--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, spookymike@a...
wrote:
> To the 15 of 18 of us who have voted in the poll, and judging by
the many
> posts on this subject, it seems that the only one of us who has
a problem with
> the mixing of multipoint and other boundary related stuff is the
owner of this
> group.
yes it seems that way to you my doppelganger tho not at all to
me
& the chiaroscuro becomes us
but there is actually no problem here
For the rest of us, it seems a non-issue.
>
> Personally, Mike, I think the group works beautifully as is. To
rigidly
> insist that discussion be limited only to multipoints seem silly
and impractical,
> IMHO.
yes beautifully as is is putting it mildly
& to do that would be even sillier & more impractical than what
we do do
We boundary fans (to include multipoints as a subcategory) are
never
> going to be numerous. Why chase any of us away and end up
with splinter groups?
yikes did you really feel chased
i expressly begged everybody to stay so far
i mean every time this misunderstanding came up previously
& i repeat it to you
you especially of all people
btw i didnt vote in the poll because i didnt understand the
choices
but i guess if i had to choose
i might have been the only one in row 3
as nearly as i can understand & force fit to them
& i would just like to congratulate the great majority of us who
abstained on logical or punctological or any other grounds
as well as to salute all the mikes & indeed everyone in the group
i am complete
> I don't see that messages about non-purely multipoint matters
clog up the
> mail or cause anyone extra work, other than maybe having to
hit the delete
> button a few extra times for messages that are not of interest.
>
> Mike, as the owner of the group, you have the ultimate
hammer, but I would
> suggest you go with the flow and let this issue die a quiet
death. I believe
> you'll find the wider range of posts interesting, and that
multipoints will
> continue to receive the special attention they deserve.
>
> Mike Schwartz