Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Israel Army Proposes to Create Enclaves
Date: Feb 20, 2004 @ 04:50
Author: Michael Kaufman (Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> i wonder why all these questions are still out therehttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/10911
> waiting for
> answers
>
> but as quests & pointing tries
> all questions are worthy
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A.
> Nadybal"
> <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Item 1 - Exclaves or not?
>
> not by our normal technical standards
> tho the word exclave has many meanings
>
> & in any case not yet
>
> but exclaves
> & especially prospective exclaves
> could actually be just about anything you say
>
>
> There have been articles asserting (with
> > substance) that the Israeli's are shaping for
> themselves what
> will be
> > de-facto and de-jure the border between the
> Palestinian and
> Israeli
> > areas of sovereignty (or sovereignty-autonomy, or
> sovereignty-semi or
> > quasi-sovereignty, or ???)
>
> or what
>
> other nonsense stuff
>
>
> at some time in the not too distant future.
> > I contend
>
> but why contend anything
> & why contend about the future
> of all things
>
> & why contend here
> of all places
>
> we do strive together here for the best available
> truth in all our
> multipointing
> & indeed we are quite aggressive in this collective
> pursuit
> but contentiousness as such is not part of the
> program
>
>
> that the two circles of walls proposed, which just
> happen
> > to circumnavigate two Paslestinian towns that
> currently have
> open
> > access to the main body of the West Bank without
> citizens
> having to
> > cross outside of the WestBank into "Israel
> proper", will
> become, de
> > facto, pieces with international sovereign
> administration inside
> of
> > them that won't be Israeli, creating a de facto
> international
> border
> > around them. Any variations between the true
> border and the
> wall,
> > where their "routes" vary and leave Israeli
> sovereign areas
> inside the
> > circle will be Israeli land over which where it
> exercises no
> sovereign
> > rights (except maybe on occasion to paint the side
> of thee wall
> > visible from the Palestinian portion inside). Any
> Palestinian
> lands
> > outside the wall will simply become victim of the
> "what's mine
> is mine
> > and what's yours is negotiable" philosophy, so
> eloquently
> verbalized
> > by John Kennedy in the 1960s.
> >
> > Item 2 - the MX-US spandex boundary being unique.
> I believe
> that also
> > exists on the Vennbahn bridges.
>
> you have claimed this or stuff like this several
> times
>
> & i think you may be right or partly right
>
> but can you prove it
>
> for example by the text of the relevant agreement
>
>
> We have Belgian "Bahnkorper" by
> > treaty crossing over, but uninterrupted German
> sovereignty
> over roads
> > under the bridges, which makes what we think of as
> German
> exclaves to
> > the west of the tracks not necessarily so - given
> that there is
> > uninterrupted road access under the bridges
> without leaving
> Germany.
> > The situation with US-MX seems similar - because
> "what you
> see is what
> > oyu have to deal with", and only when a need
> surfaces, will
> there be
> > consideration given to adding a little additional
> precision to the
> > governing treaty.
> >
> > Item 3 - I still wonder that if one is on the
> bridge on the north
> side
> > of the river bank, and, to escape arrest, would
> drop off of it and
> > land under it, but above part of the buried
> foundation, in what
> > country and which jurisdiction would properly have
> arrest
> powers?
>
> the country & jurisdiction of the bridge area you
> are standing on
> or attached to
> or the country & jurisdiction of the ground you are
> standing on
>
> & if you are attached to both the bridge & the
> ground
> but are actually standing on neither
> then you have slipped into the indefinite interface
> between them
>
> & only when a need to arrest you or someone like you
> surfaces
> as you suggest above
> will consideration be given to achieving the
> necessary precision
>
>
> > Only the Mexican's apparently, could arrest
> someone on the
> bridge
> > south of the border marker, and it seems too easy
> to drop off
> into the
> > US and escape Mexican justice. What if, just
> before the US
> police
> > arrived, the "escapee" found a workman's metal
> step that led
> up the
> > support pillar, and climbed a couple of feet up
> onto it, to be off
> the
> > ground. Would he be back in Mexico?
