You have to do better than this. I know enough about the Ukraine situation to automatically be skeptical of any story valorizing Russia's involvement. But I have no idea what "GlobalResearch" is. Which, to me and, I think, most HN readers, makes your comment a smirking personal attack rather than a contribution to the conversation.

Next time, buy some room for your outraged response with a couple sentences of explanation.

I found this about GlobalResearch: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

> While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from sources such as Russia Today RT[2] and Press TV.[3] Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.

> Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong.

I agree about the low quality of blumkvist's reply.

Yep! This context is more than enough. It's not that you have to prove it, you just have to spell out what your claim is, rather than indignantly implying that everyone else should grok it.