I know they are technically correct, but I believe the presentation in the current piece is still gives a misleading impression; they may be careful with being technically correct but they are sloppy in terms of the impression they give. I think that if they were seriously interested in showing exactly how inaccurate the WSJ piece was they would have done the math that I did, instead of giving the impression that there may be many, many more than 17,000 numbers that are having their metadata examined.
