Okay, Mike. I understand what you're saying. You're speaking of the practical,
in the here-and-now. I was thinking more of a theoretical definition that would
stand the test of time. I probably wouldn't disagree with your list, although I
haven't seen it. I knew that Switzerland had recently given in and joined the
UN, but I didn't realize that there wasn't still a handful of other
independently-minded holdouts among the family of nations.
There are so many different degrees and gradations of country-ness that a solid
definition is hard to construct, but I think we all know a country when we see
one, and it's relatively easy to weed out the dependencies from among the
independencies.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:41 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Shortest border??
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > if i had to come up with a better indicator
> > > i would pick ownership of a seat at the united nations instead
> > > & resign myself to missing a couple of odd crabapples
> > > namely taiwan & the vatican
> >
> > What about all of the countries that existed between the
> beginning of
> > civilization and 1945? Were they all "odd crabapples"?
>
> well thats not what i meant by this conceit
>
> i was talking about cutting directly to the chase in the present
> & was comparing iso diglyph possession in the present to
> united nations membership in the present
>
> & you would only have to go back to 2002
> before switzerland joined the united nations
> to start confounding & multiplying my 2 odd crabapples
> if thats what i had meant & you had wanted
>
> but pre1945 countries just as surely predate iso as they predate
> the united nations
>
> & they are besides of no concern to our try pointing in the world
> as it exists in the present
>
> for ghost pointing yes of course they would matter
>
> but for actual try pointing today they are not applicable
>
> only the countries states counties etc as they exist today are
> applicable
>
> moreover our nomenclature has always been especially
> problematic when projected into the past or future
> since it was never intended to bear the extra burden of multiple
> meanings
> without additional qualification
> such as the date actually being referred to etc
>
> Surely we can come up
> > with a definition that does not force us to resort to a unit of
> measure that is
> > so recent in origin and already into its decline.
>
> i think our simple list of 193 generally recognized states does it
>
> & the commonest reference works share in this consensus
>
> >
> > Another argument: Did the separate UN seat of the former
> Byelorussian SSR make
> > it a country when it was so obviously one of the 15 constituent
> parts of the
> > USSR?
>
> no argument here
>
> that was one of a couple of odd sugar plums at the time
> rather than a crabapple now
> etc
>
> By that measure, Scotland, Manitoba, Arkansas, Tlaxcala, and
> Queensland
> > should have had UN seats!
> >
> > This just goes to show that the UN is as flawed as the ISO in
> determining what
> > is and is not a country.
>
> 2 present exceptions on the one hand compared with several
> dozens of present exceptions on the other hand is far from an
> equality in terms of defectiveness
>
> it is a rout
>
> & if i had to choose
> i would always go for the cleaner or more nearly true formulation
> not only because i wish to be as right as possible
> but also because keeping track of all the exceptions is easier in
> that case
>
>
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>