really its ok kevin but look below & see that you did indicate i
concluded something which in fact i merely expressed as an appearance
or
as how something seems to me & as what i see or dont see
just as i think van zandt also did when he so carefully used the word
appear
& not only once
& just as it all still appears to me at least
& i would add
even after lowells latest redoublements as well
but i think we really should look for van zandt next
to see what more than my 3 meager flatulations he had in mind
he doesnt usually relieve himself of such utterances
& what fun it will be if we find he is still physically focused too
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
wrote:
> I absolutely didn't alter anything you said, sir. My point was to
highlight
> that Texas has specific approval language already built into its
admission
> process that permits the division; no other state has this. That
means,
> contentious as the process surely would be, one hurdle already is
crossed.
> This clearly and undeniably gives Texas something other states do
not have.
> It's like Texas starts on "square two" while other states would be
on
> "square one."
>
> But I most certainly changed none of your statements top say any of
this. In
> fact, you're repeating the exact stance that I disagreed with.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: m06079 [mailto:barbaria_longa@h...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:11 AM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
Mexico
> (?)
>
>
> ah kevin but as usual you are altering what i said in order to
> disagree with me
>
> no problem
> but it is quite vivid in this case
>
> & so i would add that any unilateral attempt at multiplication by
> texas would most probably be no less contentious than the
> multiplication of any other state
> whether unilateral or otherwise
>
> & this certainty of contention or objection whenever one tries to
> leverage ones value at the expense of others is a third reason why
> texas doesnt appear to me to have acquired any advantage
>
> i mean beside the fact that she has already split into 6 states or
> parts thereof
> & the fact that every state can legally split into as many parts as
> it likes anyway
> per the constitution
> provided the totality will agree
>
>
> so its like
> oh & you certainly have been preapproved for that additional 10
grand
> on top of your regular line sir but we just noticed you already
have
> 12 other grand outstanding
> so we would like you to apply for this additional application &
> security check too please if you wouldnt mind
> etc etc
>
>
> & so if that really is an advantage well i still dont see it
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: m06079 [mailto:barbaria_longa@h...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:34 AM
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
> > Mexico(?)
> >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > > & so texas does not appear to me either to have acquired any
> > > advantages over other states from this act
> >
> > I would disagree with your conclusion that Texas didn't acquire
any
> > advantages over other states, even though I agree it would be
> contentious.
> > It has the specific right and expectation for eventual division
> built into
> > its admission into the union, and no other state had that TMK.
> That's not to
> > say there wouldn't be an argument if and when it occurred. But
> Texas has
> > sort of a pre-approved status, like those credit card offers I
get
> every day
> > in the mail: "You are already approved for a $10,000 Visa!"
> >
> > If Texas were to move on this privilege, the foundation for the
> arrangement
> > is already out of the way. Other states do not have this leg up.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/