Well, I prefer to deal with 100% certainties, but since those are rare on this planet, I try to determine which "truth" is the more likely correct one.
With that in mind, I'm satisfied that Pugs did indeed post that message as it was quoted by martin.
SI logs won't show the original message content, but they will show edit times. Problem is that particular log file is over 8.4 gig in size, and I'm not willing to ask Brad to do that kind of a search (it would tie up a very powerful machine overnight, noticeably slowing down SI in the process). He has indicated a willingness to do me the favor of checking edit times, but that's really too much to ask.
Because Pugs refuses to say whether or not he ever edited that message after originally posting it, and because two unrelated, credible sources claim to have seen the original text, it is far more likely than not that Pugs did write the quoted text.
It's not 100%, but I feel it's a very likely correct conclusion, and really do owe martin an apology as I told him at one point (don't remember whether it was publicly or privately) that I didn't trust him as it seemed more than a remote possibility he was lying. I now consider that possibility extremely unlikely. |
