Except there's no evidence he said X in the first place. See the AP's writethru.

Gonna file your comment under "Bitcoin enthusiasts declare total victory for not X"

On what planet is this not evidence:

"Newsweek writer Leah McGrath Goodman, who spent two months researching the story, told the AP: "I stand completely by my exchange with Mr. Nakamoto. There was no confusion whatsoever about the context of our conversation -- and his acknowledgment of his involvement in Bitcoin."

An audio recording is evidence. What you quoted back to me is the possibly flawed recollection of a reporter who's in the unenviable position of defending a very high-profile cover story used to relaunch a national magazine. That reporter is no longer a disinterested observer. The AP, to a first approximation, is.

Discount it however you want, her testimony is a form of evidence [1]. To say there is "no evidence" is simply and flatly false.

[1] That's a quote from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

First, we're not in a courtroom with the witness under oath. Second, because we're not, we can't cross-examine the witness. Third, even if we could and her recollection is as you say, the balance of evidence would remain heavily tilted against Dorian == Satoshi. Sorry. :)