1) you’re still attacking the source. I am not in any way obligated to provide a source you would prefer.

You are if you want to be taken seriously here.

I’m quite sure every source you prefer. NYT is known to have a liberal bias, so what?

1. No, you clearly don’t.
2. No, it isn’t.
3. The point is whether your source is biased in a way that makes the specific claim you’re making unreliable. If you cited NYT for something anti-liberal, any alleged liberal bias would be irrelevant. Similarly, if you cited the NYP for something anti-conservative and not anti-Twitter, NYP’s bias favoring conservatives and against Twitter would also be irrelevant. NYP isn’t like PV, which has a proven track record of always being actively, intentionally deceitful rather than merely biased.

2) I provided a source, a valid source, in fact.

You calling it a valid source doesn’t make it a credible source.

If I provide a different source, you’ll just attack that one instead, and I am under no obligation to let you waste my time.

1. You didn’t even try.
2. And we are under no obligation to accept your claims as true based only on your say-so and a known-to-be-unreliable source.
3. I was merely making the pragmatic observation that, if you have multiple sources for the same info, and one is considered unreliable by the target audience (rightly or wrongly), it’s less trouble to just find another source more likely to be considered reliable by that audience. I was suggesting you light a candle rather than curse the darkness. If you consider that a waste of time, fine. You are free to reject my advice.

Ultimately it’s just a bunch of links back to the twitter files, anyway, so any objection over “bias” is even dumber than normal.

If so, then:

1. You already linked to them in the past, and their source wasn’t attacked then, so that already proves that providing a different source wouldn’t lead to anyone attacking the source. You just debunked your own accusation.
2. To the extent the article is just links to and excerpts from the Twitter Files, we have already explained to you why they don’t actually support your claims. We don’t need to explain that again just because you provided a different hyperlink to the exact same source and information.

And I think that second point needs to be expanded further, because it’s just completely baffling to me. You already provided the underlying source cited in that article before, but more directly. We already addressed that particular evidence then in great detail, never once disputing the veracity of the contents or where they were alleged to come from; it just didn’t back up your claims. Now, rather than linking to it directly again or, better yet, providing a completely different source that actually backs up your claims, you provided a link to an article known to have a bias against Twitter and in favor of conservatives not for anything new but to indirectly source the exact same evidence that was already provided and addressed here. If we weren’t convinced by the original source that your claims are true, why the hell would we be even remotely convinced by an indirect citation to the exact same source, only now, the URL you used this time goes to a biased source, making it even less likely to be convincing if there is any change at all?

If X didn’t convince us, why would citing Y that basically just links to X be any more convincing? Like, what even is your logic there?

Did you even read this thread at all? Guess not.

I actually did. I even addressed most of the points you brought up here in various other comments, many of which you then responded to. That I didn’t repeat all of my points in each of my posts in this thread has more to do with not wanting to repeat myself needlessly too much rather than any lack of reading I did.