Quote from: DooMAD on Today at 12:50:30 PM

To the letter of the rules, no one has. But in the spirit of the rules, I think we've all been guilty at some point.

I feel guilty only in the sense that I've engaged in such discussions, and posted a few comments on the given evidence. Maybe I shouldn't, and it's exaggerated as told by apogio. I have never analyzed or brought anything new to the table, so I can sleep easy in that sense.

Quote from: BunnyWunny on Today at 01:41:52 PM

It's entirely circumstantial but that doesn't make it ridiculous. What is ridiculous is trying to prove who Satoshi is through semantic analysis when there are so few forum posts to analyse and when he clearly guarded against this by deliberately writing blandly.

This. Is. All. We've. Got. Texts from emails and the forum is all the information known by Satoshi. No person knows anything beyond that. We don't know if he was writing "blandly", that's on your hypothesis.

Quote from: BunnyWunny on Today at 01:41:52 PM

However there is more circumstantial evidence to suggest it is Snowden. He had the skills, the motives and means.

Lol, man. Just lol. You just found another candidate. Skills, means, mindset, profile, whatever. These are coincidences. Strong evidence involves scientific analysis.