I think ivan’s OP made the bare minimum for the request. He posted the topic:
He stated a question:
He included the video link, which makes the claims he wants refuted.
Now because he won’t bother to attempt to summarize the claims, nobody feels particularly motivated to spend time refuting them in depth. But I don’t think there was anything deserving of a rule to that.
The followup: he posts that nobody is reading his thread. Well, you didn’t give them a reason to care, did you?
Then he gets three or four mild responses that don’t go into any depth. So he complains that nobody is taking it seriously. Well, you didn’t take your OP seriously enough to spend much time on it, why should responders spend time on a detailed response? You asked a question: “Does anybody want to refute the claims?” You got an answer: “Not really. There’s nothing there of any merit.”
It’s not until post 11 that you start to ask any detailed questions for people to assess for you.
So, should it be required to post more? No, but at the same time, nobody is required to give a care about your post, or respond, either. If you want to get a discussion going, you should start with some discussion.
Sailboat said:
Agreed.
ivan astikov said:
How strong a word is “obnoxious”? Is there a scale of obnoxiousness, or is obnoxious only allowed above a certain level? What is the means of measure?
It is a bit annoying. You asked “Does anyone want to refute this?” Then when the answer is “Not really,” you reply, “So nobody can refute this?” :rolleyes:
Then someone posts a couple links to other people who did spend time refuting the claims, and your response is to cite some goober whose rebuttal consists of “Given the level of digital technology, nobody can refute it, and the Chinese government has an incentive to fake it, so they must have. You can’t prove me wrong.” :rolleyes::rolleyes: