Johnny Niamert

Some people actually learn by hearing new things, asking about them, and then researching further into the newly presented idea on their own. Sometimes only a tad bit of clarification is needed. Granted 'citation needed' is rude, as is the wikipedia comment in the original candida thread. Obviously I can use google (thanks for the wiki link), but when I ask for more information about a fabulous claim it shouldn't be too off putting to whoever made it.
I don't question other people on their thoughts, experiences, or observations; but when a new 'fact' is presented to me, I like to ask for clarification.
I still can't fathom why this would be discouraged. That's how people learn on their own, instead of learning how to follow what somebody else does or says.
If people get that bent out of shape by using the internets, they should probably not use it.

Brawndo's got what plant's crave.
Yeah, it's got electrolytes.

I don't know if I should continue this here, pm, or another thread -- but why would permies.com discourage asking for citations?

I can see why if someone says "I planted lots of clover and tons of butterflies showed up" -- then maybe don't ask for a citation of clover planting and butterfly population studies. Or in this case, "I stopped with the sugar and felt better." ->No source needed.

But if someone claims something to be fact that is obviously ludicrous (example) then why should asking for a source be discouraged?

The example provided is egregious, IMO. It's borderline libel.

I have a hard time comprehending why permies.com would rather have mis/wrong information touted as fact to prevent a slight (online)ego incursion?

I was gonna give them a 'rough chop' to get the point across.

Of course, nothing in the traps today. Had to dig up some worms to give them (and me) some entertainment.