Didn't say I don't care about validity, said validity is not what I'm looking for from the maligned watermark.

The two biggest things the watermark tells you are (a) who the middleman is and (b) that the document has been altered. And that last one, in particular, can be a problem.

I don't think you fully understand my jqpublic use of court documents.

John Q. Public doesn't have a professional use for them, and may not even understand them because of how technical the law can be. Ignorance can lead to misinterpretation, and that can lead to more unpleasantness. Cry me a river.

I definitely don’t. Can you give more context?

Seriously? Do most people working within the legal profession not understand that some of us outside the legal profession just read for personal interest, to be informed, to better understand what's happening? I swear it's not nefarious, I just read a ton of shit.

I do get that. I don’t understand why that means that you care which website you got the doc from; surely the important part is what the doc is and what it says and means?

phew, this is way more attention to my personal habits than I'm used to, lol. Imagine random legal documents on my computer. Some are for research projects, some for family, some personal interest. I see the maligned watermark and I have an immediate recognition why the download.

On my Macs, I can right click the file and click on "Get info" and the info panel that opens up says where it was downloaded from (for downloaded files). I don't know if Windows has a similar feature. But in any event, I move things into folders according to their purpose after downloading.

Orrrrrr... I can see the watermark in the document preview. Swear I'm not tryna start anything.

Okay, I guess I can see that, but aren’t you keeping these in separate folders or giving them contextual file names or something?

No. I know, I know, I'm a chaos demon. Like it's the first time I've heard that.

But you’re downloading these files instead of just viewing them on the website?

Also, like … the doc is right in the DD website. DemocracyDocket is right in the URL.

I’m not maligning it, I just don’t understand the benefit to you.

Some assistance: Chris criticized a member of the Resistance pantheon and that sacrilege cannot go unpunished. There’s a reason somewhere, eventually, but we’ll worry about pretext when we have to (I know you know this, but it’s worth stating)