inserts galore

--- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...> wrote:

> Please see insertions at two places below.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:10 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Sandy Schenck Speaks!
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> >> Not to argue, but I would more nearly believe the
> theory of a
> > bizarre projection
> >> of the compound curve
> >
> > really
> > hahaha
> > even after reading in the 1935 supreme court
> decision that the
> > common arc of a common circle centered on the
> common
> > courthouse spire is what was ordered
> > yikes
> > i am amazed you think so at all
> > let alone in preference to anything else
> > hahaha
> > but i agree not to argue
>
> What the Supremes decreed in 1935 was this [with
> upper-case emphasis added]:
>
> "Within the 12-mile circle (that is, within the
> circle the radius of which is 12
> miles, and the center of which is the building used
> prior to 1881 as the
> courthouse at New Castle, Del., CERTAIN ARCS OF
> WHICH ARE HEREAFTER DESCRIBED
> AND DETERMINED), the Delaware river and the
> subaqueous soil thereof up to mean
> low-water line on the easterly or New Jersey side is
> adjudged to belong to the
> state of Delaware..."
>
> As we know, when they got down to describing those
> arcs, they extended Hodgkins
> for the first one and inexplicably specified a
> severe under-measurement for the
> second. Neither is exactly twelve miles.

ok but what is all this about

& with emphasis added yet

for i dont yet follow your er argument
or distinction or point or whatever it is you are
trying to stretch out here

the fact is
imagining the curves decreed by the court as anything
but ordinary arcs of ordinary circles
is contrary to hard data we do have

> > than I do the theory of reverse discrimination to
> >> compensate for a past wrong.

i did suggest the idea of possible compensation
but you seem to also be imagining
thus far
the part about reverse discrimination
as that was not part of my previous guess

however
since the 1701 arc as reiterated in 1893 was never
denj but only depa
the court did explicitly extend it beyond demdpa to
denj for the first time
& thus did formally add a few acres to delaware there
at the expense of new jersey that it must have
realized were more than 12 miles from the new castle
courthouse spire

& the acreage that was gained by new jersey at the
expense of delaware
on the other hand
by the undermeasurement of the lower & completely
original arc sweep that was also decreed at the same
time
was in fact 2 to 3 times as great as that lost by the
overmeasurement produced when the depa arc was
extended

so i am still not leaping to any ideas of reverse
discrimination
but if the undermeasurement was a territorial quid pro
quo
as i have speculated
then it was more likely a quid pro quibus
for we clearly dont yet have the full equation down
if there was one

but still
some such compensatory or mutually offsetting outcome
cant yet be dismissed out of hand either

> >> I'm not entirely certain that Schenck carefully
> read my inquiry. It
> > almost
> >> seems that he thought I was inquiring about the
> varying radii of
> > DEPA. Perhaps
> >> he wrote about DEPA because he didn't know much
> about the
> > downriver arc within
> >> DENJ.

right
& he doesnt really seem to be our go to guy on this
anyway

> >> I suspect that reports of Special Masters are
> part of the public
> > record, but
> >> that they are just not on-line due to their
> voluminosity. I will try
> > to find
> >> out how available they are.

bravo

this is after all the leading edge of the quest
as well as terra incognita generally

> >> Meanwhile, you pursue Perry.
> >
> > what do you mean
>
> What I meant was simply to encourage you in the
> maths that you are doing on the
> various wanderings of the DEPA compound curve as
> expounded by Perry. Our
> explanation could still be found there.

oh ok
tho i dont need to see perry again for that

& it will take me a while now anyway
as mentioned

> If the
> arc's lower crossing of the
> Delaware was not a bizarre projection of Hodgkins,
> then perhaps the Special
> Master did something like set the radius of that
> lower arc such that it plus the
> radius of the arc at a point diametrically opposed
> to it on DEPA would total the
> 24 mile diameter called for in the 1682 deed of
> feoffment from the Duke of York
> to William Penn. (Is this what you meant by your
> reverse-discrimination
> theory?)

hahahahaha
again
the reverse discrimination theory is so far all yours

& yikes no i didnt mean that or anything like that in
any case
hahaha
what an irrational mess that would have been
hahaha
but at least it would have given this supposedly 12
mile supposed circle a true 24 mile diameter
hahaha
in exactly one place
hahahahaha

& i realize we are expecting an irrational mess to
explain all this
but not that irrational

> > we already pretty much have perry in the form of
> my recollections
> > & notes in previous messages
> >
> > but what more would you like to know
> >
> > perhaps i can provide it from memory too
> >>
> >>
> >> Lowell G. McManus
> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo