> I think we should leave off this deranged need to ROT everything that
> comes our way- I mean, we try some theory, it doesn't work, and "oh,
> well, I'll try ROTing it!" and of course it STILL doesn't work
> because the theory was flawed in the first place. In any case, I don't
> think ROTing will be used again, just because putting myself in the
> puzzle-makers shoes makes it look pretty dull to use the same cleverness
> twice.
> On another note, whoever it was who originally solved the ROT bit... does
> anybody know HOW they thought to do that? I mean, there weren't any clues
> to it or anything, not as far as I could tell... was it just like,
> "well, let's ROT!" on some random whim?

AFAIK, rotting is a basic thing you try when you get handed an encrypted message in a riddle. (obviously, its never used for real anymore... Except in hotline =D). Anyway, I too doubt that theres another ROT in this puzzle.
...Besides, some words (like "L C C T G L W") look rotted sometimes. Letter frequency & such.