>
> he would be back in mexico only if he can outclimb
> his pursuers
> from the usa
> thru the indefinite interface
> all the way up to the mexican area on the bridge
> surface
>
> & as in any indefinite area
> might is right
>
>
> >
> > I also wonder if the customs border is contiguous
> with the
> > international line.
>
> yes
> regardless of the location of the customs post
> the international line & customs border are normally
> the same
>
> & i suppose the identity of the 2 makes them
> contiguous too
>
> but to answer what i imagine is the question behind
> your
> question
> the customs border & horizontal international line
> are similarly
> indefinite
>
> more below
>
>
> Dropping contraband off the bridge from Mexico to
> > the US sounds too easy - it would put Mr.
> Ashcroft's people in
> the
> > position of having to intercept packages on the
> way down to
> keep drugs
> > from crossing the border.
> >
> > LN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > I understand everything that you're saying, but
> I refuse to go
> there.
> > >
> > > A typical boundary might be considered analogous
> to an
> imaginary
> > vertical wall
> > > stretching from the center of the earth to the
> upper reaches of
> the
> > atmosphere
> > > or beyond. However that's only an analogy. The
> situation
> that
> > obtains on MXUS
> > > bridges, with their treaty-ordained vertical
> differentiation, is
> > anything but
> > > typical. It is arguably unique in all the
> world. As such, it does
> > not lend
> > > itself to analogies. To even try would require
> the typical
> > imaginary wall to
> > > become a curtain of the very finest spandex,
> which would
> envelope
> > and cling
> > > around every protuberance and into every orifice
> of the
> human and
> > vehicular
> > > traffic moving upon those segments of the
> bridges that are
> between
> > the movable
> > > middle of the Rio Grande and the fixed boundary
> monuments
> on the
> > bridges.
> > >
> > > This desire to over-analogize the situation
> seems to spring
> from the
> > notion that
> > > boundaries are physical objects or laws of
> nature that are
> subject
> > to the most
> > > minute mensuration. This is not the case.
>
> this desire to overgeneralize the situation seems to
> spring from
> the notion that the most minute mensuration is
> impossible
>
> but the most minute possible mensuration is still
> possible
> & this fact is probably all that matters in any case
>
> geodetic boundaries are normally subject to the most
> minute
> possible mensuration & most precise possible
> determination
>
> i believe we have seen as much as 5 digits of
> precision beyond
> the decimal point of degminsec readings
> or about an average pinpricks worth of exactitude
>
> it is only with the natural boundaries that this
> level of exactitude
> is normally not achievable & not the case
>
> & it is also not the case in the special case of the
> horizontal
> sectors of mxus
> because these are indefinite & indeed practically
> unthought of
>
> thats right
>
> they are indefinite precisely because nobody figured
> the thought
> behind this boundary needed any further elaboration
>
> & indeed it didnt & doesnt need any
> as others have also observed
> until such time as it does
>
>
> end insertions
>
>
>
> Boundaries proceed from
> > the minds
> > > of men, who decide what and where they should
> be.
> Agreements as to
> > these
> > > decisions are committed to paper. Men then go
> out onto the
> > landscape and
> > > jointly demarcate the boundary, relying upon
> nothing more as
> their
> > mandate than
> > > the agreed-upon words and numbers on paper.
> > >
> > > To put it bluntly, there is no provision for a
> clingy spandex
> > curtain in the
> > > MXUS treaty of 1970 (a fact for which the
> International
> Boundary and
> > Water
> > > Commission is undoubtedly grateful). No
> demarcation
> beyond the
> > periodic mapping
> > > of the middle of the main channel of the river
> and the
> placement of
> > monuments on
> > > bridges is mandated. Why? Because that is
> sufficient to
> determine
> > which
> > > sovereignty is applicable to every foreseeable
> practical
> > eventuality. That's
> > > all a boundary is for. If some person, thing,
> or occurrence is
> on a
> > bridge,
> > > sovereignty is determined by the fixed monument
> on the
> bridge. If
> > it's anywhere
> > > else (including on the land or water under the
> bridge or in the
> air
> > above the
> > > bridge), sovereignty is determined by the
> constantly accreting
> and
> > avulsing
> > > median line of the river. It's complex, it's
> simple too, but most
> > of all, it is
> > > sufficient!
