Is not the most effective and perhaps the most efficient way to prove something, simply to prove it?
For example:
If a person wins the most votes in an election. After which someone questions the results and asserts the results are wrong. Is not the easiest way to prove it just to count the votes again? The winner can capitalize on the recount by having the votes recounted under their supervision by those who doubted the result. That may embarrass those doubters. It should work like a charm. Unless…..
Added to Gab. November 19, 2022.
Added to GETTR. November 19, 2022.
Added to Locals. November 19, 2022.
Added to Truth Social. November 19, 2022.
To turn my leering leaching eye to the realm of "Notes", for example "Community Notes" and all other sources of information sometimes also called data either for or not for "checking" or any other purpose such as research. Can there be identified anything that is useless before one's encounter with such note (source)?
Requisite condition: How would one know for themself?
Do I hear it now? What you say?
Self-assigned complication rating: <1>). Or maybe zero.
Point: Everything old is always new to some or many.
SG - Free Thought - [Locals] - [June 2026]
Gab: June 2, 2026.
GETTR: June 2, 2026.
Locals: June 2, 2026.
Truth Social: June 2, 2026.
X: June 2, 2026.
What I am quite but not completely sure of is that I would support not preventing anyone from not doing what they do not want to do. However, in some situations I would not recommend such behavior.
SG - Free Thought - [Locals] - [June 2026]
Gab: June 2, 2026.
GETTR: June 2, 2026.
Locals: June 2, 2026.
Truth Social: June 2, 2026.
X: June 2, 2026.
