apologies again
& continuing from the latest correction
since the stitch must be oktx
it could be a prolongation of the deviant arok terminal sector
or it could be a due south line from aroktx
or it could be a perpendicular from the south bank out to aroktx
etc
& in each case this produces a slightly different dry oktxe point on
the right bank
& an entirely different extralegal stitch of oktx to reach aroktx
it will probably never come up in practical reality tho
nor even entertain anyone but us
however
since the stitch isnt arok but oktx after all
i no longer see any reason to agree with the conclusion that the
deviant line prolongation is more likely than any of the other
probable outcomes
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> no no thats all wrong
>
> the tripoint hasnt moved & is still wet
>
> my blunder ooooops
>
> & i was right the first time
>
> the extralegal stitch must be of oktx & not arok
>
> ridiculous
>
> i was looking at it upside down in my mind
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
<barbaria_longa@h...>
> wrote:
> > ahh well now on further reflection i think this was not correct
> > & that we actually have a virgin tripoint position here
> >
> > for since ok now reaches the right bank oktx line
> > & ar reaches the extant aroktx position in the river
> > the missing wet stitch must be of arok & not of oktx
> >
> > so aroktx moves out of the river & onto the right bank
> >
> > still extralegally but i think unavoidably now
> >
> > & in that case it is very probably where the prolongation of the
> > deviant terminal segment you mention below intersects the right
> bank
> > veggie line
> >
> >
> > wow
> > this calls for a revisit
> > & permits an upgrade from the present best visit of class c
> > to a class b or a
> >
> > & bravos to us for finally figuring this out
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > You are correct that the compact's OKTX does require a lurch or
> > stitch to reach
> > > the AROKTX tripoint, but I would argue the matter this way:
> > >
> > > The southern terminus of the AROK boundary was always subject
to
> > movement
> > > northward and southward (nominally) as the vicissitudes of the
> > south bank of the
> > > Red River required. When the compact took effect, the
> > existing "approximate"
> > > OKTX moved slightly southward to the vegetation line. I would
> > conclude that the
> > > practical effect is that the "stitch" from the vegetation line
to
> > the tripoint
> > > would have to align with the accepted AROK boundary (nominally
> > north-south, but
> > > slightly deviant nevertheless). This is the only
interpretation
> > that would make
> > > any practical sense in the event of any future adoption of a
> > similar vegetation
> > > line boundary by compact between Arkansas and Texas.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 10:04 AM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Oklahoma / Texas Border - River
> Borders
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > Yes! The compact sends cartographers back to the drawing
> boards
> > > > with their
> > > > > erasers in hand. A well-trained monkey could now find the
> OKTX
> > > > boundary on a
> > > > > current aerial photo!
> > > >
> > > > & i hope you will train him to take short cuts
> > > > or he might never finish his job
> > > >
> > > > but we have been here before
> > > > perhaps before your time
> > > >
> > > > i think the key bp point tho is that the new oktx regime is
> > > > fundamentally different from the unchanged artx regime
> > > > tho they appear on the outdated topos to be the same regime
> > > > in following a series of vegetation lines that have not
existed
> > since
> > > > the time of the first border freezing avulsions shortly after
> > texas
> > > > statehood
> > > >
> > > > there is not even any lurch at the aroktx tripoint on these
maps
> > > >
> > > > but since the new oktx pact
> > > > there actually is a lurch & an extralegal stitch of oktx
> > > > which they evidently never thought of when framing the compact
> > > > tho they thought of everything else
> > > >
> > > > the exact dry oktxe point on the vegetation line
> > > > & the path by which oktx travels its wet yes wet terminal
stitch
> > > > to meet the unchanged wet aroktx tripoint within the active
> river
> > bed
> > > > as still correctly depicted at topozone
> > > > are not precisely stated in the new compact
> > > >
> > > > & these can only be presumed to be one of several nearly
> identical
> > > > but actually distinct alternative points & paths
> > > >
> > > > in reality there is a little hole in oktx here
> > > > & it is especially interesting because it subjoins the
tristate
> > point
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The compact says that the implementation and future
evolution
> of
> > > > the vegetation
> > > > > line boundary will never affect the ownership of property
or
> of
> > > > tribal
> > > > > sovereignty in either state. Each state will recognize
land
> > titles
> > > > that are
> > > > > legal under the laws of the other. Property taxes for each
> > given
> > > > year will be
> > > > > owed to whichever jurisdiction contains the property or
> whatever
> > > > portion of it
> > > > > on January 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Interestingly, the compact had the general support of
> landowners
> > > > because it
> > > > > brought some sanity to their lives for the first time!
> Before
> > this
> > > > compact, the
> > > > > Red River segment of OKTX was the sorriest excuse for a
state
> > > > boundary in the
> > > > > country.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA