most importantly
thanx for the exquisite shading of the cherry blossoms in the
companion piece
for i certainly do love your companionship in all this lunacy too
& dont know what i would do without you frankly
& one insert
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Okay, fine. I never said that I'd done the math. I don't think
anybody in
> present company has but you. I was only brainstorming
suggestions in an attempt
> to explain the seemingly inexplicable. If the math didn't check
out, you could
> have said so several tens of thousands of keystrokes ago.
well i did say it in as many words toward the end of 16769
when the mathematical impossibility was already evident
but maybe you missed it in all the excitement
only today have i actually completed all the hard maths that
permit me to say exactly how full well i knew whereof i spake at
that time
so i dont blame you for missing that
but it was all there all the time in plain barbarian
hahaha
& please dont quit on me now that we are refining our focus so
nicely
busting guesses is progress toward the goal of correct
understanding
& we may still find the answers in the wilmington public library
newspaper microfilms
&or the delaware state archives in dover
long before i ever get to cherry blossom time
or the special master
thats right
we could still hear the truth before we ever hear the master
so please please please dont give up now
> I'm done with DENJ until we hear from the Special Master.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Sandy Schenck Speaks!
>
>
> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike D.,
> >>
> >> You wrote:
> >>
> >> > excuse me
> >> > but i think your problem here
> >> > since i know i have no problem myself
> >> > is that all your compound & complex curve notions
> >> are busted by
> >> > the evidence that we do have
> >> > from the supremes themselves
> >> > in plain english
> >> > that this is the arc arc arc of a circle circle
> >> circle centered on the
> >> > good old courthouse spire
> >>
> >> So, do you suppose that the northern boundary of
> >> Tennesee is a single, unbroken
> >> line along 36° 30'? No, that's a delimitation. The
> >> boundary as demarcated
> >> wanders all over the place and even occasionally
> >> gets toothy. (I know that you
> >> know the difference.)
> >
> > hahahahaha
> > hahahahahaha
> > ahhh
> >
> > you have such a delicate way of putting things maestro
> >
> > & i am glad it came out this way
> >
> > but you are in the present case not distinguishing
> > between the irrelevant toothiness of 1701
> > which we know ran up to nearly 7 percent on depa
> > & the actually relevant toothiness of 1892 thru 1935
> > on depa
> > which
> > except for the glaring undermeasurement in question
> > we know ran only up to about half a percent
> > which btw is precisely why it is so glaring
> >
> > & in putting things in your undistinguishing way you
> > are not only subjecting yourself to a correspondingly
> > glaring & needless confusion of scale in general
> > but
> > at the comparatively minuscule level of aberration
> > that actually applies to them
> > your specific suggestions are mathematically
> > impossible
> >
> > for your posited projection of the nearly 13mile
> > radius denjpa arc down to artificial island
> > which i believe is the last of your guesses that isnt
> > flatly contradicted by the hard data we do have
> > cannot in fact intersect at all with
> > but will only perpetually run rings around
> > the lower scarcely 11mile denj arc projection centered
> > on the same point
> >
> > & it isnt even close
> >
> > they miss by a literal mile & a half at best
> >
> > indeed the intersecting arcs your guess specifically
> > posits here can in fact never meet anywhere at all on
> > their entire circumferences
> >
> > there just isnt enough wobble possible even in your
> > admittedly fantastic construction
> >
> > Similarly, DEPA is delimited
> >> as an "arc arc arc" of a
> >> twelve-mile "circle circle circle," but it is
> >> demarcated sometimes more,
> >> sometimes less, and sometimes with another center.
> >> While the Supremes delimit
> >> two segments of DENJ as acrs of the same twelve-mile
> >> circle, they decree the
> >> demarcations otherwise. As to the downriver one, we
> >> have no evidence yet as to
> >> the reason why. Zip! Until we hear from the
> >> Special Master, we are left only
> >> to guess.
> >>
> >> > & you would like me not to keep reminding you of
> >> that when you
> >> > keep offering these impossibilities & trying to
> >> somehow justify
> >> > them as real probabilities in our hunt
> >>
> >> The admittedly far-fetched guesses that I have
> >> proposed are indeed
> >> "impossibilities" in terms of the delimitation, but
> >> they are no more impossible
> >> than the other demarcations that exist on this
> >> circle.
> >
> > ahem
> >
> > & so
> > in a nutshell
> > yes yes yes
> > they are far more impossible
> > hahaha
> > & far more implausible too
> >
> > indeed something like 14 times more impossible &
> > implausible combined
> > hahahaha
> > no kidding
> >
> >> Lowell G. McManus
> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >