Replies

Tee hee, ‘defensive’ are we?

WND said that it got a hold of other birth certificate documents, and said they looked similar. Other birth certificates using a different seal or a different name of the country would certainly qualify as not being ‘similar’. One could argue that WND is stupid, but I think anyone would notice if the name of the nation would be different.

You are right that WND did not explicitly state that other birth certificates use the same ‘Republic of Kenya’. But when the story was written, the writer didn’t know that would be an issue. Or that people would think Lavender was not a person but a soap detergent.

The name of the country is something that is very easily verifiable in documents. The fact that no one is producing such documents showing that Kenya was NOT listing itself as ‘Republic of Kenya’ speaks volumes. This is something that can easily be proven false and no one has done so. The reason why is because they likely can’t.

In other words, the viral messengers need better tactics.

You said:

“Once again, either you know something that is not widely known or you are pushing a falsehood.”

I am an Anti-Viral Messenger. I am their worst nightmare. I can see right through them. Most people can. That is why they hate me.

You have already posted your ‘It was not a Republic’ tripe over and over and over again. You’ve made your point. Move on.

If it is a forgery, it will clearly debunk itself within the next few days especially with something like having a different name for the country.

But if you keep pressing the same exact post over and over again, we will know that you are here with an agenda and are a viral messenger.

BTW, I love when viral messengers post in the middle of the night. They become so obvious posing at 3 AM and all.

Tee hee, ‘defensive’ are we?

How is debunking the misinformation in your prior post "defensive"?

You explicitly said other birth certificates of the time have the same header and seal. I simply pointed out that the WND article never said this. You misrepresented the content of the article.

You said that Kenyans were calling themselves "republic of kenya" in early 1964. I pointed out that we have yet to see a single instance of this anywhere, let alone on official documents and seals. You misrepresented the content of BP's posts, to say with certainty that Kenyans DID call themselves a republic when BP said they MAY have. Now there's nothing wrong with making an honest mistake, but there's nothing wrong with being corrected either is there?

Is being corrected threatening or upsetting to you in some way? If you don't like being corrected, don't misrepresent articles and don't make stuff up no matter how much you want it to be true.

I am an Anti-Viral Messenger. I am their worst nightmare. I can see right through them.

At the moment you seem to be a messenger of misinformation.

You have already posted your ‘It was not a Republic’ tripe over and over and over again. You’ve made your point. Move on.

I'll keep correcting people who spread clearly false misinformation, such as claims that the 1963 constitution called Kenya the "republic of Kenya". Why is correcting misinformation a bad thing again? How does letting false ideas proceed unchallenged benefit the community?

And why exactly are my "not a republic in early 64" statements "tripe" if they are compeltely true?

we will know that you are here with an agenda and are a viral messenger.

Oh you think you caught dr. evil now hm? So this is how your ego works. If someone corrects a mistatement you have made, instead of graciously conceeding the point, you attack the person who corrected you personally and smear them as troll.