[sethev]

IMHO, people making claims should provide the evidence for them. One link is behind a paywall and the other clearly states that it is making informed speculations.

I could make all sorts of claims on the spot here. It doesn't create a duty for people reading this thread to go investigate them.

[refulgentis]

You're so close, just one more step, and it's easy, just have to step away from keeping it hypothetical.

<SPOILER> Then it certainly does not create a duty for people to go investigate, when the only difference is "someone replied telling someone to fact check" </SPOILER>

[sethev]

You're the one in this thread claiming people are responsible for "going and finding the evidence" of other people's unsourced claims. You could have just not replied since you didn't have something to contribute.

[refulgentis]

None of the words you have in quotes are in this thread. :/ Not a single one. Nor did I advance this position.

I'd wait for your apology, but I'm old enough to know I won't get one.

[sethev]

I apologize for not quoting you directly “Then go get some!”. That’s what you said in response to there being no evidence. Would you like a link to your comment?

[refulgentis]

"People are responsible for going and finding the evidence" and "Then go get some!" are not paraphrases of each other. They don't share a single word, or advance a similar idea. I am uncertain linking comments can change that.

[sethev]

Of course they’re paraphrases. And since when does 37 warrant constantly mentioning how old you are?

[ericd]

Relax, I was mostly asking whether someone else who already knew about this stuff could comment on its veracity. There’s obviously no obligation.

[refulgentis]

Right (c.f. the thing I am replying to)