Replies

They need a better change control process if new terminology can make its way to a form without being defined somewhere for reference, otherwise, what are the recipients to make of it? How is a registrar in another state (or someone utilizing the document as evidence supposed to interpret the same form with different wordings, without a reference to guide them?

There's a name for what you're doing: it's called making a mountain out of a molehill.

To any reasonable person, the interpretation of "date accepted" and "date filed" is perfectly obvious and the difference without subtance.

I seriously doubt anyone outside the birther movement cares about the discrepancy.

There's a name for what you're doing: it's called making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually, what it is is spinning you around in this debate. This whole thing is about what the COLB looks like, what embossing stamp was used in nwhat year, what hatchmark on the borders were used in what year, what the fonts look like when scanned vs. computer generated, etc. Hawaii varied these things over the years. The question was whether the document was a mix-and-match of things that were anachronistic for the period they claimed to be from.

I don't know the answers, I'm just repeating the questions. That's why the difference is important. In what year did Hawaii make the switch? What embossing stamp did they use that year? What did the border weave look like that year? Are they consistent? That's the question the "birther movement" was asking when they didn't have access to the physical document. So now only one organization (not a news or journalism org, but a "check the checkers" org) got access to it and took some photos. And that's supposed to settle it for everyone else?

-PJ