He's just saying the article does not even discuss this vital distinction, let alone bring evidence either way.
It's impossible to prove the nonexistance and mentioning hearsay wouldn't be good.
The onus is on the commentator to substantiate his claims of there being a rationale.
It also doesn't discuss if the polestar was made of asbestos or if it was dangerous to unicorn spawning habitat.
It's impossible to prove the nonexistance and mentioning hearsay wouldn't be good.
The onus is on the commentator to substantiate his claims of there being a rationale.