--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying this, Lowell. Yes, this does
> make more sense from a practical aspect. But it also
> adds a level of variability to the exact 3-D shape of
> the border (i.e.: people and cars move, the 3-D border
> surface moves with them) that I don't recall seeing
> elswhere.
wait mike
youve still almost got it
but neither the border nor the border surface really moves with
the people & the cars
in fact
border surface
as such
is a practically meaningless concept
for borders really have no surface
not a horizontal surface anyway
they have a vertical dimension
it is true
& in rare cases such as this they are vertically differentiated
besides
& so i suppose you could say that the vertical projections of
border lines do form surfaces of a sort
but i think that that is as far as you could take this term
moreover
split level borders must of course adjoin horizontal surfaces that
link their differing vertical positions & projections
but borders per se can have no surface other than a vertical one
so far as i can see
& such a variability as you imagine is the case neither on mxus
nor anywhere else
i believe
the variability that does exist on mxus consists only in the vertical
differentiation between a historic thalweg position recorded &
frozen on a bridge railing
& the ongoing location of the living thalweg itself
the activity on the bridge doesnt affect the boundary
& it is true that you havent seen what you describe elsewhere
since it actually obtains nowhere
so far as i am aware
>
> --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Michael,
> >
> > You've almost got it.
> >
> > Not only the physical substance of the MXUS bridges,
> > but also persons and
> > traffic upon them are governed by the established
> > boundary monuments on the
> > bridges. Anything or anyone not on the bridges (in
> > the air above or on the
> > ground or water below) is governed by the current
> > location of the middle of the
> > main channel of the river. This is by the 1970
> > treaty.
> >
> > If it were otherwise, the wording on the bridge
> > monuments and signs would be
> > meaningless to their readers if those readers had to
> > look off the bridge
> > (perhaps in darkness) and estimate the location of
> > the middle of the river.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Israel Army Proposes to
> > Create Enclaves
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/10911
> > > Due to the changing course of the river, the
> > > bordermarker on the bridge is now directly over
> > land
> > > on the northern/US bank of the Rio Grande. The
> > bridge
> > > itself and its supports are Mexican all the way up
> > > until the marker. But for everything else, the
> > border
> > > is the middle of the river. So for instance, you
> > > could be standing on the bridge say 2 feet south
> > of
> > > the bordermarker. Directly beneath you is a
> > sovereign
> > > Mexican bridge. But beneath and above that is
> > > soverign US airspace and land on the north bank of
> > the
> > > Rio grande. You are in the US even though you are
> > > south of the marker. Only the physical bridge is
> > in
> > > Mexico. But you can not be in Mexico this way
> > since
> > > you would have to occupy the same physical space
> > as
> > > the bridge at the same time, which is, of course,
> > > impossible. If you were on the bridge and wanted
> > to
> > > visit Mexico, you would have to walk further south
> > > until you pass the middle of the river. This is
> > how I
> > > understand the situation to be.
> > > -Mike
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html