31–40 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI, for all their faults, are professionals. Local police? Ha!
Professionals!? You mean the guys who refuse to record interviews with suspects? Now what reason could they possibly have for refusing to record an interview...
Maybe not and maybe yes?? What a stupid title. There is basically nothing the writer cites to absolutely negate the claim that a Google search possibly resulted in a visit from the police? She searched for pressure cookers, and police came to her house asking her, among other things, whether they own pressure cookers and if they know how to make a bomb out of pressure cookers. Those are the facts.
Maybe not and maybe yes?? What a stupid title. Accurate. The word you are looking for is accurate. At the current time, we don't know why they visited her house for sure. We don't know that she was asked about pressure cookers because she googled them. That's inference, not fact.
Above statement is 100% accurate... and completely and utterly stupid and most definitely not worth publishing.
Indeed you are accurate as well in saying that we do not know why they visited her house for sure. But publishing an article that adds a "maybe not" to the claimed series of events brings us no closer to finding that out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's private about a web search, exactly? For unauthenticated sessions, Google does not use HTTPS by default. If I click through to a SERP link, my search referrer is passed to that party. They can do what they want with it, including alerting authorities. Not that authorities need alerting or warrant to capture all non-secure traffic. I'm not convinced we know any of the reasons for the visit yet, but it's fairly…
The distinction between public and private in this scenario is the difference between pictures posted so that everyone can see versus a string that only two parties can read directly or others might sniff indirectly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not and maybe yes?? What a stupid title. Accurate. The word you are looking for is accurate. At the current time, we don't know why they visited her house for sure. We don't know that she was asked about pressure cookers because she googled them. That's inference, not fact.
"God Exists!..Maybe!... or maybe even NOT!" Above statement is 100% accurate... and completely and utterly stupid and most definitely not worth publishing. Indeed you are accurate as well in saying that we do not know why they visited her house for sure. But publishing an article that adds a "maybe not" to the claimed series of events brings us no closer to finding that out.
In fact, your example touches on a larger point. An article like that about God would, if presented logically, have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that God exists- all we have to go on are people's individual written accounts, and no hard evidence.
Compare that to this situation... where all we have is an individual written account and no hard evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI, for all their faults, are professionals. Local police? Ha!
Professionals!? You mean the guys who refuse to record interviews with suspects? Now what reason could they possibly have for refusing to record an interview...
They aren't honest, they aren't trustworthy, they don't act in your interest... but they aren't juveniles either. They don't act like a bunch of out of control children on power-trips.
> Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? … Have you ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb?"
In what world does a police anti-terrorism task force coming in to your home and asking if your home cooking implements are to be used to make a bomb designed to kill and maim constitute "innocuous questions?"
I don't see how this is busting her story much. The FBI confirmed that cops went to her house, just not FBI agents, but local ones. Still, if the FBI knew, then clearly it was a joint operation in some way. Then, the WP says that the reason they went could be something other than Google searches, and instead something that they posted on Facebook or a jumpy neighbor (although that's doubtful because they never actual…
or the FBI can access to police records when necessary, and sometimes checks said records when mass media indicts them in a conspiracy to harass pressure cooker enthusiasts. Of course, this explanation is far less exciting, but it is based on two assumptions we can be reasonably certain are true.
Now how does that sit with the theory Ms Catalano just might have been a little prone to exaggeration or jumping to the wrong conclusions about who was visiting her and why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"God Exists!..Maybe!... or maybe even NOT!" Above statement is 100% accurate... and completely and utterly stupid and most definitely not worth publishing. Indeed you are accurate as well in saying that we do not know why they visited her house for sure. But publishing an article that adds a "maybe not" to the claimed series of events brings us no closer to finding that out.
Why would "God Exists!..Maybe!... or maybe even NOT!" not be worth publishing? An article that outlines the evidence and arguments both for and against the existence of God would make for a great read. In fact, your example touches on a larger point. An article like that about God would, if presented logically, have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that God exists- all we have to go on are people's ind…
Fact 1) Woman claims she was visited by some type of joint task terrorist police force
Fact 2) She claims that they asked her husband about pressure cookers and whether they knew how to make a bomb with it
Fact 3) She claims to have searched for pressure cookers on Google earlier
Let's just try and verify if those facts are indeed true and/or related before hand-waving the whole thing off as a "Maybe not!" because there is no "hard evidence".. okay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would "God Exists!..Maybe!... or maybe even NOT!" not be worth publishing? An article that outlines the evidence and arguments both for and against the existence of God would make for a great read. In fact, your example touches on a larger point. An article like that about God would, if presented logically, have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that God exists- all we have to go on are people's ind…
Reasonably good job on taking my sarcastic remark and applying it to this situation where it really has no business being applied to. No really, kudos. Fact 1) Woman claims she was visited by some type of joint task terrorist police force Fact 2) She claims that they asked her husband about pressure cookers and whether they knew how to make a bomb with it Fact 3) She claims to have searched for pressure cookers on Go…
Anyway. You've just stated that we have three entirely unverified facts. How is "maybe, maybe not" the incorrect response to that?