--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > to begin with
> > de jure tripunctivity is what we are primarily after here
> > isnt it
> > ...
> > so anyway de facto is fine
> > but i say bring on the de jure truth in all its convolution
> > because that is a primary objective in all our try pointing
>
> That's fine with me. To each his own. If those are your standards, then it was
> a tripoint.
>
> > i realize it is a difference in our point of view
> >
> > but i also think you are being a little unrealistic to think in terms
> > of actual de facto tripoints when even the actual de facto borders are
> > so elusive & ephemeral & arbitrary thruout this area & period
>
> That they were! I'm just a bit hesitant to ordain a spot as an unqualified
> tripoint when only two of the three parties agree as to its location.
good point
i understand
unless a tripoint has full tripartite agreement & full de facto
compliance it isnt unqualified
absolutely
but even today & even at undisputed tripoints such incompleteness is
fairly common
>
> > so our hastily claimed starting corner
> > of 31st & miss between 1783 & 1803
> > proves to be both
> > esgbus1783 for an unknown number of days
>
>
> The pertinent dates of the treaties were November 30, 1782, and September 3,
> 1783. That comes to 277 days.
ok but i meant the much smaller unknown number of days between the gbus
consummation of 3 sept 1783 & the esgb cession on a subsequent but to
me still unknown date in 1783
>
> > whattt
> > thats the freakin ellicott line
> > & many of the mounds are still recoverable
>
> Okay! Thanks. I will confess that I know Andrew Ellicott only in general terms
> by his high reputation. Looking for him in the index, I have now found BUS&SS's
> account of his survey of the 31st parallel from the Mississippi River eastward,
> but it's located in the section on Georgia!
>
> > whoa
> > perhaps for esgbus1783 i might agree
> > but not for 1800esfrus1803 as thats post ellicott
> > ...
> > but we do have ellicotts 1799 map
> > ...
> > we need to cut direct to ellicott
>
> Yes, I fully agree--now that Ellicot's work has sprung to my knowledge from its
> exile in Georgia.
>
> > do you mean what state has more gall than louisiana
> > ...
> > could you rephrase the question
>
> Never mind. It was a rhetorical question intended to point out the brazen
> unneighborliness of locating a penitentiary against the boundary of another
> state.
of course i would never mind
& was only trying to divert you from this needless excursion &
gratuitous nosedive
& rhetorical questions can be more fun to answer than regular ones
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA