alankell said...

But what actually happens is that post gets lost in the big shuffle.  No one wants to read every post in an 800-post thread to locate a specific piece of information.  No one wants to slog through many threads spread over several folders.  At least I don't.  I tend to lose track of my own posts...I write 'em and they're gone.

Same here... I write 'em and they're gone.

So when somebody comes up 4 or more months later and asks about past posts... I too don7t want to slog through them and as I post so many, there is no way to keep track of all the posts and links I post with them.

So when pressed for a link... I refer them to the thread where the old links were posted... but don't have the actual post for them to zoom in on. And with as many posts as I make, I... like you... post 'em and they're gone!

FWIW

The difference might be when a poster makes a declaration and when he provides the link.  If the poster makes his declaration and backs it with a link in the same post...no problem at all.  Not necessary to do anything else.  No extra burden on the reader.  If the poster makes his original declaration in February and the subject comes up again in June, a reminder that the link was posted in February previously is entirely inadequate.  If it's tough for the poster to locate it, the reader pretty much has no chance.

For my part, I will try to avoid subjects where posting a link is required.  My posts are opinions, opinions I feel every American should share.  I'll leave the real combat to the politicians.

Only one person is asking for links.  

Hannity: What we witnessed was blatantly dishonest

FWIW

Pam Bondi: Cassidy Hutchinson should have been cross-examined

FWIW

Walter has claimed that he has "proof," of what I'm not sure, so the burden of demonstration is on him.  I am in no way obligated to waste my time trying to find what I am predisposed to believe doesn't exist. 

Showtalk says:  "There was fraud. People have pleaded guilty which they would. To do if there were any outs."
 

Yes.  There was penny ante fraud in a number of states (including a number of prisoners who were able to vote from jail), as there is in many elections, but nothing which even vaguely resembles fraud on a scale large enough to effect the outcome of any election.  I have conceded that point.

What Walter has posted thus far is not worth getting excited about.  If he has something more persuasive, he needs to provide a link to it.  I have read everything for which he has provided a link -- not always in its entirely,  I concede, but enough to find persuasive refutation.
 

Showtalk says;  ". . . sources rather than ideas."

Which implies carte blanche on any opinion which pops into one's head whether or not there is any supporting evidence.  It's like the absurd claim which we've heard so often that the loser of the 2020 election didn't lose it.  That requires no effort to have or embrace the claim, what we will call "the idea."  It does, however, require effort to prove that proposition.  Proving it requires evidence, and, as you suggest, once the source is cited, the proposition, i.e., the idea, is open to debate and discussion with the citation of counter evidence, and counter evidence means sources --  and not just stating that "oh, there's 500 posts up there, I'm sure the proof to which I refer is there somewhere."  The burden of proof is on the one who poses the proposition. 

Any good debate, like any courtroom trial, is an argument of evidence, i.e., sources.  I enjoy these discussions when applicable evidence is cited and the reader is not obligated to hunt for a black unicorn in a dark forest.

In reference to the loser's claim that there was sufficient fraud to effect the outcome, he has provided no evidence, demanding instead that his listeners take him on faith.  And taking him on faith incited the insurrection we saw on January 6.  He has, unfortunately, enough support to "punish" anyone who dares state the truth.

well stated.

Showtalk says:  "Actually at this point, the fraud only matters as an indicator that voting laws need to go back, to what they were before when we had protections in place to prevent fraud. It’s impossible to fix it after the fact. So the links asked for are irrelevant  now."

And what election laws do you think need to be changed that the various and sundry Republican state legislators have not already changed?