[Non-Sequitur]

That is simply untrue, and is, quite frankly, childishly illogical.

Not nearly as childishly illogical as those who concoct elaborate explanations on how Obama could be born in Kenya but his birth announcement still made it into the paper in the same issue as all those children born in the same week were. Those strain all bounds of credibility.

The assertion that these are "obviously the product of some bureaucratic filing" is pure supposition on your part.

As opposed to all the other explanations?

. You have no idea where these announcements came from, yet you are willing to accept, as fact, a theory that you just pulled out of your rear end.

Where do you get your theories from? A dozen or so birth announcements, for the same children, worded exactly the same way, in the same order, in two different papers. How do you explain it if not some data dump from the local governmental department?

Once again, you are demonstrating non-logical thinking.

OK, then demonstrate logical thinking. What's your explanation?

[curiosity]

See post #263 for a debunking of the birther claim that mama Obama had a motive to fraudulantly register Bambi as being born in Hawaii had he really been born outside the US.

[fr_freak]

Not nearly as childishly illogical as those who concoct elaborate explanations on how Obama could be born in Kenya but his birth announcement still made it into the paper in the same issue as all those children born in the same week were.

My posts focused solely on one or two points. You used illogical thinking to argue with those points, and are now attempting to use other non-related arguments rather than continue discussing those points. Discussions like that get nowhere. Other people on this thread have addressed your concerns on your point above, so go argue with them on that issue.