He missed, in his original answer, a giant elephant in the room: flea circuses involved dead, or non-existent, fleas. Then he backpedalled in his response.
Claiming he just wasn’t explicit? Sorry, I don’t buy it. I don’t see how you could know flea circuses involved mostly illusory and/or dead fleas and not feel that was important in the answer.
Too short? How? One of his “new assumptions” was that Monty Hall will never show you the curtain with the big prize. You believe his claim that that was not implicit in the original question. I don’t know what “Let’s Make a Deal” you watched, but it’d pretty stupid to have Monty Hall show which curtain had the grand prize.
is an admission of being wrong.
OK. I haven’t seen that episode. The last this got left in Cecil’s column, he (as you probably read from my cite), backpedalled and admitted he didn’t have a documented case (and the Wikipedia cite claims he’s the first documented - not that I believe Wikipedia more than Cecil. And he certainly was not the first - the legend started from somewhere - given that it’s demonstrably possible, it must reasonably have started from a real case).
But now there is a documented case. His original answer was largely correct then.
I take that one out.
That still leaves three, of course.