> The point here is that this is nothing more than a simple writing mistake on the part of the FBI.
You say that like it's fact. But you're assuming.
I thought it was noteworthy that I can't recall ever seeing that specific error in the wild. Maybe I just missed it. Maybe it's a lot more common than I imagine. Maybe not. I don't know. Once it was brought to my attention I thought it was noteworthy though.
> Pretending
I'm not pretending anything. I gave an additional explanation I felt might be plausible. I'm sure there are others. I just doubt the plausibility of the one brought forward.
> irrational fear
Tomato tomato. There's no evidence it was a writing mistake, but you're presenting it as fact.
I guess it all boils down to this: Given domestic spying revelations I think you're extremely naive if you think it's irrational to think that the FBI might be telling less than the whole truth.
Your gut reaction puts you in the camp of people who would volunteer information to a LEO. Which I think should raise a lot more alarm bells than me shrugging my shoulders and suggesting I'd need actual evidence before taking the FBI at it's word.
The very idea that you would is blissfully naive IMO. But good luck with that.
And if you have an point to make, a little less ad-hom and snark (aka Reddittude) would be appreciated. My original comment was a few wonderings-out-loud, including posing a couple questions for discussion. Nothing in there intended to be snarky. If you want to discuss further, it would be nice if you could approach the conversation with the same level of basic respect.
Sidestepping your bruised ego entirely, the fact that you haven't seen someone mistake an IP header with an HTTP header is a terrible standard with which to judge whether or not such a mistake is possible.
This isn't really about you, it's about showing the other folks reading this how nuts you are, and luckily you're doing that for me.
That's a weird argument (that I never made). Though I have to wonder about that. IPv4 headers and HTTP headers don't much look the same IME (feel free to hit up Wikipedia if you're unfamiliar).
As far as "how nuts your are". You seem to be taking this way too seriously.
"My gut reaction is to be skeptical" somehow equates to, in your words:
Expressing skepticism that the FBI would "tell the whole truth and nothing but", despite high ranking intelligence officials outright lying to congress, and the history of the FBI being a bit checkered... That you think should raise alarm bells. Skepticism.
If that's all it takes to be a conspiracy theorist in your book, well sign me up I guess.
The outright dismissal that it might just be possible you don't have all the facts (and I'm certainly not claiming I do)... That's an idea you dismiss outright. I have to wonder how you get there. Because if anything here seems irrational, that's what I'd put my finger on. But maybe that's just me.
You say that like it's fact. But you're assuming.
I thought it was noteworthy that I can't recall ever seeing that specific error in the wild. Maybe I just missed it. Maybe it's a lot more common than I imagine. Maybe not. I don't know. Once it was brought to my attention I thought it was noteworthy though.
> Pretending
I'm not pretending anything. I gave an additional explanation I felt might be plausible. I'm sure there are others. I just doubt the plausibility of the one brought forward.
> irrational fear
Tomato tomato. There's no evidence it was a writing mistake, but you're presenting it as fact.
I guess it all boils down to this: Given domestic spying revelations I think you're extremely naive if you think it's irrational to think that the FBI might be telling less than the whole truth.
Your gut reaction puts you in the camp of people who would volunteer information to a LEO. Which I think should raise a lot more alarm bells than me shrugging my shoulders and suggesting I'd need actual evidence before taking the FBI at it's word.
The very idea that you would is blissfully naive IMO. But good luck with that.
And if you have an point to make, a little less ad-hom and snark (aka Reddittude) would be appreciated. My original comment was a few wonderings-out-loud, including posing a couple questions for discussion. Nothing in there intended to be snarky. If you want to discuss further, it would be nice if you could approach the conversation with the same level of basic respect.