--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I again insert my responses below.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> 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.
i know
& you know i am just having fun with you anyway
& would have called it a merry go round myself
for there is no other word for this in my barbarian dialect
we have luscious here but not viscious
even viscous & vicious are written in italics to indicate they are of
foreign origin
indeed i am pleased to report there is no negativity whatsoever in
the barbarian dialect itself
we are grammatically defective in that regard
& we enjoy a complete lack of lack too
for yes
in my great country of barbaria
all negativity is considered a lie
>
>
> > & 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.
this really was an extremely funny happenchance & great fun to
recollect
which i will do more at leisure too
& i thank you for being such a great sport about it
>
>
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >