If I understand carols point then she is saying that she doesn't claim that the article is true.

She is saying that she merely posted the article.

She did not present an argument about whether the article was true or false.

Therefore she does not have to present evidence too support her argument as she never made one.

She appears to be saying that the only argument that has been advance about the article has been one claiming it is false.

Therefore she awaits evidence to support that argument.

My point of view on this question is that it serves no real purpose in the context of this thread or the debate about georgia.

In my opinion, the article helps to provide an interesting perspective that could be investigated further, but until the implications it makes turn into definite allegations supported by evidence, it continues to have "idle speculation" status in terms of real usefulness.

As regards who is responsible, attempting to prove who started it will not provide a solution. Remember whhat I said about messy blood feuds. Well this is one.