Subject: possible correction<br/>
Date: Dec 11, 2003 @ 21:34<br/>
Author: m06079 (&quot;m06079&quot; &lt;barbaria_longa@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="7588.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic7586.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="12611.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="12613.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-997011939">ah good<br/>
i see at least mats has gotten thru<br/>
<br/>
but among the 3 messages i still have hanging in the ether or lost <br/>
entirely is one in which i continued to represent 1849camxnm as the <br/>
same point as modern azbcca<br/>
thinking california couldnt possibly have crossed the colorado<br/>
so everything on the left bank of the colorado north of the geodesic <br/>
had to be new mexico<br/>
<br/>
& i was also thinking<br/>
this would produce a second 1849camxnm point <br/>
or really a tristate quadripoint 1849camxnmnm <br/>
with a crossclave of new mexico wedged between the 2 points<br/>
<br/>
but now that i have checked the exact wording in the california <br/>
constitution <br/>
i think it more likely that either california did cross the colorado <br/>
between these 2 points<br/>
or else everything on the left bank of the colorado north of the <br/>
geodesic fell back to old mexico between 1848 & 1853   <br/>
in either of which eventualities there would have been no second <br/>
camxnm point but only the single tripoint <br/>
& it would have fallen at the actual confluence only<br/>
rather than where the geodesic finally completed its crossing of the <br/>
colorado at modern mxn<br/>
as pointed out by lowell<br/>
<br/>
but i still think all 3 of these outcomes remain possible<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& there are probably lots of other lost messages floating about too<br/>
so this is going to be fun when they all land in no particular order</div>