Quote from: Quickseller on February 12, 2018, 07:34:03 AM

Sorry for the delay (life happens/busy).

I will start by saying that I will ask my source if I can give you his name, however I wont be able to recommend him doing so.

My source tells me that he was told by people close to Lauda that Lauda has a serious pill addiction. My source also tells me that Lauda has often talked about drugs in "chatrooms" (which could be a number of things). You knowing who my source is will not really change anything, you knowing who my source is would still make this an anon's word against ~~Lauda's word~~ -- actually Lauda has not actually denied this, so it would be against nothing.

Based on your message, it looks like I am not going to be getting anything, which in my mind just makes you look bad.

Do you trust your source enough to know you are not being setup with bad information to make you look like a mudslinger?
I feel like that may be where this ends up heading if something isn't provided.

Knowing your source is certainly important because it should not be expected for me, or anyone, to entertain 3rd hand information without knowing anything about who the 2nd or 3rd hand sources even are? Let alone the evidence they are providing, which is also absent. And to top it off, this is coming from a guy who clearly has had an active agenda to eliminate/damage/expose Lauda, for whatever reason... and in my mind this makes you more subjective to interpretation of whatever evidence is presented.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 12, 2018, 07:48:49 AM

The standard of evidence is the same as what is frequently published in the mainstream media.

The mainstream media is not the best example of a group looking for a non-biased point of view featuring accurate & factual information.
I do hope I never start equating my standards for evidence to standards provided by the mainstream media.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 12, 2018, 07:34:03 AM

Lauda having a pill addiction may or may not be a big deal, however if Lauda were to outright deny this, then my source might provide more information, might provide names of those who gave this information (with things like chat logs/PMs), or those who directly know of this might come forward themselves to prevent Lauda from lying about this.

So all your source needs is for Lauda to say:
"No, I am not a pill addict" and they will reveal themselves and provide additional information?
... or are they just going to provide more baseless 3rd hand information without revealing themselves?

I'm not sure why it matters to your source if Lauda denies it or not.
IMO, based on Lauda's responses to this thread, one can reasonably assume Lauda is denying that they take pills:

Quote from: Lauda on February 05, 2018, 10:17:34 PM

I'd like to know what pills I'm taking as well.

I believe this says "I don't take pills" and is an explicit denial...
Better yet, maybe I have a source who told me Lauda denied the pill addiction explicitly in a PM.
If Lauda does not explicitly deny my information, based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, Lauda has explicitly denied the pill addiction.
So, reveal the source & information or this just ends up as mudslinging.