yes thanx i agree no matter
but there is all the difference in the world between what i said &
meant on the one hand & what you said i said on the other
as well as all the difference in the world between taking a hard
stance & taking a soft stance
van zandt & i are clearly sitting on the fence
& offering noncommittal opinions
admittedly with our butts facing texas
& ready but not overeager to come down on the other side
& so it could hardly be said we are taking any stance at all
the texophiles however are apparently taking a very hard stance indeed
while perhaps also mistaking our tentative assessments for a hard
stance & our farts for actual commitment
for we must be tentative until & unless we actually see this thing
play out
dont you agree
& your problem is we wont stand up & fight with you
the way everyone would if texas actually tried to pull this off
like should i tell you yes you may be on square 2 now but your
checkerboard has to be increased from 64 to 81 squares in order to
accomodate your promotion
or the already usurious interest rate on your liberal new credit card
will now have to be doubled owing to your negative net worth
just joking of course
but lets not drag this one out in detail the way they would in
congress & the courts
at their best
cmon we are talking about 8 extra electoral votes in both parties
plus a 500 percent increase in senators
from a 4 percent share to over a 17 percent share of the senate
but please do read the 1845 act itself again
up to 4 new states may by consent of texas be formed out of its
territory etc etc
which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the
constitution
thats the nutshell
& thats the only freakin entitlement i can see
the same entitlement any other such new entities would have btw
& under the constitution
unless i am mistaken
for i admit i slept thru most of high school civics
the erection & admission of new states is if not initiated by
congress certainly the business of congress to ultimately approve
or it aint gonna happen
yes
do you agree
i could be wrong
but the blurring nitpicking & excess verbiage are entirely in the
eyes of their beholder
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
wrote:
> ... a distinction with no "apparent" difference, I would say. It's
ok. All I
> meant to do was to reinforce what I thought was a clear
circumstance setting
> Texas apart from other states, one that you blurred as not
representing any
> particular advantage over the other 49. You still maintain that,
and I still
> disagree, so I don't understand your nitpicking, even after I plow
through
> your excess verbiage.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:39 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
Mexico
> (?)
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/