Okay, thank you--I guess. I still don't understand, but I will give you the
benefit of the doubt that perhaps your message wasn't meant in the sense and
with the tone that I took it. One limitation of written communication is that
the same word can have different meanings, and the same sentences can be either
a "personal attack" or not, depending on whether they are written seriously or
in jest. It's hard to tell in print.
Of course, I don't mind my thoughts' being held up to a fair critique.
What I completely fail to understand is how your pontifications regarding the
ultimate sovereignty of the individual have anything to do with why Italy et.
al. recognize SMOM as sovereign. I am, however, entirely willing to drop it.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:45 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: SMOM map?
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Well! I have tried to contribute to these discussions with
> intellectual
> > thoughts, only to have them repeatedly demeaned, most
> recently as "dotty." I'm
> > still new to this group, but it appears that intellectual thought is
> not welcome
> > here except from one person. Fine! Have it your way. In the
> future, I will
> > try to restrict my occasional contributions to facts and figures.
> >
> > Lowell
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:03 PM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: SMOM map?
> >
> >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > Acroorca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > excuse me for tho i agree with your conclusion & you
> have
> > > > > indeed responded on point to the question up to a point
> > > > > this is still not a sufficient explanation of
> sovereignty.............
>
> hey wait lowell
> i only meant this treatment of yours above was going dotty on us
> but whether seriously or in jest
> 13 dots is going to a lot of work to duck out on a fair critique
> of some of your thought that frankly didnt hold water
>
> i dont think you are dotty
>
> & many of your contributions do hold up to punctilious analysis
> which is understandably a supreme value here
> given where we are coming from
> but this comment of yours didnt
> nor do your protestations about it
>
> anywhere else they probably all would have deserved an
> inattentive free pass
>
> so please come back as soon as you are feeling better
> & can handle this principled intellectual honesty
> without taking it as a personal attack
> which it is not
>
> warm regards
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>