ATT. ALL TROLLS, updated: Agree. Also, on the links requirement i agree with your frustration too. It's a fine line and difficult to all the time know how hard to police it, but perhaps we will have to again resort to more frequent short-term bans in an effort to goad them to more appreciation for the reasonableness of our ask re links from those we cannot trust as much as we trust others.
"On top of all that, live free's post was directed to me without context. They claimed it happened during the 'summer of love' that I only know to be 1969. When I asked for a reference, I got no answer which left me rather confused..
P - I don't mind everyone else doing the digging but some of these folks really need to post links with their asinine assertions so we know where it's coming from and don't have to waste our own time playing internet games poking our heads down their rabbit holes."
We have in the past resorted to more short-term bans leading to protests as 'why do you allow them back as they are just the same'.
However, perhaps we may have to go there again if they continue to ignore the ask that they provide a supportive links for so many of their assertions which in fact are unable to be supported.
You see part of the problem, lol. So it may just be that more short-term bans - not for not supplying links for assertions which are patently not true, but - for making the patently false assertions in the first place.
It may be their free speech right to make them, but it isn't their right to be too much of a nuisance on the board.
We moderators have always agreed on that. Most all is always on the table.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
