Replies

Thanks. I’m wondering if I can sue Google for their totally inaccurate responses. For instances, referring to Norman and Nathan Asing, who were later adopted by Mr. Roloos and the birth certificates under the birth names Norman and Nathan Asing were invalidated and put in a special file that can only be accessed with court permission. The birth certificates under the names Nathan Asing and Norman Asing are legally non-valid. The only valid birth certificates that can be listed in the HDOH birth index are their adoptive names - Norman Roloos and Nathan Roloos. I showed the record which showed that their dad, Norman Asing, relinquished his rights so they could be adopted, and I also had drivers license records for Nathan (IIRC) that were under his adoptive name.

Here’s what the bastards at Google came up with - sheer lies, pretending that the issue wasn’t about their adoptions rendering their original birth certificates non-valid, but rather about the dates - which is stupid because both were born within the 1960-64 time period and I NEVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE:
>>>>>
AI response: Is butterdezillion’s claim that Norman and Nathan Asing’s inclusion in the HDOH birth index proves non-valid birth certificates are included accurate?
Thinking
Searching
The claim made by the blogger known as “butterdezillion”—that the inclusion of Norman and Nathan Asing in a Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) birth index proves that the index contains “non-valid” birth certificates—is
inaccurate and widely considered a debunked claim associated with the birther movement.
The brothers, Norman and Nathan Asing, were a central point in a specific conspiracy theory related to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

The Claim: The argument suggested that the Asing brothers were listed with birth dates spanning several years within the same index, supposedly indicating that the index was not a reliable, sequential record of actual births and could include records of people born elsewhere or “fake” entries. The implication was that if the Asings’ entries were unusual, then Obama’s entry could also be an anomaly or non-valid.
The Facts: Fact-checkers and analysts concluded that the inclusion of the Asing brothers was legitimate. They were likely listed as twins or siblings born close in time, or the entries referred to legitimate births that simply appeared on the same multi-year index page due to the index’s formatting or the specific timeframe it covered. The entries did not indicate that “non-valid” birth certificates were being indexed. The Asing brothers were real people with valid birth records.
Context: This claim originated in fringe political blogs during the “birther” movement, which was a campaign dedicated to questioning the legitimacy of President Obama’s U.S. citizenship and birth certificate. Mainstream news outlets and fact-checking organizations generally dismissed such claims as part of the broader, unfounded
>>>>>>>>

Who the hell made up that crap? That was not from anything that I know of on the web, and anybody looking at my claims can easily see that it doesn’t resemble anything I’ve ever written. What Google engineer put that together? What is their source for saying any of those lies? I want to know so I can sue the living daylights out of them.