> > >
> > > If the two nations ever need a practical way of
> determining
> > sovereignty over a
> > > mosquito flying through the airspace between the
> legs of a
> > pedestrian walking on
> > > the portion of a bridge between the median line
> of the Rio
> Grande
> > and the
> > > monument on the bridge, then perhaps new treaty
> provisions
> will be
> > agreed upon,
> > > and the IWBC will carry them into execution.
> Until then, what
> you
> > see is what
> > > you get.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 1:41 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Israel Army
> Proposes to
> Create Enclaves
> > >
> > >
> > > > I guess it's how you define it. I gather your
> > > > interpretation is that of taking infinite
> > > > horizontal-plane crossections of the space we
> have in
> > > > question. Then tracing the border and
> projecting
> > > > upwards. The horizontal surfaces as
> differences are
> > > > easy to see if you think about a simplified
> bridge
> > > > with perfectly straight lines.
> > > > But what about a person standing on a bridge.
> Again,
> > > > north of the median line of the Rio Grande,
> but south
> > > > of the marker. Take a horizantal plane
> crossing me at
> > > > some point through my legs. This plane would
> have a
> > > > border as projected directly upwards from the
> river
> > > > median line. It would also contain two
> circular-esque
> > > > enclaves of Mexico in US, the two enclaves
> being the
> > > > cross-section of each leg.
> > > > But you can only project this upwards until
> there is a
> > > > change whereby the cross-section will not
> match the
> > > > one below it. I.E.: Project this scenario
> upwards by
> > > > vertical surfaces until the border changes on
> another
> > > > particluar plane. If we were only thinking of
> the
> > > > river median line, you could project this
> plane
> > > > upwards forever without having to have any
> horizontal
> > > > differentiation. But we have the additional
> > > > complication of the person. If a person was
> made of
> > > > certain regular geometric shapes (like stacks
> of
> > > > squares and rectangles of different sizes on
> each
> > > > other), you may be able to project upwards 4
> inches
> > > > before hitting a difference - creating a
> horizontal
> > > > surface linking two different projections.
> The next
> > > > one up may go 2 inches, etc.
> > > > But people are not a regular shape at all.
> Each
> > > > cross-section you take will be different
> because the
> > > > body (and clothing etc.) is not geometircally
> perfect.
> > > > So you can't project it up any distance
> vertically,
> > > > because the next plane up will be different.
> So you
> > > > have an infinite number of contiguous
> crossectional
> > > > planes which are all different (from the feet
> to the
> > > > head of the person).
> > > > All of the contiguous horizontal planes come
> together
> > > > to form 3-D space. The infinite unchanging
> river
> > > > median line projections come together to form
> a
> > > > vertical surface (you can change your
> z-coordinate
> > > > while maintaining your x and y coords). But
> the
> > > > surface created by the infinte number of lines
> of the
> > > > human cross-sections is not purely vertical.
> If you
> > > > want to change your z-coordinate, you have to
> change
> > > > either your x or your y as well.
> > > > So I think if we call the vertical surface a
> border,
> > > > we have to call the nonvertical surface a
> border too,
> > > > since they are both made up of the same
> infinite
> > > > number of border tracings on contiguous
> planes. I
> > > > would call them both border surfaces.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> Michael
> > > > > Kaufman
> > > > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks for clarifying this, Lowell. Yes,
> this
> > > > > does
> > > > > > make more sense from a practical aspect.
