Isn't it OP's job to present proof for his claim? He just made a sweeping statement with no proof backing it up.
No, it’s not his job. I’m guessing programming is probably his job.
He’s not a researcher and this is not a peer reviewed journal. This is a place where amateurs of conversation come to discuss things that are of interest, but most of us know nothing about, in our spare time. It started out differently but that’s basically what it has evolved into.
Providing citations is nice, it helps, it’s useful and constructive. But it’s not a job, it’s not a duty. You are a capable person with a working, sceptic brain who can do your own research if you so please. Anyone is free to make baseless claims, just downvote them or kindly ask for more info if you don’t like it.
But I’m tired of this “provide 3 different citations from peer reviewed journals to get a passing grade” attitude. It’s getting so bad I’m seeing it in daily life now, and it’s killing all sense of colloquial conversation. You do some work if you don’t like what people are saying. Everyone will thank you for it.
Or just ignore them. Or downvote them. Or be amicable, at least. But nobody has to do anything. I disagree.
Sorry, I guess :/ pet peeve.
But the discussion went:
* original poster (HN1) made a general claim
* someone (HN2) answered with a sourced counter-argument for a specific case
* another commenter (HN3) said something like "good on you, but your source doesn't prove much cause it doesn't disprove all the other cases"
Conceptually, for me at least, I'd rank their statements, from good to bad: HN2 > HN1 >>>>> H3.
The one thing I dislike the most is the IANAL - "Don't take this as legal advice" disclaimer that I see abused. I mean, really, who is naive enough to take random legal advice from strangers?
Having recently read some stories over at darwinawards.com, I can think of quite a few people who would seem a lot less naïve, if all they had done was taking legal advice from strangers...