I'm not making such an argument as you are claiming. My argument is that it is absurd to make an assertion without a basis. The assertion about loopt was such an assertion.

(To satisfy your model:

1. Google is coming out with a new product called latitude. It is related to finding people around you.

2. loopt has a product called loopt. It is related to finding people around you.

3. rms observed that #1->product and #2->product are related, and if their technology doesn't explicitly overlap, loopt might be a good candidate for acquisition in order to broaden Google's hold on finding people around you.)

Not everything on Hacker News must be

  P1
  P2
  P3
  --
  Q