Thing is I hang out with geeks and no one knows what TXE means.
The other problems are that all other COLB Abstracts do not use TXE.
Further “OF TXE” is in bold type.
So two things that don’t occur on any other examples and the question is “Why?”
What makes Barak’s COLB different and why is it different?
>>Thing is I hang out with geeks and no one knows what TXE means.<<
I am a computer dummy and hang out with computer dummies! LOL! This is where I found the info about TXE data. I did not fully understand what I read, so that is where D-fenr came in. D-fendr confirmed that data files could be referred to as TXE files.
This excerpt is from this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711307/posts?page=166#166
The TXE is no mistake or blurring. It is intentional. TXE is a file extension associated with Enriched Text files. (I picked up this definition from here:
http://www.liutilities.com/products/winbackup/filextlibrary/files/TXE/
Enriched text is a formatted text format for e-mail, defined by the IETF in RFC 1896 and associated with the text/enriched MIME type. It is “intended to facilitate the wider interoperation of simple enriched text across a wide variety of hardware and software platforms”.
That definition from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text
___________________________________________________________
>>Further “OF TXE” is in bold type.<<
I do not think this is bold type. I think it is like the Ann Dunham signature that has fine clear pen lines at one point and at another has solid black pixelated lines. The bold “OF TXE” is evidence of the location in the graphic that was edited to amend the statement to reflect what the document is.
As I said, if one could break apart that one layer and separate out the “OF TXE” there might be more info there. Might being the operative word!!!
>>What makes Barak’s COLB different and why is it different?<<
When all is said and done, fingers will eventually point back to Hawaii. Hawaii wants to have the scapegoat of “we were being asked by the President of the United States to do something illegal. We did not know how to handle the situation. So we amended our certifying statement to accurately reflect what the document was that we presented to the President. We are sorry, but we were in a tough spot. May not have been the honest choice, but it wasn’t illegal. Please forgive us.”
This, of course is all my theory. No factual weight behind it at any point, and has been shown to be quite weak at various points. Nevertheless, even a weak theory can still became the truth, if the right evidence presents itself. Unfortunately, I have seen no solid evidence to give my theory any legitimacy.