--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> My responses are inserted below.
>
> Lowell
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> 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.
cmon you know there was nothing viscious about it
now thats excessive
& please reread at least message 12831 & tell me again you didnt know
all along that i was asking you what exact words you thought were
wrong with it & i will know you did miss something during my er
what did you call them
anyway come to think of it you should tell it to president bush
rather than gale norton
youll get the most sympathetic hearing from a texan
strike while the iron is hot
we will be with you
vis tecum
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