excellent
thank you
of course i dont agree with all of this
but we do finally appear to understand each other
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
wrote:
> Egad.
>
> I cannot follow you here. Your writing style loses me halfway
through, and
> the combativeness puzzles me. All I have noted is the obvious and
clear fact
> that Texas has a provision entitling it to subdivide four more
states if it
> chooses. No other state has this, unless there is a secret one we
haven't
> discussed yet. So Texas does have a leg up on other states, which
possess no
> such entitlement. There's no ready-made procedure comparably
applicable to
> all other states for subdividing into new states. We agree that in
any case,
> new statehood for sub-Texases would be as contentious politically
as for
> sub-New Yorks or others, but we "appear" to disagree on whether the
Texas
> privilege is an advantage to it in the process.
>
> OK?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: m06079 [mailto:barbaria_longa@h...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:04 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
Mexico
> (?)
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/