--- 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. 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.
but you arent really disagreeing with me are you
tennessee got the erection in 1790 & was admitted in 1796
thats all i am saying
i know & said it was a delayed flake off
again i am not arguing with you but just trying to complete your
flake off list & also to get into the mind of the interior department
lawyers who really for some reason believed that the right to
recommend or request the division rested constitutionally with
congress
i am still trying to guess why they believed this
i know i slept thru civics but cant imagine they did too
thats all
& it would be good to know the answer to this before going to
president bush too
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