So why would I ignore Miriam Goderich, the woman who created the pamphlet in question and instead believe you citing yourself?
Remember, and this point is fundamental: You don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Miriam Goderich does.
I didn't say to "ignore" her, it's a data point.
If you have a source better than Miriam Goderich, by all means present it. But you don't. You're offering us yourself.
You know nothing more about their communication than she's told you. You know nothing of the procedures for writing a bio for a promotional pamphlet for Acton and Dystel. You know nothing of the sources that she used. You have no direct knowledge of any issue you're attempting to discuss.
You're offering us baseless speculation and innuendo regarding a topic you know nothing about. You can offer no data points.
Miriam Goderich made the pamphlet in question. She worked at Acton and Dystel. She was privy to all communication with Obama. She's a direct eye witness and the world's leading authority on the pamphlet and its content.
Why would I ignore her and instead believe you?