If you're not too sure on the veracity of these statements, why go there at all?
(In the old days, when mastodons roamed the prairies and steppes and humans were making a pact with the devil to serve him on this earth if only he would free us from the tyranny of megafauna, we called that "a rhetorical question." Now that we have replaced the megafauna that preceded us with super highways, parking lots and clouds of data that allow us to externalize our memories we have no time for any characterization longer than "snark." Can there be any surer sign that we have entered into the fourth turn of the wheel, the time called Kali-yuga?)
Oh Fred,You are so elitist... expecting that someone have something to say before he says it.
It's like the posts that start with , "I don't know much about this...." That's the signal to stop right there to my way of thinking but I have been told that this isn't very democratic because only a few people actually know much about a given subject. If everyone else had to keep quiet then most folks couldn't participate. What about the folks that don't know very much about anything? They'd never be able to say anything!
So I think that old farts like us need to change our thinking and be more inclusive. Why limit ones posts to what actually knows when there is so much more that can be said about what doesn't know? Those of us who spend so much time trying to think of something to post would have an almost unlimited supply of topics... Participation on the forums would explode! Jun could become the King of the Internet... and everything would be so much more egalitarian. But then Stan Pranin might go out of business because no one would have to spend all that time and money reading all the material he has taken so many years collecting because it wouldn't be necessary any more to actually know something before writing about it. Oh well, all power to the people!