I see, your reading comprehension is just terrible. let me spell out the sequence of events for you:

1. your initial claim: archiving can take over 10 hours

2. I asked you to cite your claim as I did not believe you

3. you cited your claim acceptably, then proceeded to make another assertion that it is the duty of the listener to look up sources, not the person making the initial claims.

4. I responded that your citation was accepted, then added a note in parentheses about how your new assertion is retarded

5. you proceed to conflate my acknowledgment of the standard being met and my commentary on your new assertion as moving the goal post

unless you are referring to my other assertion towards the beginning of the conversation, stating that someone else's archiving taking a long time is moots because the archive of these links works fine. I reiterated this in step 4, and you've still yet to address it

I see, your reading comprehension is just terrible. let me spell out the sequence of events for you:

1. your initial claim: archiving can take over 10 hours

2. I asked you to cite your claim as I did not believe you

3. you cited your claim acceptably, then proceeded to make another assertion that it is the duty of the listener to look up sources, not the person making the initial claims.

4. I responded that your citation was accepted, then added a note in parentheses about how your new assertion is retarded

5. you proceed to conflate my acknowledgment of the standard being met and my commentary on your new assertion as moving the goal post

unless you are referring to my other assertion towards the beginning of the conversation, stating that someone else's archiving taking a long time is moods because the archive of these links works fine. I reiterated this in step 4, and you've still yet to address it

I see, you're reading comprehension is just terrible. let me spell out the sequence of events for you:

1. your initial claim: archiving can take over 10 hours

2. I asked you to cite your claim as I did not believe you

3. you cited your claim acceptably, then proceeded to make another assertion that it is the duty of the listener to look up sources, not the person making the initial claims.

4. I responded that your citation was accepted, then added a note in parentheses about how your new assertion is retarded

5. you proceed to conflate my acknowledgment of the standard being met and my commentary on your new assertion as moving the goal post

unless you are referring to my other assertion towards the beginning of the conversation, stating that someone else's archiving taking a long time is moods because the archive of these links works fine. I reiterated this in step 4, and you've still yet to address it