Subject: AW: likely frmch was mch was [BoundaryPoint] Re: MCFR(w)
Date: Jun 24, 2005 @ 16:28
Author: Wolfgang Schaub ("Wolfgang Schaub" <Wolfgang.Schaub@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


It is quite hot at your place, I understand.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von aletheia kallos
Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Juni 2005 17:39
An: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: likely frmch was mch was [BoundaryPoint] Re: MCFR(w)

--- Wolfgang Schaub
<Wolfgang.Schaub@...> wrote:

> Manmade objects don't count.

hahahaha
well excuse us for being here but they certainly do
count at bp
which is itself very substantially manmade
as are all of us here

& no matter that you disregard them
or it
or us

for even so
you will still count here

isnt that lovely


indeed many if not most of the true multipoints we
seek here
when we ourselves are being true to our stated purpose
& intention
& not being totally slobbery
are found
o n l y
atop the manmade objects that mark them


& clearly even you yourself do count manmade objects
& in fact you base your entire pursuit upon them
whenever you count countries & other geopolitical
units

from which we here also take our starting place

but unlike yourself
we maintain the same focus all the way to our ending
place

so your relative mch is not as high nor as much as our
absolute mch

not the same thing & not the same point


& in general you really could use a new code here for
your relatively high points
tho fortunately in the present case your so called mch
point is evidently the same point as our frmch point
so at least you appear to have something to talk about
that we might understand
albeit incidentally & tangentially

> If I considered manmade objects I would run into
> difficulties

hahaha
exactly

& certainly we here recognize & understand your
avoidance of them
since many if not most of our members have no use
whatsoever for exactitude or difficulty or truth in
trypointing or anything else
but actually prefer approximation & compromise &
imitation of the actually real thing
hahaha
just like yourself

> with the
> Vatican (top of St. Peters!), Denmark (pylons on the
> Oresund bridge), and a
> couple of other countries. So I stick to "natural
> naked superficial earth",
> occasionally also for sleeping on my highpoints, if
> nobody is around, under
> the stars, up in the sky.

well at least we are around to notice you have fallen
asleep on the way
& are dreaming of absolute vah or dkh or mch or such

but all these are for us only excursions from the real
deal here anyway

> as if man & his creations werent even part of nature
> or the highpointer part of humanity
> or humanity part of divinity

> this is the
> highest point in Monaco.

simply not true

but it is of no consequence anyway

so have your gaga gala on us

> > See what my mountain climbing has to offer in
> reality: Most is sheer
> > hoity-toity.
> >   > Just for the sake of saying something, in the
> >   > logorrhoic mode that seems
> >   > appropriate here

in reality
hahaha
but is it really reality
or does it only seem so to you

& how about bringing some real shit back for us on
your next outing

one multipoint try please
& youll surely be appropriate





           
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com