And it's the only thing you will discuss, apparently.
You . . . are the ones who keep trying to change it.
Not change, so much as discuss the bio in the context of other evidence that exists.
I do believe the author bio is dispositive.
No surprise there. When you've only got one argument to make, you're reduced to doing what you're doing here: keep asserting that one point while diligently trying to ignore the mass of counter-evidence being brought in to crush your argument. You try to make the claim Obama was not born in Hawaii and hold up the agency bio as your "Exhibit A." Then you pretty much have to rest your case.
The anti-Birther case then is presented: which has Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H (the COLB, the LFBC, the 3 verifications done to State SoS's, the statements by two Governors of Hawaii), Exhibits I and J (the birth announcements), Exhibit K (Obama Sr. INS files), Exhibit L (the Indonesian school application), Exhibits M, N, and O (the Times, Post and Tribune articles), plus several other things that I just can't keep track of by memory.
But, oh, of course, Fantasywriter, true to the name, declares the agency bio "dispositive." In your alternative reality, one isolated statement done by someone not previously connected with Obama's life at all trumps all this other evidence (familial, official, and more historical).
Nice try.
The MO of Obots is to distract the discussion away from anything that hurts Obama. The author bio seriously hurts Obama. As in, it cripples his HI narrative. All the other items you mention have been discussed & debated a million trillion times. So I choose to discuss a point the Obots hate, & for which they have no coherent answer. That bothers you. I understand. Were I am Obot, it would bother me too.