Wisconsin Response to CA, DC, Bel

[Glen Cook]

The WI response may be attached.

 

[coachn]

Item 3 is a bit confusing!

 

[dfreybur]

Item 3 is a bit confusing!

I like the craftsmanship of the wording. Someone who is party in either direction can easily think it's pointed at the other parties. Someone who who in a jurisdiction not a party to the festivities can easily think it's pointed at all those who are involved. All by not saying whether thinks landmarks have been violated.

 

[coachn]

I like the craftsmanship of the wording. Someone who is party in either direction can easily think it's pointed at the other parties. Someone who who in a jurisdiction not a party to the festivities can easily think it's pointed at all those who are involved. All by not saying whether thinks landmarks have been violated.

Now I'm really confused...

 

[Glen Cook]

Item 3 is a bit confusing!

My interpretation of item 3 is that the suspension of recognition was incorrect and there was no violation of a landmark.

 

[coachn]

My interpretation of item 3 is that the suspension of recognition was incorrect and there was no violation of a landmark.

I kinda got that but without names, it's difficult to grasp the allusions. Thanks!