I'm glad to see that you've come around. Otherwise I was about to have to write
a long laborious rebuttal. :-)
Yes, the extralegal stitch must be sewn with 100-percent OKTX thread. On this
much we agree.
I see how the stitch could be variously construed, and it is indeed a remaining
uncertainty. However, a few hundred feet of uncertainty is much to be preferred
over the several hundred miles of uncertainty that was previously the OKTX
boundary.
Now, I can turn my attention to making you a map of the Bi-state Criminal
Justice Center condominium in Texarkana. That task will be infinitely more
pleasant, and indeed has been eagerly anticipated here all day.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Oklahoma / Texas Border - River Borders
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>