>There's literally plenty of examples of exactly what the other poster was talking about.
The burden of proof is not on me.
>I find it odd that you leave out that
I have already gone above and beyond my obligation here. But what you say is not relevant, because I only seek to refute the claim that the files somehow demonstrate favourable treatment of conservatives. What Taibbi says about them, if anything, demonstrates the opposite.
>on the other hand, "no" is a perfectly fine answer to which you seem to refuse to be willing to say
This is just a condescending personal attack. A higher standard of discourse is expected on HN.
>but you're not even skimming
I read the link I gave you and it does not demonstrate anything that would evidence the original claim, while giving plenty of reason to doubt the original claim.
>and then making assumptions about what you think it wouldn't contain based upon your perception of wikipedia's politics
No. I surmised that Wikipedia, due to its politics, would have included such material if it existed, but does not include such material. This is reason to doubt the claim that such material exists, and therefore to reaffirm the demand for evidence.
>At least do your research if you want to play officer.
Again: the burden of proof is not and never was on me, and your rhetorical style is not in accord with my understanding of HN guidelines.
The burden of proof is not on me.
>I find it odd that you leave out that
I have already gone above and beyond my obligation here. But what you say is not relevant, because I only seek to refute the claim that the files somehow demonstrate favourable treatment of conservatives. What Taibbi says about them, if anything, demonstrates the opposite.
>on the other hand, "no" is a perfectly fine answer to which you seem to refuse to be willing to say
This is just a condescending personal attack. A higher standard of discourse is expected on HN.
>but you're not even skimming
I read the link I gave you and it does not demonstrate anything that would evidence the original claim, while giving plenty of reason to doubt the original claim.
>and then making assumptions about what you think it wouldn't contain based upon your perception of wikipedia's politics
No. I surmised that Wikipedia, due to its politics, would have included such material if it existed, but does not include such material. This is reason to doubt the claim that such material exists, and therefore to reaffirm the demand for evidence.
>At least do your research if you want to play officer.
Again: the burden of proof is not and never was on me, and your rhetorical style is not in accord with my understanding of HN guidelines.