thanx kevin for especially befriending & querying me on these
several interesting points
in responding to them
& since they are part of a much larger discussion
let me especially draw your attention to messages 11534 &
11539 first
which you may have missed or discounted
judging from some of the things you are saying about me below
& let me also hasten to insert that i think bill did a truly fantastic
job with the bp charter & with what both he & i understood to be
the groups especial purpose at the time
earnestly trying as he did & i think succeeding magnificently in
describing a special topic that few people had ever even heard of
before he described it in this way & for which there simply was
no generally acceptable vocabulary or phraseolgy at the time
after all
we really are on the leading edge of thought & reality here
& it is really a marvel of craftsmanship he wrought when you stop
to think about it in that light
& in the light of how far we have come baby
thanx first of all to this jewel of compression & precision
so i hope you will read it all again
& not just the part you have especially selected out of it
& interpreted in such a way as to strip the full intent of all its
specificity
& on bp day minus one he ran this very text past me
his then newfound multipointing pal & mother of co invention
before hanging it on the spanking new bp home page
so i had completely signed off on it too before the group began
just as i have resubscribed to it again yesterday in the new light
of what he now clearly indicates he also meant at the time
& i should probably repeat so as to truncate the discussion
i have honored both possible guiding principles since 11534
the more obvious one that is my original understanding first
& bills more subtle but now clearly also original intention
secondarily
& i think it is only fair & right & true & due that i do precisely &
especially that
& that i make it clear for a second or third time if it wasnt already
ok
with that off my chest again
i will now deign to intertwingle with you in your message below
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...> wrote:
> I guess I simply don't agree with your point that the purpose of
BP is
> exclusively multi-points on boundaries. The home page clearly
does not make
> this limitation
this response of mine is without regard to the above discussion
which again is settled very happily so far as i am concerned
but only as an answer to the narrow semantic question you raise
here
the line of the manifesto you quoted clearly doesnt make this
limitation
nor have i btw except in your rendering of me
hahaha
deja vu of oktx
but the slightly strange individuals leading up to it lend it a
pointedness & poignancy that tightens the specificity rather than
loosens it
& the insistence & reiteration in the conclusion that is made by
underscoring the special uniqueness of these various already
especially stressed multipoints
sealed the semantic deal for me originally
as it does also again now
the only especially outstanding rough spot
i agree
is the ambiguity between the 2 possible senses of especially
which again i have believed until yesterday is fully resolved when
taken in the full context of the full statement
so on a strictly semantic level i still do not believe there is even
any ambiguity
however
the full intent of the founding father & his narrow intent in writing
this principle may not both have been fully served by the text
but that is really no fault of his nor of the text
for how could such extreme specificity be coextensive with or
tantamount to or replaceable by such extreme generality
such a reading makes no sense
besides being self contradictory
on purely semantic grounds
but for purposes of bp now
again
fortunately the original intentions of both mom & pop are now
fully clear & fully honored
without regard to their intrinsic contradiction
the primary principle is still clearly stated & still fully operative
& the secondary one is available for anyone who prefers it
& moreover the world is equally free for all
, and much of the discussion is not multi-point but
> boundary-oddity related. What's wrong with that?
nobody said there is anything wrong with it
nor anything wrong with being off point generally
& happily wrongness was never my point anyway
but only multipunctiliousness & rightness
i am not interested in wrong
>
> The purpose as stated on the home page is for "those slightly
strange
> individuals who are interested in finding, researching,
photographing and
> discussing geopolitical boundary points, especially those of a
tri-state or
> multipoint nature."
>
> See?
yes & no
dad & mom
but you have disregarded moms favorite part at the end
It is not exclusive to tri-state or multiple point nature, that is
> simply as special focus that is frequently discussed -- frankly,
because
> they typically make for a great part of the potential conflicts.
frankly thats not the reason why
so far as i am concerned
tho you & i have probably enjoyed the best of the back & forth
here
>
> Now I don't know who you are, if you are the founder of the
group or what. I
> am a relative newcomer. Perhaps if the intent of the founder
was that simple
> boundary discussions that are not multi-points would be
off-topic, then I
> and others here would have to conclude that this was poorly
stated. For the
> statement of purpose clearly is broader than that. You say
below it "doesn't
> follow" that because IBRG isn't appropriate to simply boundary
discussions,
> that BP is. But as I "point" out above, the BP "charter" expressly
says that
> these discussions are "on point" even if they are not
multi-points.
>
> I also have to ask where you are from, for my own
understanding, because the
> way you write is very confusing to me.
i am coming to you now from the top of cream hill in connecticut
in the oldest of the appellations very near ctmany
but i am originally from elizabeth nj
so i write creamily & with the elizabethan alphabet only
it is experimental writing
specially devised for multipointing precision & multiplex
conveyance as well as fun
& i realize it does challenge some people more than others
& i find most of the people dig it most of the time
in more ways than one
but it is most interesting to observe exactly when & how some
people choose to call me on it
Your use of language is rambling and
> very difficult to follow. They twist and turn (like OKTX, although
in
> conformance with what I maintained then, your postings also
are not of
> infinite length!)
hahahahaha
thank goodness for us all
hahaha
they are often long & slow but i like to believe they are thorough
i am complete
So I was wondering if you are from the US or are you from
> elsewhere? Just a friendly inquiry.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:11 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: BoundaryPoint and borders
>
>
> kevin i trust i have answered your earlier post in responding to
> similar questions & points made by others
> except for the question you raised of what to make of the
> coincidence of our group name boundarypoint
> with the fact that there are nonmultipoint points on boundaries
> that can also technically be called boundary points
>
> in fact every point on a boundary is a boundary point
> & not just some of them
> as you may recall from our oktx discussion
>
> so right you are in counting every point a boundary point
> but as i thought our charter makes clear
> the existence of such other boundary points than the
multipoints
> we expressly intend is just a happenchance of language
> & not even a completely coincident one by our exacting
> standards
> & is thus without any especial significance for us here
>
> & as to your following afterthought
> you are of course right again
> as ibrg is no longer available for this function
> if indeed it ever was
> but to answer your subsequent question
> ibrg & ibru are the 2 boundary discussion groups i meant
>
> & a few specific answers follow here too
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> <flynnk@r...> wrote:
> > I guess a reason that might not be a solution is that, as
> someone else
> > mentioned here, IBRG is more highly specialized than the
> types of border
> > discussions some of us have wanted to have. Here is the
intro
> from
> > intborder's home page:
> >
> > "The International Border Research Group (IBRG) is studying
> international
> > borders and publishing the results. Membership is available
> for researchers,
> > writers and other professionals especially interested in
border
> expeditions.
> > Every year the IBRG is arranging an international border
> expedition. From
> > 9th - 21st July 2003 The Great Baltic Border Expedition
(GBBE)
> was taking
> > place."
> >
> > What if we are not "especially interested" in making actual
> expeditions to
> > international borders?
>
> ok i agree thats kaput now
> but even so
> do you then assume bp ought to go out of its way to specially
> accommodate your interest
>
> that doesnt follow either
>
> i dont understand what you expect of us & why
>
> you are more than welcome here of course
> but if you are off point you are off point
> & therefore perhaps subject to more than the usual degree of
> potential improvement
>
> for as a group
> willfully disregardful readings to the contrary notwithstanding
> we not only have a true topic
> multipoints
> but a true function also
> multipointing
>
> Or have desire to discuss non-international borders
> > (states, provinces, others?) of the type more appropriate to
> boundary
> > points?
>
> thats ok
> enjoy them virtually with us
> thats one big reason why we are here
>
> Some of us cannot make such expeditions for many
reasonable
> > circumstances.