Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Shortest border??<br/>
Date: Sep 15, 2003 @ 04:10<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="11657.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="11660.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic11634.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="11657.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="11659.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-150309300"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt; if i had to come up with a better indicator<br/>
&gt; i would pick ownership of a seat at the united nations instead<br/>
&gt; & resign myself to missing a couple of odd crabapples<br/>
&gt; namely taiwan & the vatican<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>What about all of the countries that existed between the beginning of<br/>
civilization and 1945?  Were they all &quot;odd crabapples&quot;?  Surely we can come up<br/>
with a definition that does not force us to resort to a unit of measure that is<br/>
so recent in origin and already into its decline.<br/>
<br/>
Another argument:  Did the separate UN seat of the former Byelorussian SSR make<br/>
it a country when it was so obviously one of the 15 constituent parts of the<br/>
USSR?  By that measure, Scotland, Manitoba, Arkansas, Tlaxcala, and Queensland<br/>
should have had UN seats!<br/>
<br/>
This just goes to show that the UN is as flawed as the ISO in determining what<br/>
is and is not a country.<br/>
<br/>
Lowell G. McManus<br/>
Leesville, Louisiana, USA</div>