Okay, it's not really too much of a big a deal, but the way I read it, it was "TFA" as in "read the fucking article". I thought "come on, dude, it was a valid question": Julian, in his article, doesn't actually mention the source, just some vague reference to an unnamed blogger. Given the seriousness of the kidnap threats, I wanted to find out if it was a credible claim. E.g., I wanted to see the original source and find out (a) who said it (b) what was actually said and (c) ascertain how credible a threat it was.
So when I read "TFA", I thought "come on, dude, that's a bit patronizing, it's a valid question, fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate". I think a few other people thought the same way, too.
There's a world of difference between Julian's assertion of "a US blogger" versus a link to the original source (which jacquesm supplied). Perhaps we're living in the wikipedia generation, but it's quite concerning that people on Hacker News automatically consider assertions to be as credible as original sources!
I mean, seriously, Julian makes a statement about how his son has received kidnapping threats, and people just swallow it without questioning? I'm not saying that I think Julian is lying (and having seen jacquesm's link, it seems like he wasn't), but I think it's incredibly important for anyone wishing to critically analyse current affairs to view all claims, on all sides of the debate, with a skeptical mind.
If you use TFA or RTFA make sure you do it properly, it's rude.