Subject: Re: SMOM map?<br/>
Date: Jul 11, 2003 @ 02:45<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="10949.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10951.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic10932.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="10949.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10951.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1837249590">--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; <br/>
&lt;mcmanus71496@m...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; Well!  I have tried to contribute to these discussions with <br/>
 </span></blockquote>intellectual<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; thoughts, only to have them repeatedly demeaned, most <br/>
 </span></blockquote>recently as &quot;dotty.&quot;  I&#39;m<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; still new to this group, but it appears that intellectual thought is <br/>
 </span></blockquote>not welcome<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; here except from one person.  Fine!  Have it your way.  In the <br/>
 </span></blockquote>future, I will<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; try to restrict my occasional contributions to facts and figures.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Lowell<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
&gt; From: &quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@o...&gt;<br/>
&gt; To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
&gt; Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:03 PM<br/>
&gt; Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: SMOM map?<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; --- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Lowell G. <br/>
 </span></blockquote>McManus&quot;<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; &lt;mcmanus71496@m...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Acroorca wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; excuse me for tho i agree with your conclusion & you <br/>
 </span></blockquote>have<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; indeed responded on point to the question up to a point<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; this is still not a sufficient explanation of <br/>
 </span></blockquote>sovereignty.............<br/>
<br/>
hey wait lowell<br/>
i only meant this treatment of yours above was going dotty on us<br/>
but whether seriously or in jest<br/>
13 dots is going to a lot of work to duck out on a fair critique<br/>
of some of your thought that frankly didnt hold water<br/>
<br/>
i dont think you are dotty<br/>
<br/>
& many of your contributions do hold up to punctilious analysis<br/>
which is understandably a supreme value here<br/>
given where we are coming from<br/>
but this comment of yours didnt<br/>
nor do your protestations about it<br/>
<br/>
anywhere else they probably all would have deserved an <br/>
inattentive free pass<br/>
<br/>
so please come back as soon as you are feeling better<br/>
& can handle this principled intellectual honesty<br/>
without taking it as a personal attack<br/>
which it is not<br/>
<br/>
warm regards</div>