kevin
> My comments on measurement of a natural boundary are
> completely separate from the other issues such as tripointing.
ahh ok
well try pointing has been our express center of gravity here
& my thinking & comments are accordingly deliberately on point
& always as punctilious as humanly possible
both on principle & because that is so much fun too
& you are still most welcome to hold forth nonpunctologically or
even entirely pointlessly here
for this is everyones land too
but please just let us know preferably in advance when you are
deliberately being so offpoint & offbeat as to ignore most of the
points you are supposedly trying for
rather than feeling sorry if we arent following you
for there is no need of that
> it is silly to say that the
> bank of a river that flows only 10 miles must be held as having
infinite
> length.
fortunately nobody has been so silly as to say that
both of its high water lines are of infinite length tho
practically as soon as the river springs from it source
punctologically
it shouldnt need anything like 10 miles to reach infinity
> & i also have to wonder whether there is any practical use for
> knowing the supposed or even the actual length of a boundary
in
> the real world
>
> Of course there is; there are always practical uses to data.
are you sure
well ok perhaps
i guess i just havent thought of any use yet in this case
i suppose it might help to know of one tho
> > Re: Ellis Island. I believe that a measurement was indeed
> made of the
> > boundary. The question you ask was why?
>
> do you mean me
> this wasnt my question
> i only wanted to know the length
>
>
> No I did not mean you; you are "replying" to a post to another
person who
> asked the question.
oh
i thought you had offered earlier to provide the length of the new
njny line there
from something you had seen about it
& am still wanting that if you can