And speaking of things that I don't want to research...

Rimone sent me this election fraud story from The Brad Blog, claiming that a Republican Florida Congressman commissioned a programmer to code a program which would take votes away from Democratic candidates. Brad's story is a lot easier to follow then anything I've read from Madsen, but I still have a problem with it mainly because to endorse it, I would have to invest hours of my time into researching Brad's claims since he doesn't provide links or footnotes to the sources of his evidence.

I'm annoyed by this. When I wrote a story detailing the links of corruption between Bush, Ben Barnes, and GTech, I linked to the articles I derived my evidence from. Most of the articles I obtained through Lexis/Nexis queries, so I converted the text to HTML and uploaded them to Loaded Mouth and served the links myself. This is how I believe things should be done, when and if possible. Anybody reading my story knows exactly where I got the information from, what date it was published, who published it, and is able to read the article on demand. So maybe I'm just polite and considerate by saving people valuable research time, but it puzzles me on why other authors don't do this. Why let there be lingering questions about your work?

I've emailed my concerns to the Brad Blog. For the time being, I can't endorse their story, nor can I just drop everything to research it right now.