But how would the fact that Texas seceeded and required readmission effect this, surely its orginal admission treaty was voided by its secession and readmission?

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:51:57 -0000

><html><body>
>
>
><tt>
>big pine key 
> 
>yes thats it exactly 
>thanx 
>glad someone is paying attention too 
> 
>& your corrections mean texas would get 11 percent more leverage 
>overall than my erroneous computations would have given her credit for 
>insofar as you have raised her potentially inflated value from my 
>understated 431 percent figure to fully 463 percent of present value 
> 
>so you are a true son of texas podnuh 
> 
>but i also posted a long reply yesterday from key west to lowells 
>latest reiterations of van zandts supposed error 
>which is evidently lost or still hanging in the ether 
>hahaha 
>& which i dont have time to reconstitute from concentrate just now 
> 
>so please stand by for additional data too 
>which may indicate still further reevaluations are warranted 
> 
>the internet is a little sketchy here in paradise tho 
> 
>--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman 
><mikekaufman79@y...> wrote: 
>> Dont you mean a 400% increase in Senators, and going 
>> from a 2% share to a 9.3% share?� (By going from 1 
>> Texas of 50 states to 5 Texases of 54 states.)� Of 
>> course the electoral totals would depend on the exact 
>> nature of the gerrymandering (with every state having 
>> at least 1 rep, no matter how small). 
>> 
>> --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote: 
>> > 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: 
>> > > >� <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/</a> 
>> > > > 
>> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email 
>> > to: 
>> > > >� BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
>> > > > 
>> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: 
>> > > >� <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a> 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > >� 
>> > > 
>> > > Yahoo! Groups Links 
>> > > 
>> > > To visit your group on the web, go to: 
>> > >� <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/</a> 
>> > > 
>> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
>> > >� BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
>> > > 
>> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: 
>> > >� <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> __________________________________ 
>> Do you Yahoo!? 
>> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes 
>> <a href="http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus">http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus</a> 
> 
></tt>
>
>
>
> 
><tt><hr width="500">
>Yahoo! Groups Links 
><ul>
><li>To visit your group on the web, go to: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/</a> �
><li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: <a href="mailto:BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a> �
><li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
></ul>
></tt>
>
>
><PRE>________________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned using the CleanPort MEF antivirus
>system. Funded for members by the Doctors.net.uk Bulletin service
>How does this protect me? http://www.Doctors.net.uk/qualityemail
>________________________________________________________________________</PRE>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________________________________
All email and attachments sent from http://www.Doctors.net.uk have been
scanned by the MessageLabs SkyScan antivirus system
_______________________________________________________________________