[tptacek]

I like this attitude that says because you can't find the source Gruber is quoting, some random counterfactual must be true.

I did not find it hard to read the WSJ article he cited. You did. That's fine. But that does give you license to invent new facts.

[problemdomain]

> I like this attitude that says because you can't find the source Gruber is quoting, some random counterfactual must be true.

I didn't say that at all, and you don't have the excuse of not having access to the entirety of my publicly-available comment. I don't consider it implausible that Google refused, I simply have no basis for believing that over other plausible scenarios.

[tptacek]

Yes, you do: the WSJ article that reported that. The one Gruber not only cited but linked to.

[problemdomain]

My point is that that article is not available to me or the public at large. You can't expect to cite secret evidence and have us just believe everything you say. You're not Dick Cheney.

I'm done replying now, since you don't seem to be getting it.

[chc]

By this logic, Taco Bell burritos aren't available to me or the public at large because they cost like 79¢. Yet somehow Taco Bell makes millions off these unavailable burritos. It's almost like you're not being reasonable here.

Just because something takes a modicum of effort to obtain doesn't mean it's "unavailable." You can either pay a modest sum for the Wall Street Journal or just go to a library and read it there. It is readily available. If you choose not to read it, you don't then get to pretend the evidence therein does not exist.

[tptacek]

Reading full original sources is like a message board super power.