QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 7th March 2009, 4:48pm)
There are lots of ways to (intentionally or inadvertently) confirm an otherwise unproven assertion without passing the information directly.
Back in the 90s, I was completely in the dark about the role someone (whom I never spoke with in private) had played. So I boldly posted an assertion about her for which I had not a shred of evidence.
She immediately became incensed and demanded to know who had told me that, strongly hinting that it must have been leaked by the single person whom everyone knew was friends with both of us.
I responded that the person who told me was none other than the subject herself, who had confirmed my otherwise ungrounded theory by falsely claiming our mutual friend must have leaked it.
Oddly enough, she never let go of that erroneous indictment, notwithstanding the truth of the matter, that I had just made a good guess and published it as if I knew it for a fact.
There is, however, a difference between this and if you had instead published actual words written by her and not intended for your eyes - while what you did only weakly implied a leak, that would confirm it for certain (and only be possible if there had actually been one). It is not in dispute here* that _someone_ leaked / is leaking messages from wikichix-l to Proabivouac (either that, or he somehow gained direct access himself). The only question is who. And the only plausible suspect I can think of is wikiwhistle.
*The possibility remains, I suppose, that the message he posted was a fabrication, but it seems likely someone would have called him on it were that the case
This post has been edited by Random832: