‘Just my opinion of the thing.’
Yes, it is just your opinion. And you cannot find even one other person on earth who shares that opinion/agrees with you. You posit this opinion without a particle of evidence to back it up. You have been forced to make a ridiculous statement because that is the only way you can defend your anti-birther stance.
I wouldn’t be proud of it.
Your statement, btw, is one-hundred percent false if you cannot bring any evidence at all to bear that backs it up. You say it is just an opinion. So it is a baseless, ignorant opinion. Unless and until you substantiate it, it is just a self-serving line without any foundation whatsoever. [Yes, even opinions need back-up, if they are to be anything more than nonsense statements. If you say, ‘in my opinion so-and-so is a liar’, but cannot provide a single instance of that person actually telling a lie, your ‘opinion’ is worthless. If you cannot cite even one gibberish sentence from Dreams, your ‘opinion’ is self-serving twaddle.]
I presented you with a series of facts. If it were otherwise, then you must be saying (for instance) that Dreams was published AFTER Stanley Ann was dead. Or else you are saying that to have her own/only son describe her ‘wedding’ as something he didn’t have the courage to know the details about was a heartwarming thing for her to hear in the midst of her fatal illness...and I wouldn’t put it past you. Anything to prop up the anti-birther lies.
There is no ‘fact’ that Stanley Ann married anyone in 61. Since this discussion started, two separate cases have come to my attention re: couples that were granted divorces sans proof of marriage. In one case, there was no Marriage Certificate in existence. In the other case, it existed but was not required for the divorce proceedings. So you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just blindly, mindlessly propping up the anti-birther narrative.
And you always will.
‘You’re clearly emotionally invested in the ‘Dunham in Kenya’ scenario’
You must be projecting. I haven’t even mentioned it. I have focused solely on the problems and issues of the anti-birther narrative. You can’t see the problems and you never will. You are so invested in anti-birtherism that even when you are presented with a fact, you are unable to recognize it as such. This is why I am not an anti-birther. I have never been able to ignore or deny the facts.
“Yes, it is just your opinion. And you cannot find even one other person on earth who shares that opinion/agrees with you. You posit this opinion without a particle of evidence to back it up. You have been forced to make a ridiculous statement because that is the only way you can defend your anti-birther stance.”
If you’re eager for a debate on the literary merits of Dreams of my Father, start a thread on it. I doubt I’ll participate. I’ve given you my opinion of the thing. I’m indifferent if you don’t agree with me on it. Life’s too short to get involved in the debating the merits of that lacklustre effort.
“You say it is just an opinion. So it is a baseless, ignorant opinion. Unless and until you substantiate it, it is just a self-serving line without any foundation whatsoever. [Yes, even opinions need back-up, if they are to be anything more than nonsense statements....”
What’s curious about this is that whilst my opinion is baseless because it’s not supported by any foundation or backup, the author’s opinion of the Dunham wedding is hard fact despite it also lacking any backup. This is why I suspect you’re too emotionally involved in trying to prove that they didn’t get married in Hawaii (despite the hard evidence to support the proposition).
“There is no ‘fact’ that Stanley Ann married anyone in 61.”
The marriage index is a fact. The divorce papers are facts. The judge’s statement that he’d seen proof of it is a fact.
“Since this discussion started, two separate cases have come to my attention re: couples that were granted divorces sans proof of marriage. In one case, there was no Marriage Certificate in existence. In the other case, it existed but was not required for the divorce proceedings. So you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just blindly, mindlessly propping up the anti-birther narrative.”
Finally, something that’s possibly worthy of debating. Of course, asserting that there are two outliers doesn’t mean that those circumstances can be blithely ascribed to all cases or even another specific case without supporting evidence. It’s perfectly possible that a couple could find themselves without their Marriage Certificate and the system has mechanisms to deal with that. Care to provide details? I won’t hold my breath, you’re not famous for providing backup for your claims but I can at least hope.
“You must be projecting. I haven’t even mentioned it. I have focused solely on the problems and issues of the anti-birther narrative. You can’t see the problems and you never will. You are so invested in anti-birtherism that even when you are presented with a fact, you are unable to recognize it as such. This is why I am not an anti-birther. I have never been able to ignore or deny the facts.”
Present me with some facts and you’d have an argument. If all you’ve got are literary opinions...well, not so much. If you do have something, anything, here’s your chance to put it out there.