This article examines one of the ways in which matters of truth, appropriateness, and acceptability are raised and managed within the course of everyday conversation. Using the methodology of conversation analysis, we show that by repeating what another participant has said and doing so with a high rise-fall intonation contour, a speaker claims that the repeated talk is "wrong" and in need of correction. There is an incongruity between two versions of the world--the one presented in the repeated speaker's talk and the one the repeating speaker knows or believes to be true, appropriate, or acceptable. The ensuing sequences are routinely expanded and morally charged as the participants jostle for epistemic or moral authority over the matter at hand and work to repair the incongruity (even if, in the end, they agree to disagree). (Contains 6 figures and 16 footnotes.)