Reply #24: To 22 & 23: Taking It to the Level of Impugning Ain't Right [View All]

Let's start from the beginning: Yesterday, there WAS no transcript. And I'm 99% scrupulous about providing links where there are some. AND for MOST of my record I am pretty good at hearing accurately and repeating what was said.

That said, while I have already acknowledged seeing the transcript provided, I am at a loss to explain the HUGE discrepancy with what I STILL think I heard. Saying I WANTED to hear it is not nice. That, further, said, ---------call me a conspiracist---------
I do NOT find THIS scenario totally impossible:

Geo S.: Governor, you might want to review things: It was ESTRADA, not GONZALEZ, who was born outside of the country.

DEAN: Whups. I'd like to correct myself.

It's either this or I need an ear exam. But in the meantime, you can either accept or reject my acknowledgement of the transcript. It ain't necessary to malign. And rehashing what might have been settled previously ain't gonna go nowhere either. I can see ONE "jeeezzzzus" of outrage, but proceeding to another thread and wailing, "jeeeezzzzzus" again smackest of sweet martrydom. An alternative might have been to copy and paste the previous thread and say a correction had occurred, not wailing "jeeeessssuzzzz" again and again.