This is not exactly a tape recording from a talk, is it? And this is not exactly the copy of a manuscript, is it? This is what a critical person (and by all means, it is 100 % all right to be critical!) remembers from the talk a couple of hours after it was given. How 100 % focused was he? His mind did not wander off slightly just 1 % of the time? He managed to listen to every word and pin them down exactly as they were spoken afterwards?
How easy is it not to listen to a talk, to fill in a bit for oneself, to color it a bit more afterwards, to give oneself a reply to one's question about what he really said at that specific time in the talk when you did not 100 % get his meaning but filled it in with what your own critical mind figures he ought to have said if he were to live up to the idiocy which you in fact think the whole thing is - etc., etc.
ONE person's reference to a talk ought not be enough to have a hundred others start shaking the world. Some of it is old stuff - two crowns, well they've always said he started off with a victory and then rode off to fullfill his victory in Armageddon. GB representing the FDS is old stuff too. So a CO wishing to fresh up his talk meets mister critical mind - and ...... here we go.