Then allow me to translate his intentions.
"Why are you trusting these sources, noted for their bias and inaccurate journalism, rather than peer reviewed scientific literature, which arrives at a conclusion based on the data, rather than what headline sells more?"
Borderline spamming of links serves one purpose that people often forget: anyone can read them. Even those who come here to stay away from nonsense sites.
If someone isn't active in the forums, if they don't bother to read every post of evy thread, the last think we want is them blindly clicking on links and reading them instead of the rebuttals and whatnot.
If we want a(nother) supervolcano discussion thread, it'll have to improve on where the last one no doubt ended - which bit of hard evidence do you want to discuss, assuming there is any?