Your point is that "thoughtcrime" was improperly used in the title, as evidenced by your own made-up definition of "thoughtcrime." I refuted that by quoting the actual description of thoughtcrime from Nineteen Eighty-Four indicating that thoughtcrime was fought in Orwell's novel through intensive blanket surveillance in order to determine dissent. I followed up with an example of Intrado's intensive blanket surveillance in order to determine facts or statements outside the norm of society.
Your response to this is that your new narrowly-determined standards for evidence do not meet your own proprietary requirements, at which point I
1) cease to care what you think
2) cease to humor your argument.
Have a nice weekend.