Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
Date: Jan 08, 2004 @ 22:13
Author: Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> ... a distinction with no "apparent" difference, I would say. It'sok. All I
> meant to do was to reinforce what I thought was a clearcircumstance setting
> Texas apart from other states, one that you blurred as notrepresenting 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 plowthrough
> your excess verbiage.Mexico
>
> -----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
> (?)appearance
>
>
> really its ok kevin but look below & see that you did indicate i
> concluded something which in fact i merely expressed as an
> orword
> 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
> appearbe
> & 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
> onof
> > "square one."
> >
> > But I most certainly changed none of your statements top say any
> this. Inwhy
> > 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
> > texas doesnt appear to me to have acquired any advantageor
> >
> > i mean beside the fact that she has already split into 6 states
> > parts thereofas
> > & the fact that every state can legally split into as many parts
> > it likes anyway<flynnk@r...>
> > 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"
> > wrote:Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > -----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/