Subject: Re: cafr
Date: Dec 16, 2002 @ 09:37
Author: anton_zeilinger <anton_zeilinger@hotmail ("anton_zeilinger <anton_zeilinger@...>" <anton_zeilinger@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> i imagine they were considered in the sense that certain pointsYES! I think that's the solution! Great! As you say, only the
> upon their perimeters were designated as turn points
> & i imagine they were ignored in the sense that a maritime
> boundary is then evidently allowed to perform the absurdity of
> cutting straight across dry land
> without distributing that land between the parties
> but only the waters surrounding that land
> so i think our great discovery here is that it is neither a landYes, absolutely unique and fascinating. I like the expression
> boundary nor a coastal boundary but a metaboundary
> & such a creation may be unique in the word
>
> how exciting
>
> or at least i have never seen such weird doubletalk about thingsthx, and congrats on this guess, I think that's how it goes!
> being both considered & ignored in any other boundary treaty
>
> not to say there isnt any such
> & please anyone sock it to me who can
>
> but anyway
> if something that looks like a land boundary in one light & like a
> coastal boundary in another light
> but isnt really either one
> is hard to imagine
> then just think of it as a wet&dry reversal of one of those old
> allocational boundaries for divvying up islands
> long before the days of eez boundaries etc
> & which still appear on many maps of the pacific as various fairly
> regular polygons
> but which are actually meaningless as water boundaries
>
> well here it is just the opposite
>
> a dry line that is meaningless for divvying up dry land & that only
> has meaning in relation to the surrounding maritime territory
>
> very weird & possibly unique but thats my new guess
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "anton_zeilinger
> <anton_zeilinger@h...>" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have now posted the map in the Photo section of BP. Hope
> you can
> > see it now!
> >
> > Apparently, two of the turning points (a.k.a. "virtual" border
> > markers) of the maritime boundary are actually islands of our
> famous
> > Ile Verte group.
> >
> > I would say that a land border cafr is highly probable, since the
> map
> > and the treaty suggest that the direct line between the turning
> > points would touch and probably even cross at least part of the
> > shore/beach of these two tiny islets!
> >
> > AntonZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002
> <orc@o...>"
> > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > wish i could see this map
> > >
> > > can anyone describe or retransmit the pertinent area
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "anton_zeilinger
> > > <anton_zeilinger@h...>" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > There is now a map and the 1974 agreement on cafr
> available
> > > on the
> > > > webpage of the Florida State Law School:
> > > >
> > > > Map here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/ls57
> > > .php
> > > >
> > > > agreement here:
> > > >
> > > >
> http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/ls057.pdf
> > > >
> > > > One of the turning points is located at the low-water mark
> on
> > > the
> > > > west point of the south-westernmost island of the Little
> Green
> > > Island
> > > > group, "which is Canadian" (!). (see page 8)
> > > >
> > > > Another passage says: "Islands were both considered and
> > > ignored as
> > > > locational factors in the boundary delimination."
> > > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > >
> > > > AntonZ