Subject: Re: new ellis boundary was finalized in 1999
Date: May 15, 2003 @ 03:14
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> >> There is ALWAYS some possible objection. :-)deserves
> >>
> >> In this case, I'm certain some would argue that DCVA
> >> consideration, even though DC isn't technically a state.hahaaah
>
> >but i would have to think you meant to nominate dcmd
>
> You would have to think wrong, then. :-)
> I was only pointing out what people could arguehahaha
> (I don't buy DCVA oreveryone
> DCMD in any case...more on this in a second), and since not
> accepts the fractal argument, that doesn't stop anyone fromarguing
> DCVA.yes but first they have to clear the hurdles raised by njny liberty
> The reason I don't buy DCVA or DCMD is because neither isthe boundary
> between two states.good good good
> If we can accept them, then what exactly are weprecisely
> trying to find?
> To my way of thinking, allowing those opens the doorwhich case
> for any boundary between a U.S. state and something else, in
> we have to look at such things as NH/Quebec, NM/Sonoma,TX/Nuevo Leon,
> and so forth.exactly agreed
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> "If you hate dissent, then get out of the United States."
> -Michael Wilbon