If you say so, carry on with treating your assumptions as facts if you want.
Too easy to claim an "assumption of facts". It's a message board. We'll never be in the room with the GM or be privy to his phone conversations.
We're not reporters or fact-finders, we're just fans exchanging information that is made available to us from varied sources available online.
We're compelled to rely on the facts as provided from a variety of sources, including mainstream media who have the type of privileged access to decision-makers that we don't. These mainstream sources work under strict journalistic guidelines and a code of ethics -- we have neither the time, nor the need to go beyond what these sources provide to us.
We are not their editors or their overseers, it's not our job to massively invest time to quadruple-check every report that comes from sources that are generally accepted as trustworthy. If say, Bob McKenzie says that Bergevin has made an offer to Belesky or Bonino or whatever other UFA, I should be able to rely on that information even if you claim it's only an "assumption of facts". And nor should I have to invest an inordinate amount of time researching that information over and over when it was already provided time and again via past posts.
I don't need to be on the ground or with a mic in my hand to know that Belesky, Bonino and Lucic were all extended contract offers by Bergevin when they were UFAs.
You carry on with your impossible and frankly absurd standard of fact-finding. No one is going to spend the time doing the type of fact-checking that your comment evokes. We all have other occupations and for the purposes of this forum and sharing opinions between fans, it's not needed. We do what we can with the time and means at our disposal, which is already impressive since we're all doing this on a voluntary basis.
If we were to have to use the standard of fact-finding and fact-checking your posts evoke, we would never be able to make any arguments about anything and there would be no way to scrutinize what the GM is doing since it would be impossible to raise any argument that is good enough for you. Quite clearly, your approach would have the effect of completely shielding the GM from criticism, which as your first posts expresses, is your goal. It's the ultimate appeal to authority and reeks of an agenda.
Well, it's not going to happen. The GM is going to be judged on everything he does. The good with the bad. And it won't be done according to a method that makes it impossible to arrive at the most basic of facts and information. It's going to be done as we are doing so now and as the site permits and with the time and reliance on credible sources that users can reasonably muster, whether you like that or not.