At times, however, it amuses me, how pathologically obsessive certain folks are about such issues. But that's just me. I reckon we wouldn't be here, on this site, if we all weren't pathologically obsessive to one degree or another about the most mundane, and what in my estimation often are the most trivial of matters. But then, one man's trivia is another's trial and tribulation.
I cannot say why anyone would dogmatically claim--or claim AT ALL--that Doc was responsible for the death of the Old Guy, since all the "evidence" of which I am aware points away from such a claim being true. Nor can I say why anyone would not "regularly provide sources for his claims." Perhaps because he does not believe that his "credibilty" requires "enhancement." Perhaps because he is just wishes to provoke.
One thing that is kerosene clear about this forum is that different posters play by different rules when posting. Some cite sources, some don't. Some are concerned about their credibility, some are not. Some abide by the standards of academic scholarship, some not only do not abide, they are not even aware of such standards. Some apply logic and rationality as the final arbiter in arriving at their conclusions, some apply logic and rationality augmented by other qualities. I reckon that that is the individual's prerogative.
DISclaimer: Any unsupported, unsubstantiated, unsourced assertions contained in this post are unwitting and inadvertant and are to be taken only with a large grain of sodium.
Bruce, Well, I don't understand Nick's tendency to make assertions without providing proper sources for those assertions. For instance, on several occasions, Nick has dogmatically claimed that Doc... more
Bruce, Perhaps I am "pathologically obsessive" while Nick is "obsessively pathological" when it comes to documentation. So, how did the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" originate? When I put my tongue in my... more