Subject: Re: New Wall -- discussion point
Date: Jan 17, 2004 @ 16:28
Author: m06079 ("m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> My responses are inserted below.answer that
>
> Lowell
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 10:13 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: New Wall -- discussion point
>
>
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > To the extent that this security fence relates to a current or
> > proposed
> > > political boundary (which is not clear to me), then a respectful
> > and collegial
> > > fact-based discussion might be in order. However, a gush of
> > expressions of rank
> > > political opinions on this divisive issue will not serve the
> > purposes of this
> > > group.
> >
> > i see everybody has been contemplating my question for days now
> > or doesnt want to touch it
> > but it is in earnest & i will repeat it
> >
> > what do you think the purposes of this group are
> >
> > especially lowell
> > if no one else
> > for raising this excellent topic
> > & who is well used to ducking my repeat questions
>
> I ducked this one because I feet that there is no exact correct
> would satisfy you. I only wrote what I did above because I hopedthat no one
> would turn this group into a political debate over the securitywall. I am
> pleased that all posts about it have been very civil and fact-based.claimed
>
> > & lowell
> > theres no time now to answer you on the other thing now
> > but did you really think i havent been asking you what exactly you
> > found wrong with the van zandt statement ever since you first
> > it was wrongtold you what
>
> Mike, it's sometimes hard to tell what the heck you're asking! I
> was wrong with it from the beginning, but you kept asking, and Ikept telling
> you. We were in a viscious circle. Finally, you asked whichparticular words I
> found objectionable. I have answered you. Disagree if you will,but don't just
> keep asking the same question.from
>
> > hahahahahahaha
> > hahahahahahahahaha
> > well i just cant believe my ears or eyes or whatever these are
> >
> > & btw dont forget to add maine aka north massachusetts to your
> > interesting inventory of flake off states
>
> Here, you are entirely correct! I did neglect the birth of Maine
> Massachusetts. I suppose I was thinking of geographic divisions ofstates and
> neglected this, which was a governmental division of a jurisdictionthat was
> already geographically divided. That is an explanation, not anexcuse.
>but you arent really disagreeing with me are you
> > & of course tennessee aka west north carolina
> > which had an erection for 6 years before being admitted to union
> > hahaha
>
> I must disagree with you here.
> the 1780's was never recognized by anybody. That's why we don'thave a State of
> Frankland. North Carlolina never granted any permission for theformation of
> any new state within its territory. What it did in 1790 was cedeits western
> lands to the federal government, just as many eastern states did.In accepting
> this cession, the Congress created a territorial government there.Tennessee
> was later admitted to the Union in 1796. So, Tennessee was notadmitted to the
> Union from within and by the consent of North Carolina.
>
> > & might be more the likely role model for any new texases
> > hahahahaha
> >
> >
> > I think there are probably other groups for that.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA