> You seem to be under the impression that anyone here has an obligation to make sure that you're adequately convinced. All I'm just asking for clear evidence

> You seem to be under the impression that anyone here has an obligation to make sure that you're adequately convinced. All I'm just asking for clear evidence to a claim, like someone asked me for evidence of a claim I made, I provided a source and evidence. Not hard, seems you and others have an issue with it. > You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met. Do you expect me or anyone else to believe a random person like you making a bold claim at first glance? So unless you have a source to a bold claim, I can dismiss it. > But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit. Then the refutation should be quick and easy right? Again, I see none so far.