My responses are inserted below.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 10:13 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: New Wall -- discussion point
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > To the extent that this security fence relates to a current or
> proposed
> > political boundary (which is not clear to me), then a respectful
> and collegial
> > fact-based discussion might be in order. However, a gush of
> expressions of rank
> > political opinions on this divisive issue will not serve the
> purposes of this
> > group.
>
> i see everybody has been contemplating my question for days now
> or doesnt want to touch it
> but it is in earnest & i will repeat it
>
> what do you think the purposes of this group are
>
> especially lowell
> if no one else
> for raising this excellent topic
> & who is well used to ducking my repeat questions
I ducked this one because I feet that there is no exact correct answer that
would satisfy you. I only wrote what I did above because I hoped that no one
would turn this group into a political debate over the security wall. I am
pleased that all posts about it have been very civil and fact-based.
> & lowell
> theres no time now to answer you on the other thing now
> but did you really think i havent been asking you what exactly you
> found wrong with the van zandt statement ever since you first claimed
> it was wrong
Mike, it's sometimes hard to tell what the heck you're asking! I told you what
was wrong with it from the beginning, but you kept asking, and I kept telling
you. We were in a viscious circle. Finally, you asked which particular words I
found objectionable. I have answered you. Disagree if you will, but don't just
keep asking the same question.
> hahahahahahaha
> hahahahahahahahaha
> well i just cant believe my ears or eyes or whatever these are
>
> & btw dont forget to add maine aka north massachusetts to your
> interesting inventory of flake off states
Here, you are entirely correct! I did neglect the birth of Maine from
Massachusetts. I suppose I was thinking of geographic divisions of states and
neglected this, which was a governmental division of a jurisdiction that was
already geographically divided. That is an explanation, not an excuse.
> & of course tennessee aka west north carolina
> which had an erection for 6 years before being admitted to union
> hahaha
I must disagree with you here. Whatever transpired west of the mountains during
the 1780's was never recognized by anybody. That's why we don't have a State of
Frankland. North Carlolina never granted any permission for the formation of
any new state within its territory. What it did in 1790 was cede its western
lands to the federal government, just as many eastern states did. In accepting
this cession, the Congress created a territorial government there. Tennessee
was later admitted to the Union in 1796. So, Tennessee was not admitted to the
Union from within and by the consent of North Carolina.
> & might be more the likely role model for any new texases
> hahahahaha
>
>
> I think there are probably other groups for that.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA