You cannot say "For all we know" and state something as if it were an irrefutable argument. "For all we know" doesn't hold up, because that is a cop-out argument.
I'm not. What I am pointing out, is just like in many cases when dealing with other player realms, WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS. Yet we are willing to tar and feather the GM, make assumptions about why he did things, what info he was acting on etc. In other words I'm saying the assumption that he didn't verify it is not based on any observable fact other then he didn't approach Terran or presumably the Moot. I am offering an alternative to the assumption that he just took it as absolute fact, based on a possible speculative path given the facts as presented.
"For all we know" is not a cope out, it is what it is, a introduction to a hypothesis. Now if you want to refute the hypothesis as invalid given the data, please feel free.
Poll