He's just saying the article does not even discuss this vital distinction, let alone bring evidence either way.

stephbook an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	juliusceasar 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well, that is not true. The 'nonexistance' part. All new car phone home, and that is somewhere on the world.

It also doesn't discuss if the polestar was made of asbestos or if it was dangerous to unicorn spawning habitat.