--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I understand everything that you're saying, but I refuse to go
there.
>
> A typical boundary might be considered analogous to an
imaginary vertical wall
> stretching from the center of the earth to the upper reaches of
the atmosphere
> or beyond. However that's only an analogy. The situation that
obtains on MXUS
> bridges, with their treaty-ordained vertical differentiation, is
anything but
> typical. It is arguably unique in all the world.
correct
since i believe the only other extant claimant to vertical
differentiation was never actually substantiated
at least not in the english translation we saw of its lithuanian text
for it is so easy to just assume ones first impression is the
necessary view
when things have actually been left indefinite
but more on this below
As such, it does not lend
> itself to analogies. To even try would require the typical
imaginary wall to
> become a curtain of the very finest spandex, which would
envelope and cling
> around every protuberance and into every orifice of the human
and vehicular
> traffic moving upon those segments of the bridges that are
between the movable
> middle of the Rio Grande and the fixed boundary monuments
on the bridges.
>
> This desire to over-analogize the situation seems to spring
from the notion that
> boundaries are physical objects or laws of nature that are
subject to the most
> minute mensuration. This is not the case. Boundaries
proceed from the minds
> of men, who decide what and where they should be.
correct again
& indefinite boundaries like these mean their thinking had gaps
in it
gaps which may or may not ever have to be filled in reality
as the individual case may unfold
but i agree
a boundary is a thought before it is ever a delineation
of course
& the more precise & complete the better
& in this sense our beloved multipoints did indeed have to get
definitely dreamt up before they could ever have come into
definite existence
but it is interesting to observe so many loose ends precisely at
the boundary junctions
tripointing stitches we have called them
or tripoints not yet fully dreamt & still just flapping in the wind
& about the also still hanging question of whether there are
nationally predreamt boundaries
i suppose
since the doctrine of manifest destiny was actually prefigured by
the idea of a continental destiny as early as revolutionary times
& even figured in the very naming of the continental congress as
such
i can see how our transcontinental mxus & gbus aka caus lines
were taking shape in the minds of some people up to a full
century before their actualizations
but of course their dreams were answered by the dreams of
mexicans & britons of the same century
so who dreamt what
Agreements as to these
> decisions are committed to paper. Men then go out onto the
landscape and
> jointly demarcate the boundary, relying upon nothing more as
their mandate than
> the agreed-upon words and numbers on paper.
>
> To put it bluntly, there is no provision for a clingy spandex
curtain in the
> MXUS treaty of 1970 (a fact for which the International Boundary
and Water
> Commission is undoubtedly grateful). No demarcation beyond
the periodic mapping
> of the middle of the main channel of the river and the
placement of monuments on
> bridges is mandated. Why? Because that is sufficient to
determine which
> sovereignty is applicable to every foreseeable practical
eventuality. That's
> all a boundary is for. If some person, thing, or occurrence is on
a bridge,
> sovereignty is determined by the fixed monument on the
bridge. If it's anywhere
> else (including on the land or water under the bridge or in the
air above the
> bridge), sovereignty is determined by the constantly accreting
and avulsing
> median line of the river. It's complex, it's simple too, but most
of all, it is
> sufficient!
>
> If the two nations ever need a practical way of determining
sovereignty over a
> mosquito flying through the airspace between the legs of a
pedestrian walking on
> the portion of a bridge between the median line of the Rio
Grande and the
> monument on the bridge, then perhaps new treaty provisions
will be agreed upon,
> and the IWBC will carry them into execution. Until then, what
you see 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >