Sorry. You're the one actively trying to convince us that what you say is true. In the world of debate, that puts the burden of proof on you to back up your words, not on me to verify them. Nice try, though.
But since this is not the world of debate, there really is no "burden of proof".
You are right that this forum really isn't the world of debate, so I may have used the word "debate" a bit too loosely. I disagree, however, with your thesis that the non-debate nature of this forum negates all "burden of proof". This is a place for the exchange and discussion of issues pertinent to our walks as Orthodox Christians; sometimes these discussions will even take on the form of a debate, which is not exactly a bad thing.
Within this place of exchange and discussion of issues, people quite often make assertions of fact with the hope of convincing us to embrace their points of view. That's what I see Azul
doing here. In such a case, if the other person wants to be convincing, he needs to be able to cite authorities outside of himself--yes, there's a "burden of proof" there. It's not enough to say, "I can't prove it, but I know it can be verified if you're willing to go to the work of testing it yourself." That to me is the definition of intellectual laziness. It's not my task to look for the evidence that verifies his position, nor is it my job to prove him wrong unless I choose to do so. To pass the buck to me is intellectual laziness, and I simply refuse to take on someone else's responsibility merely because the other person is too lazy to do it himself. If Azul
wants to convince us of the truth of his point of view, let him do the work of convincing us.
Some people, who are not intellectually lazy, are capable of formulating ideas on their own and are not simple parrots of what they have read in a book.
But this isn't about someone formulating his own ideas as opposed to merely parroting what he's read in a book. Even if one is formulating his own ideas, he's inevitably drawing information from outside himself, since the gathering of information is a necessary first step in the critical thinking process. So where is Azul
drawing the premises for his conclusion that the Old Calendar is more accurate than the New? I know he's not just pulling this out of thin air, since he himself admitted to reading the foundations of his belief somewhere. If he wants us to believe in what he's saying, he owes it to his case to share with us the sources of what he's using as raw material for his reasoning.
You tend to find these people a lot outside of academia.
I hope you're not saying that those inside the world of academia are incapable of doing anything more than parroting what they read in books. If anything, the first thing academics learn is how to use their minds so they can articulate their own conclusions from what they read. If anything, it is this "free-thinking" approach to posited "truths" that so often gets them in trouble with the proponents of "orthodoxy" such as you so often present yourself to be.
That is why in the real world, a good number of advancements are made by amateurs. They don't know the rules, so they are not bound by them. They just leave it to the scientists and academics to figure out how they did it. I would hope that the discussions on this forum were intended to enlighten, not simply to "win" an argument.
I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments. However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.