Your implication about the OCON "typo" is absolutely correct. I believe our research revealed that same conclusion that your response offered. That typo seems to be chronically present since 2000. However, our intended message, which we may not have been effective in conveying was that the DNC was conscientious enough to recognize the absence of explicit language concerning the eligibility of Obama in ONE state, yet they were oblivious to a decade long, transcedant spelling error. I wanted to convey a message exposing the blind focus of the DNC in their desperation to prevent the legal ramifications of Obama' disqualification from the ballot due to his lack of eligibility.
You are correct though, we might have spent a few more lines elaborating our point succinctly but also more accurately.
Thanks for the input at The Daily Pen.
ReplyDeleteYour implication about the OCON "typo" is absolutely correct. I believe our research revealed that same conclusion that your response offered. That typo seems to be chronically present since 2000. However, our intended message, which we may not have been effective in conveying was that the DNC was conscientious enough to recognize the absence of explicit language concerning the eligibility of Obama in ONE state, yet they were oblivious to a decade long, transcedant spelling error. I wanted to convey a message exposing the blind focus of the DNC in their desperation to prevent the legal ramifications of Obama' disqualification from the ballot due to his lack of eligibility.
You are correct though, we might have spent a few more lines elaborating our point succinctly but also more accurately.
Thanks again.
Pen