Posted on 07/27/2009 11:12:35 AM PDT by Danae
Nah, I will more or less wait and post up that 2000 receipt that proves my asertions ;)
Good work. Mysteries are so interesting, aren’t they?
What kind of blew me away was how open and pleasant the Hawaiian clerks have been on the calls, trying their best to accomodate. Surely they have been inundated? ... Well, with the fifth column enemedia like Tingles Matthews, Klunk Olberman, Johnathan Altar, Shill O’Reilly, and CNN management, I guess that was a silly notion.
Sorry it took so long to reply. Wrap my schedule around the baby. But in answer to your question, yes, the state of Hawaii does use IBM DB2.
I was flabbergasted this morning when I saw how Danae was being attacked for trying to do what we are all trying to do, which is to understand why obama will not release his pertinent documents and put this issue to rest.
I was trying to figure out why Danae would have received a birth document with a 2001 date on it in 2000. So I went hunting:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Official+document+revisions&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
I found this:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/cmgmt/v8r4m0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.administeringddm.doc/ddmlc106.htm
Then I checked to see if Hawaii used IBM DB2 and found that it does.
THEN, I checked a few other states’ official documents and found that some docs were in use up to 7 months before the official dates on the docs, while going through the drafting process, but I didn’t have time to post it when I found it because the baby was up and she doesn’t like to be kept waiting no way, no how.
What they did was schedule the revision on a certain date to be put into effect by a specific date in the future. However they did not wait until the official date to begin using the revisions they wanted in place because it had no effect on the legality of the document.
This is the first chance I have had to update my info.
NOW, I am not positive whether it is a revision number or a date, but regardless, it seems to be within the same timeframe as other docs I saw from other states.
There are variants as to the revise dates. Most specify it is a date, and others use MM/DD the 4 digit year. So the rev.11/01 on this doc is ambiguous. Clarification by Hawaii is probably the only way to prove it one way or the other, but I still find it hard to believe that Danae would suddenly become an agent provocateur just to embarrass herself OR Polarik.
MHG, thanks for updating me. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
One thing that is for certain around here... the Freeper community is a feisty bunch!
makes as much sense as anything else involved with this
It looks like we’ll have a free-for-all shakeout, sooner than I anticipated.
Meet Polarik
Barackryphal Blogspot ^ | July 29, 2009 | Loren
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2303352/posts
Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:04:59 PM by Technical Editor
You are the person to ask this question of:
Does your COLB say accepted by the registrar or filed by the registrar?
Wasn’t there a similiar issue on Obamanazi’s selective service registration with people trying to interpret when the form was revised because it looked like he was using a form not in existance at the time?
I don’t know whatever happened with that.
The thread you posted has been “pulled” and says “Under Review”.
What the heck is going on here anyway?
OK. I did an around-about search and found the information from “Loren” that you were attempting to post here, although the title of someone to “meet” isn’t exactly the same.
It’s very eyebrow raising. To say the least.
Are they saying that I swiped his identity, now? I’ve heard this before. The trolls have been saying for a year now that I have a phony PhD, but this guy’s got a real one.
I don’t see anything on document forensics either, but I’ve never claimed to be an expert in document forensics. Sandra Lines IS an expert in document forensics and she’s supported my findings.
Actually folks, I don’t have a PhD. I also never went to college, and I dropped out of pre-school. Feel better now?
It says “Date Filled By Registrar”
Someone had a theory that accepted by registrar as was on another COLB is different than filed by registrar.
Apparently, not the smoking gun if yours says filed by registrar.
Nothing (0) happened with it. It ended after a blitz of whens, ifs, and maybes, like everything else about the 0.
I remember going to the OMB OR OBM..(can’t remember )site and trying to figure out when that form was enacted and not understanding the difference in dates in what I was seeing on the site..but maybe the explanation is the one we see here where the form was being used before the official date.
I don’t even really remember the time difference. Just know I couldn’t come up with an answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.