Nope, it hasn't been edited, and it's pretty clear in what it says.

You know posts can be edited with sufficient permissions without publicly disclosing they were edited, right?

It includes an exact date which includes the year, which is clearly 2004 (the post content, not the date the post was made) - suggest you read it.

Makes no difference to me, just sayin. There was also a discussion in feedback forum about disabling rep in general (this was after I joined the forum).

I was talking about post counts, not the reputation system - so don't see the connection.

You can give someone reputation who has one, or more posts to their name - so it makes no difference how many posts one has made.

Well I only mentioned the rep because it was removed (from general forum) around the same time post counts were removed.
And since hazel remembers this, it was probably after 2016

Again, Jeremy's sticky thread at the top of this very forum very clearly states that posts to this forum will not increment your post count, where that very same sticky very clearly gives an exact date that is in 2004, not 2016, or 2014 - it even includes an exact time too.

I would quote the exact post in question, but it's hard on a smartphone.

Please read it.

I really don't care, even if sql database said it was last edited in 1501 it makes zero difference to me.
But since you do care so much about ancient history, go to web.archive.org and see what was going on 10 or 20 years ago.

It isn't really, but nor is it hard to click twice and see the text quoted below, so to hopefully stop this ridiculous back and forth...

That's 29th January 2004, right there in Jeremy's own words. Jeremy did not come back a decade later and change the date (and Wayback Machine will prove that).

This is not at the same time as reputation was removed from General because Reputation wasn't added until August 2010:
As of January 2011, removing it from General was being discussed in that same thread...
I don't know when that ultimately occurred.

There was a thread in December 2016 that discussed the possibility of disabling signatures in General (alongside Member Intros) - perhaps that is what Hazel misremembered, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

All of this is off-topic for this thread, although I'm not sure there's much more to say on-topic... it is a tad disappointing the starter of this thread has not apologised for their outburst (or if they have, not with the same visibility).

*shrug*

I did not realize it was a contest, but in my opinion THIS thread is leading contender of most stupid! I am out.

Thanks, I took a look at the FAQ now...since I clearly must have glossed over that entry*, but it didn't really specify the post count, just that it needs the senior member or contributor rank.

*First three entries in that menu begin with LQ, and the third entry is 'LQ Sitemap', and 'Site FAQ' follows right after. Must have melted together in my brain.
Sitemap site faq, sitemap site faq, sitemap site map, sitefaq site map, mapsite, mapfaq...

What I'm getting at is... this might be a minor design issue, minor, but it certainly confused me.

You're welcome.

I must admit it wasn't easy for me to find it either, clearly it is there and it's therefore not impossible to find it, but not once again easy either.

Although, looking at the Edit Options page, I don't see any option to enable PM's.