Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico(?)<br/>
Date: Jan 10, 2004 @ 20:20<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="12798.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="12831.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic12732.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="12802.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="12804.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1630847524">Mike,<br/>
<br/>
You wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; may i ask again<br/>
&gt; as a fitting memorial to a truly great editor<br/>
&gt; do you still believe he really denied anything<br/>
&gt; & do you still believe he was really wrong about anything<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>I greatly respect Franklin K. Van Zandt.  I&#39;ve respected him since first finding<br/>
his work 27 years ago.  He was probably the greatest American boundary scholar<br/>
of all time.<br/>
<br/>
The fact that he hedged his statement with the words &quot;appear&quot; and &quot;apparently&quot;<br/>
tells us that he was less than certain.  Since his statement was about how<br/>
things appeared to him, in that sense he was correct.<br/>
<br/>
So, do I still believe that he denied anything?  If it will make you any<br/>
happier, I will say that he appears to have apparently denied it.  Since my<br/>
statement is about how things appear to me, in that sense I am correct.<br/>
<br/>
The only reason that I inserted the statement about Van Zandt&#39;s denial of the<br/>
Texas division entitlement into my original message was that I wanted to<br/>
acknowledge that the great man&#39;s opinion differed from mine and that which is<br/>
commonly accepted in Texas.  I knew that if I did not, somebody would soon tell<br/>
me that I was wrong because Van Zandt had said otherwise.<br/>
<br/>
Lowell G. McManus<br/>
Leesville, Louisiana, USA</div>