serious. The angel announced what to Mary? Let's see--that she had been selected by God to be the mother of Jesus. That she was in favor with him.
For that, she deserves honor and commemoration. It is not a justification for all the other myths and pious legends that later grew up around her, even if we say that that experience of the angel appearing to her gave the promoters of their legends a "cue" or Biblical starting point that they then could run with--embellished, enlarged, and turned into all manner of improper dogma, much of which does indeed make her a demi-god, if the truth were admitted.