Subject: Re: Israel Army Proposes to Create Enclaves
Date: Feb 15, 2004 @ 05:28
Author: L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> I understand everything that you're saying, but I refuse to go there.vertical wall
>
> A typical boundary might be considered analogous to an imaginary
> stretching from the center of the earth to the upper reaches of theatmosphere
> or beyond. However that's only an analogy. The situation thatobtains on MXUS
> bridges, with their treaty-ordained vertical differentiation, isanything but
> typical. It is arguably unique in all the world. As such, it doesnot lend
> itself to analogies. To even try would require the typicalimaginary wall to
> become a curtain of the very finest spandex, which would envelopeand cling
> around every protuberance and into every orifice of the human andvehicular
> traffic moving upon those segments of the bridges that are betweenthe movable
> middle of the Rio Grande and the fixed boundary monuments on thebridges.
>notion that
> This desire to over-analogize the situation seems to spring from the
> boundaries are physical objects or laws of nature that are subjectto the most
> minute mensuration. This is not the case. Boundaries proceed fromthe minds
> of men, who decide what and where they should be. Agreements as tothese
> decisions are committed to paper. Men then go out onto thelandscape and
> jointly demarcate the boundary, relying upon nothing more as theirmandate than
> the agreed-upon words and numbers on paper.curtain in the
>
> To put it bluntly, there is no provision for a clingy spandex
> MXUS treaty of 1970 (a fact for which the International Boundary andWater
> Commission is undoubtedly grateful). No demarcation beyond theperiodic mapping
> of the middle of the main channel of the river and the placement ofmonuments on
> bridges is mandated. Why? Because that is sufficient to determinewhich
> sovereignty is applicable to every foreseeable practicaleventuality. That's
> all a boundary is for. If some person, thing, or occurrence is on abridge,
> sovereignty is determined by the fixed monument on the bridge. Ifit's anywhere
> else (including on the land or water under the bridge or in the airabove the
> bridge), sovereignty is determined by the constantly accreting andavulsing
> median line of the river. It's complex, it's simple too, but mostof all, it is
> sufficient!sovereignty over a
>
> If the two nations ever need a practical way of determining
> mosquito flying through the airspace between the legs of apedestrian walking on
> the portion of a bridge between the median line of the Rio Grandeand the
> monument on the bridge, then perhaps new treaty provisions will beagreed upon,
> and the IWBC will carry them into execution. Until then, what yousee is what
> you get.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 1:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Israel Army Proposes to Create Enclaves
>
>
> > I guess it's how you define it. I gather your
> > interpretation is that of taking infinite
> > horizontal-plane crossections of the space we have in
> > question. Then tracing the border and projecting
> > upwards. The horizontal surfaces as differences are
> > easy to see if you think about a simplified bridge
> > with perfectly straight lines.
> > But what about a person standing on a bridge. Again,
> > north of the median line of the Rio Grande, but south
> > of the marker. Take a horizantal plane crossing me at
> > some point through my legs. This plane would have a
> > border as projected directly upwards from the river
> > median line. It would also contain two circular-esque
> > enclaves of Mexico in US, the two enclaves being the
> > cross-section of each leg.
> > But you can only project this upwards until there is a
> > change whereby the cross-section will not match the
> > one below it. I.E.: Project this scenario upwards by
> > vertical surfaces until the border changes on another
> > particluar plane. If we were only thinking of the
> > river median line, you could project this plane
> > upwards forever without having to have any horizontal
> > differentiation. But we have the additional
> > complication of the person. If a person was made of
> > certain regular geometric shapes (like stacks of
> > squares and rectangles of different sizes on each
> > other), you may be able to project upwards 4 inches
> > before hitting a difference - creating a horizontal
> > surface linking two different projections. The next
> > one up may go 2 inches, etc.
> > But people are not a regular shape at all. Each
> > cross-section you take will be different because the
> > body (and clothing etc.) is not geometircally perfect.
> > So you can't project it up any distance vertically,
> > because the next plane up will be different. So you
> > have an infinite number of contiguous crossectional
> > planes which are all different (from the feet to the
> > head of the person).
> > All of the contiguous horizontal planes come together
> > to form 3-D space. The infinite unchanging river
> > median line projections come together to form a
> > vertical surface (you can change your z-coordinate
> > while maintaining your x and y coords). But the
> > surface created by the infinte number of lines of the
> > human cross-sections is not purely vertical. If you
> > want to change your z-coordinate, you have to change
> > either your x or your y as well.
> > So I think if we call the vertical surface a border,
> > we have to call the nonvertical surface a border too,
> > since they are both made up of the same infinite
> > number of border tracings on contiguous planes. I
> > would call them both border surfaces.
> >
> >
> > --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >