i wonder why all these questions are still out there waiting for
answers
but as quests & pointing tries
all questions are worthy
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
<lnadybal@c...> wrote:
>
>
> Item 1 - Exclaves or not?
not by our normal technical standards
tho the word exclave has many meanings
& in any case not yet
but exclaves
& especially prospective exclaves
could actually be just about anything you say
There have been articles asserting (with
> substance) that the Israeli's are shaping for themselves what
will be
> de-facto and de-jure the border between the Palestinian and
Israeli
> areas of sovereignty (or sovereignty-autonomy, or
sovereignty-semi or
> quasi-sovereignty, or ???)
or what
other nonsense stuff
at some time in the not too distant future.
> I contend
but why contend anything
& why contend about the future
of all things
& why contend here
of all places
we do strive together here for the best available truth in all our
multipointing
& indeed we are quite aggressive in this collective pursuit
but contentiousness as such is not part of the program
that the two circles of walls proposed, which just happen
> to circumnavigate two Paslestinian towns that currently have
open
> access to the main body of the West Bank without citizens
having to
> cross outside of the WestBank into "Israel proper", will
become, de
> facto, pieces with international sovereign administration inside
of
> them that won't be Israeli, creating a de facto international
border
> around them. Any variations between the true border and the
wall,
> where their "routes" vary and leave Israeli sovereign areas
inside the
> circle will be Israeli land over which where it exercises no
sovereign
> rights (except maybe on occasion to paint the side of thee wall
> visible from the Palestinian portion inside). Any Palestinian
lands
> outside the wall will simply become victim of the "what's mine
is mine
> and what's yours is negotiable" philosophy, so eloquently
verbalized
> by John Kennedy in the 1960s.
>
> Item 2 - the MX-US spandex boundary being unique. I believe
that also
> exists on the Vennbahn bridges.
you have claimed this or stuff like this several times
& i think you may be right or partly right
but can you prove it
for example by the text of the relevant agreement
We have Belgian "Bahnkorper" by
> treaty crossing over, but uninterrupted German sovereignty
over roads
> under the bridges, which makes what we think of as German
exclaves to
> the west of the tracks not necessarily so - given that there is
> uninterrupted road access under the bridges without leaving
Germany.
> The situation with US-MX seems similar - because "what you
see is what
> oyu have to deal with", and only when a need surfaces, will
there be
> consideration given to adding a little additional precision to the
> governing treaty.
>
> Item 3 - I still wonder that if one is on the bridge on the north
side
> of the river bank, and, to escape arrest, would drop off of it and
> land under it, but above part of the buried foundation, in what
> country and which jurisdiction would properly have arrest
powers?
the country & jurisdiction of the bridge area you are standing on
or attached to
or the country & jurisdiction of the ground you are standing on
& if you are attached to both the bridge & the ground
but are actually standing on neither
then you have slipped into the indefinite interface between them
& only when a need to arrest you or someone like you surfaces
as you suggest above
will consideration be given to achieving the necessary precision
> Only the Mexican's apparently, could arrest someone on the
bridge
> south of the border marker, and it seems too easy to drop off
into the
> US and escape Mexican justice. What if, just before the US
police
> arrived, the "escapee" found a workman's metal step that led
up the
> support pillar, and climbed a couple of feet up onto it, to be off
the
> ground. Would he be back in Mexico?
he would be back in mexico only if he can outclimb his pursuers
from the usa
thru the indefinite interface
all the way up to the mexican area on the bridge surface
& as in any indefinite area
might is right
>
> I also wonder if the customs border is contiguous with the
> international line.
yes
regardless of the location of the customs post
the international line & customs border are normally the same
& i suppose the identity of the 2 makes them contiguous too
but to answer what i imagine is the question behind your
question
the customs border & horizontal international line are similarly
indefinite
more below
Dropping contraband off the bridge from Mexico to
> the US sounds too easy - it would put Mr. Ashcroft's people in
the
> position of having to intercept packages on the way down to
keep drugs
> from crossing the border.
>
> LN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- 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. 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.
this desire to overgeneralize the situation seems to spring from
the notion that the most minute mensuration is impossible
but the most minute possible mensuration is still possible
& this fact is probably all that matters in any case
geodetic boundaries are normally subject to the most minute
possible mensuration & most precise possible determination
i believe we have seen as much as 5 digits of precision beyond
the decimal point of degminsec readings
or about an average pinpricks worth of exactitude
it is only with the natural boundaries that this level of exactitude
is normally not achievable & not the case
& it is also not the case in the special case of the horizontal
sectors of mxus
because these are indefinite & indeed practically unthought of
thats right
they are indefinite precisely because nobody figured the thought
behind this boundary needed any further elaboration
& indeed it didnt & doesnt need any
as others have also observed
until such time as it does
end insertions
Boundaries proceed from
> the minds
> > of men, who decide what and where they should be.
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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >