But I don't get why you say there is no variability.
In a particular horizantal cross section, the
boundaries drawn will be different in different
scenarios. For example, consider if the plane with
the MX-US median line of the river projected up onto
it. If I were standing as I sai in the last email,
there would be two Mexican enclaves in the US, where
the plane cuts my legs. But If I walked over to the
US side north of the marker, those two enclaves would
no longer exist on that same cross-section. So I
would say the activity on the bridge does affect the
border and there is definitely variability in this
regard.
--- m06079 <
barbaria_longa@...> wrote:
> --- 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
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html