I don't see any blatant wrongness with your use of Super Search, but searching for selected snippets using Google does only yield that link and nothing else. Searching via Google for mjtsai.com on this site does not yield anything and the Super Search for mjtsai.com yields three nodes at this time of writing and likely will yield four nodes once I submit this.

So maybe somebody pretended to be you, or it is a whole section of nodes we lost as somebody using the name japhy and someone calling themselves Gavin also commented there.

Gavin wasn't a registered perlmonks user untill 2006-03-07 ... the comments attributed to "Gavin" on that blog are form 2002.

"japhy" does appear to be "our japhy" based on the URL that poster used (either that, or someone trying really hard to seem like him.

None of which precludes the possibility that all of these people stumbled onto this blog over a span or several *YEARS*, and posted comments, entirely independent of perlmonks -- anyone can comment on that blog, you don't even need to create an account, or have a verified email address, and it's the #1 result when googling for "perl python ruby" so it seems likely people might have found it, commented on it, and forgotten about it *YEARS* later.

(ocam's razor and all that)

Sombody mention my name Gavin.
It wasn't me that wrote the script, he writes far better code than I.
I followed the trail and by using Whois and various links I think it is gav^ who hasn't been here for awhile, but has some stuff on CPAN, he also has the same company, email address and link to his personal home page.

None of which precludes the possibility that all of these people stumbled onto this blog over a span or several *YEARS*, and posted comments, entirely independent of perlmonks -- anyone can comment on that blog, you don't even need to create an account, or have a verified email address, and it's the #1 result when googling for "perl pthon ruby" so it seems likely people might have found it, commented on it, and forgotten about it *YEARS* later.

I personally believe that as astonishing as it may be, given how often do I boast about my good memory, that must be the explanation. If so, then I apologize for the noise... yet, quite unexpectedly, this very thread seems to be an appreciated one!

Given that I regularly follow clpmisc, I also searched it for say mjtsai.com in case someone had posted the link there, but that doesn't seem to be the case either...

I really don't think that the comment there came from here as the content was very contextual and related to the original post.

Of course, I'm not trying to say that it was you, which brings me to a thought that how lucky the Perl community is, having two resourceful persons with the same (nick)name.

I personally believe that most definitely, that's me. Both quoting and writing style coincide. So do Perl specific issues I address. It's very strange to think that someone spent some efforts to write a reply in my style as if being me, under my nick. So hossman must be right.

I really don't think that the comment there came from here as the content was very contextual and related to the original post.

Well, I {thought,suspected} that the whole thread may have been lifted from here. Or that the same original post could have been multiposted.

I see absolutely no indication that the blog comments were copied from some other site so it makes no sense to me to search for that thread at PerlMonks.

But searching for "know for the rest" (with the delimiter changed from the default space) would not, for example, match "know for\nthe rest". So newlines or even an accidetal double space would thwart that search.

There is a date plainly visible on "your" reply and it is trivial to jump to your nodes around that date (super search likely is the easiest way to do that for somebody with a lot of write-ups) -- unless you think the thread was not only lifted w/o any indications of being a copy but was also lifted over the course of years and yet the dates recorded somehow don't correspond to the dates of the lifted notes. That strikes me as "magical thinking" for sure.