you are entirely welcome lowell
& no problem in any case
i think what you may still not understand yet is the bp constitution
& how committed some of us are to upholding it
because of the extraordinary value it holds for us
in the original words of our founding father
bp is an open discussion list for pointers & bounders
those slightly strange individuals who are interested in finding
researching photographing & discussing geopolitical boundary
points
especially those of a tristate or multipoint nature
&
we discuss our various mini expeditions to these various unique
points on the earth
& while the discussion is indeed open to everybody & everything
under the sun
no matter how centrifugal or irrelevant
we are always deliberately referring everything back as much as
possible to our central topic & process
& thus always refocussing & reviewing things thru the lens of
this extraordinary try pointing & point trying activity that unites us
so in a nutshell
we have been & are seeking the best & truest available truth at
every point
no matter how far afield we may have wandered at any point
so naturally at bp even the associate yaks are subject to the
same scrupulous meticulous nay multipunctilious scrutiny &
treatment as the multipoints & multipointers themselves
& the fact that these yaks may be unprincipled or even just
horsing around does not exempt them from the laser beam of
our organizing principle
so whether you are seeking or fleeing pontifications
please feast again on all of message 10938 from that point of
view & from our bp point of view too
but particularly the line that i tried to help you improve upon
& i thank you for both having accepted my associate pope try on
this point previously & for so graciously promoting it now to the
level of real pontiffing
& please dont ever take me exclusively seriously again
as i am mainly & mostly just having multi fun here
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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@o...>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >