# What finally was the proof concerning Umkay? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 1, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-finally-was-the-proof-concerning-umkay/642688 "2012-12-01T16:38:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 26
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-finally-was-the-proof-concerning-umkay/642688/26 "2012-12-02T20:47:37Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > The parts I most enjoy are not where I’m proven right (I kinda knew that all along) but the parts where the people who made idiots of themselves defending **Umkay** ’s authenticity are explaining why they were right to do so, and still do so, even after being proven false. Well in fairness, we should present their arguments. From your link: > [@I Pit NotOkay for convincing the entire board umkay had died!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-notokay-for-convincing-the-entire-board-umkay-had-died/626044/458): > > There’s a big difference between being gullible and wanting to see real proof of something before jumping all over someone. That seems like a reasonable position, speaking as someone who didn’t read Umkay’s thread until well after his/her alleged resurrection. It is appropriate to be polite, pending solid evidence. Some cannot grok to this. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-finally-was-the-proof-concerning-umkay/642688)._