Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

outsidethebeltway.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#41

Post by danielweber »

mpyne wrote: post #35
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't a hoax. She genuinely believed the visit resulted from her search. Why must we either mock or promote it. Just look into it, settle what the truth is, and move on.

What if the child who cried wolf genuinely believed he'd seen wolves? It's the same result in the end (no one believes you when it's most important), which is why it's necessary not to jump to conclusions that are not supported by evidence, especially conclusions that naturally mesh with your worldview.

Years back an online friend coined Japhy's Law: the facts you most want to be true are those you should be most suspicious of.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#42

Post by cobrausn »

tptacek wrote: post #40
cobrausn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not completely. He was quick to link alternate explanations that made equally little sense but didn't make it the result of NSA data mining - such as a picture of fireworks posted on facebook causing it all, despite the fact they showed up asking about pressure cookers. He was fighting a wave of people who were 100% certain it was the NSA, but still... 'Common Sense and Reason' belongs only to those who read the stor…

Huh? I linked to Declan McCullagh's alternate (and more plausible) possibility . Nobody, including McCullagh, claimed to know for sure that that alternative was what happened. It's telling that you'd continue to make that argument --- noting that I was "quick to link to it" --- despite repeated clarifications from both me and McCullagh about the point of the link.

It was only more plausible if you believe they would see fireworks on facebook and show up asking about pressure cookers.

The fact was something in between, of course, it was computer searches but they weren't passed on from the NSA to some JTTF agents.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#43

Post by tptacek »

cobrausn wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I linked to Declan McCullagh's alternate (and more plausible) possibility . Nobody, including McCullagh, claimed to know for sure that that alternative was what happened. It's telling that you'd continue to make that argument --- noting that I was "quick to link to it" --- despite repeated clarifications from both me and McCullagh about the point of the link.

It was only more plausible if you believe they would see fireworks on facebook and show up asking about pressure cookers. The fact was something in between, of course, it was computer searches but they weren't passed on from the NSA to some JTTF agents.

You mischaracterized my post. I've corrected you. The rest of the argument isn't interesting to me.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#44

Post by cobrausn »

tptacek wrote: post #43
cobrausn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was only more plausible if you believe they would see fireworks on facebook and show up asking about pressure cookers. The fact was something in between, of course, it was computer searches but they weren't passed on from the NSA to some JTTF agents.

You mischaracterized my post. I've corrected you. The rest of the argument isn't interesting to me.

I corrected your assertion of 'more plausible'. Feel free to carry on, we're splitting some fairly meaningless hairs.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#45

Post by tptacek »

cobrausn wrote: post #44
tptacek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mischaracterized my post. I've corrected you. The rest of the argument isn't interesting to me.

I corrected your assertion of 'more plausible'. Feel free to carry on, we're splitting some fairly meaningless hairs.

The difference between your correction and mine is that yours is a matter of opinion and mine one of fact; I did not, in fact, post the Facebook page story because I was certain it was correct, nor did its author write it because he thought it was correct.

The difference isn't meaningless; it's useful to spotlight point-scoring goalpost-moving when it occurs.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#46

Post by cobrausn »

tptacek wrote: post #45
cobrausn wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I corrected your assertion of 'more plausible'. Feel free to carry on, we're splitting some fairly meaningless hairs.

The difference between your correction and mine is that yours is a matter of opinion and mine one of fact; I did not, in fact, post the Facebook page story because I was certain it was correct, nor did its author write it because he thought it was correct. The difference isn't meaningless; it's useful to spotlight point-scoring goalpost-moving when it occurs.

I don't care about points (this thread is off the front page, nobody paying attention here but me and you, maybe mpyne if he's bored), but linking to a laughable opinion about pictures of fireworks (sorry 'explosive devices') being the cause of the whole visit was enough to make me think you were linking to it because you agreed with it. Coming here and defending it as 'more plausible' when the evidence didn't match up bothered me enough to keep this going.
Post reply on HN