Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new ellis boundary was finalized in 1999<br/>
Date: May 14, 2003 @ 21:40<br/>
Author: S.D. Rhodes (&quot;S.D. Rhodes&quot; &lt;rhodent@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="10091.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10100.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic10086.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="10096.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10098.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1310780758"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt;&gt; There is ALWAYS some possible objection. :-)<br/>
&gt;&gt; <br/>
&gt;&gt; In this case, I&#39;m certain some would argue that DCVA deserves<br/>
&gt;&gt; consideration, even though DC isn&#39;t technically a state.<br/>
<br/>
&gt;but i would have to think you meant to nominate dcmd <br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>You would have to think wrong, then. :-)<br/>
<br/>
I was only pointing out what people could argue (I don&#39;t buy DCVA or<br/>
DCMD in any case...more on this in a second), and since not everyone<br/>
accepts the fractal argument, that doesn&#39;t stop anyone from arguing<br/>
DCVA.<br/>
<br/>
The reason I don&#39;t buy DCVA or DCMD is because neither is the boundary<br/>
between two states.  If we can accept them, then what exactly are we<br/>
trying to find?  To my way of thinking, allowing those opens the door<br/>
for any boundary between a U.S. state and something else, in which case<br/>
we have to look at such things as NH/Quebec, NM/Sonoma, TX/Nuevo Leon,<br/>
and so forth.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
---<br/>
&quot;If you hate dissent, then get out of the United States.&quot;<br/>
                                          -Michael Wilbon</div>