Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: more re jungholz boundary cross<br/>
Date: Aug 21, 2004 @ 16:09<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
Prev&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15133.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic15132.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="15129.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15133.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-244207784">Mike wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; whooops<br/>
&gt; i just noticed the prohibition at the bottom<br/>
&gt; so would someone please delete this message before they<br/>
&gt; come & take me away<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>The deleted prohibited item can be viewed legitimately at<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tinyurl.com/4nd6a">http://tinyurl.com/4nd6a</a> in<br/>
the INT-BOUNDARIES archives.<br/>
<br/>
Mike&#39;s own comments that accompanied the attachment were these:<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; coincidently this week the int boundaries list had one<br/>
&gt; of the most spirited discussions in its history<br/>
&gt; which bore directly upon the question at hand<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; please note especially the paragraph below beginning<br/>
&gt; with<br/>
&gt; the second part of the statement etc<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; btw i think the subsequent paragraph there about<br/>
&gt; levels of exactitude was subsequently challenged<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; & we do in fact go far finer than this in the usa<br/>
&gt; especially as we have seen recently<br/>
&gt; on at least vawv & njny<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; but the writer is a legal expert<br/>
&gt; & i believe he is correct at least up to that point </span></blockquote></div>