[ardy42]

> I've already explained, we can't agree on a mutually acceptable definition of "trustworthy reporters", so this will not happen, ever.

You don't understand. We don't have to agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters." You seem to be trying to convince me that I should be more skeptical of these allegations, but that's not going to happen unless reporters I consider trustworthy have sufficient access to investigate, to the point where the people you criticize don't have to be relied on. It really doesn't matter what you think of the reporters, and attaching unnecessary conditions is just a deflection and indication there's something to hide.

I agree your petition can't happen ever, but for different reasons. It would probably be quite unwise of you to make it, for obvious reasons.

> Yes, in a sense, You can judge us however you like, also in that sense, we're not obligated to accept your judgment.

You're not, but your decision reflects on you.