OK, here goes:
Every once in a while some new hapless soul posts the ‘-gry’ question, resulting in the usual responses. Typically, either someone points out that “it’s a trick question, and the original wording has been corrupted, etc.” or posts a link that says that. Even The Master has bought off on it.
Now, as best we know, the first sighting of the “-gry” question was a radio talk show in 1975. The proposed “solution” (mentioned above) did not start showing up until some years after it circulated among radio stations (where I first heard it numerous times in the mid '80s).
In my opinion, the purported “solution” involving “original wording” is just a canard, and one that won’t echo at that. If this “original wording” did not start showing up until years after the question started making the radio (then later, the Net) rounds, I don’t think you can consider that the original wording. Besides, I’ve seen three different “original wordings.”
Now the GQ:
Can anyone produce any evidence that predates the 1975 radio program that supports the “original wording” corruption?
That, and only that, is the scope of this question.
Failing that, I think that has to be one UL created to explain another one.
My point is that although it might be true–there isn’t any evidence to support it. We’re looking for the “straight” dope, not the “possible” dope after all.
(And just citing a website that with no corroboration doesn’t count) 