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

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

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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

I'm not sure what's going on: "People are responsible for going and finding the evidence" and "Then go get some!" are not paraphrases.

Best steelman I can come up with is you're seeing deep red, so it's hard to see "Then go get some!" is suggesting he could fact-check his own question instead of asking the room to do it for him.

Which is the opposite of your characterization that I think people are responsible for investigating strangers' unsourced claims. We violently agree, not disagree.

Making this exchange all the curiouser.

Are you inebriated? I only ask because it's unusual to see someone on HN choosing to say obviously incorrect things, aggressively, on purpose, just to talk down to someone. Much less making bullying attempts based on comment history.