>Your tactic here seems to be shame all info from a source
>based on OTHER bogus things they've said.

No, that's not my "tactic".

That was my *post*.

*A* post.

In fact I pointed out myself that I hadn't gotten to the claims themselves, but did find things that undermine the credibility of the source.

I said this myself. I also said I'd get to the claims. And I will.

But no, I'm not devoting large portions of my Saturday to investigating those claims. My initial search lead me to what I found above- and I was quite clear that my post was all about the credibility of the source. Because that's what I found.

So stop acting like you caught me in some shady/dishonest "tactic".

If you're going to be "off" anything, it should be this performative grandstanding bullshit.

Thr TLDR version of this is easy:

Me: you didn't source your information. My search so far lead me to these sources, which have serious credibility issues.

You: OMG YOUR WHOLE TACTIC IS TO ATTACK THE SOURCES!

Lastly, none of this changes the fact that you didn't provide a source your information. Yes, information like that should be sourced- and when the sources found are as dubious as the ones I found, it makes the information highly questionable.

As I said before, I'll get to those claims, when I find them.

And one more thing:

I'm not "disregarding" your claims. I'm just not acceptimg them on face value, which is how many reasonable person should approach them, until/unless a credible source can be found to suppprt them.

This is especially true when the sources that can be found are as questionable as what I found above.

There's nothing remotely controversially about that.