Mike,
I again insert my responses below.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 9:30 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: New Wall -- discussion point
> --- 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
Sorry! I didn't mean that we were being viscious toward one another. I meant
"viscious circle" in the idiomatic sense. The phrase is a chiché, after all.
> & 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
Okay, upon re-reading 12831, I find that you asked "what sentence or clause or
phrase or word or speck is wrong." When that message was fresh, I probably
did't take that part very seriously becasue I was (and am) certin that I had
already to you (if you didn't miss it somehow). Yet, in the paragraph just
above your question, you'd written, "you raised the issue & began by saying he
was wrong but without ever saying what exactly he was wrong about."
I had briefly explained how he was wrong when I had briefly raised the issue (as
an aside to another answer) way back in 12735. Then, in respose to your further
question in 12762, I had explained in detail in 12765 my objections to Van
Zandt's statements regarding no advantage over other states and the
recommendation or request of the Congress.
This is why I was incredulous when you continued to say that I had never
explained how I believed him wrong and kept asking for what I had already given
you.
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>