> But it
> > > > > also
> > > > > > adds a level of variability to the exact
> 3-D shape
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the border (i.e.: people and cars move,
> the 3-D
> > > > > border
> > > > > > surface moves with them) that I don't
> recall
> > > > > seeing
> > > > > > elswhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > wait mike
> > > > >
> > > > > youve still almost got it
> > > > >
> > > > > but neither the border nor the border
> surface really
> > > > > moves with
> > > > > the people & the cars
> > > > >
> > > > > in fact
> > > > > border surface
> > > > > as such
> > > > > is a practically meaningless concept
> > > > >
> > > > > for borders really have no surface
> > > > >
> > > > > not a horizontal surface anyway
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > they have a vertical dimension
> > > > > it is true
> > > > >
> > > > > & in rare cases such as this they are
> vertically
> > > > > differentiated
> > > > > besides
> > > > >
> > > > > & so i suppose you could say that the
> vertical
> > > > > projections of
> > > > > border lines do form surfaces of a sort
> > > > >
> > > > > but i think that that is as far as you could
> take
> > > > > this term
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > moreover
> > > > > split level borders must of course adjoin
> horizontal
> > > > > surfaces that
> > > > > link their differing vertical positions &
> > > > > projections
> > > > >
> > > > > but borders per se can have no surface other
> than a
> > > > > vertical one
> > > > > so far as i can see
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > & such a variability as you imagine is the
> case
> > > > > neither on mxus
> > > > > nor anywhere else
> > > > > i believe
> > > > >
> > > > > the variability that does exist on mxus
> consists
> > > > > only in the vertical
> > > > > differentiation between a historic thalweg
> position
> > > > > recorded &
> > > > > frozen on a bridge railing
> > > > > & the ongoing location of the living thalweg
> itself
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the activity on the bridge doesnt affect the
> > > > > boundary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > & it is true that you havent seen what you
> describe
> > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > since it actually obtains nowhere
> > > > > so far as i am aware
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You've almost got it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not only the physical substance of the
> MXUS
> > > > > bridges,
> > > > > > > but also persons and
> > > > > > > traffic upon them are governed by the
> > > > > established
> > > > > > > boundary monuments on the
> > > > > > > bridges. Anything or anyone not on the
> bridges
> > > > > (in
> > > > > > > the air above or on the
> > > > > > > ground or water below) is governed by
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > > location of the middle of the
> > > > > > > main channel of the river. This is by
> the 1970
> > > > > > > treaty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it were otherwise, the wording on the
> bridge
> > > > > > > monuments and signs would be
> > > > > > > meaningless to their readers if those
> readers
> > > > > had to
> > > > > > > look off the bridge
> > > > > > > (perhaps in darkness) and estimate the
> location
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the middle of the river.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Michael Kaufman"
> <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:17
> AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Israel Army
> > > > > Proposes to
> > > > > > > Create Enclaves
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
>
> > > > > > > > Due to the changing course of the__________________________________
> river, the
> > > > > > > > bordermarker on the bridge is now
> directly
> > > > > over
> > > > > > > land
> > > > > > > > on the northern/US bank of the Rio
> Grande.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > bridge
> > > > > > > > itself and its supports are Mexican
> all the
> > > > > way up
> > > > > > > > until the marker. But for everything
> else,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > border
> > > > > > > > is the middle of the river. So for
> instance,
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > could be standing on the bridge say 2
> feet
> > > > > south
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the bordermarker. Directly beneath
> you is a
> > > > > > > sovereign
> > > > > > > > Mexican bridge. But beneath and above
> that is
> > > > > > > > soverign US airspace and land on the
> north
> > > > > bank of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Rio grande. You are in the US even
> though you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > south of the marker. Only the
> physical bridge
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Mexico. But you can not be in Mexico
> this way
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > you would have to occupy the same
> physical
> > > > > space
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > the bridge at the same time, which is,
> of
> > > > > course,
> > > > > > > > impossible. If you were on the bridge
> and
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > visit Mexico, you would have to walk
> further
> > > > > south
> > > > > > > > until you pass the middle of the
> river. This
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > how I
> > > > > > > > understand the situation to be.
> > > > > > > > -Mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by
> filing
> > > > > online.
> > > > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing
> online.
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
>