[tptacek]

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.

[cobrausn]

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.

[tptacek]

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

[cobrausn]

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

[tptacek]

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.

[cobrausn]

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.