I spend a lot of my idle time criticizing the lack of "proof" involved in various religious or social arguments. Being a mathematician, I hold the notion of proof, and more generally the notion of logical rigor, in an almost sacred regard. I admit that I am dogmatic with respect to its efficacy.
However, the recent info regarding the Absolute Poker superuser #363, etc., has forced me to question what it means to prove something. I am compelled to believe the "preponderance of evidence" that exists here on 2+2, whereas prior to this fiasco, I would have probably been more skeptical.
Here is a link to catch you up:
cliff notes
Have the 2+2 detectives proven that cheating has occurred? And in the event that they have, will 2+2 react accordingly?
P.S. David Sklansky, if you can find time in your day to comment, then I believe your message will be well recieved.