--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Okay, I can see all your semantic points, but...
well good
as semantic does after all mean
pertaining to the actual meaning of things
& semantics are often dismissed as if they ran counter to good
sense or good taste or were somehow gratuitously picky or
sophistical or ultimately meaningless pointless worthless vain
void etc
but to be dismissive of meaning is just anti intellectualism
& disregard for truth really
so yes indeed lets start with the actual & exact meaning of things
& hang onto these for dear life at all times
> Since you say that the Equator "has no latitude," does the
Greenwich Line have
> no longitude?
well that wouldnt seem to follow either logically or semantically
from the equator having no latitude
would it
indeed quite the contrary
it seems to me
since all lines of longitude are of equal objective stature
even if not of precisely uniform length
with zero longitude having been determined utterly arbitrarily
rather than absolutely & as a fact of natural geography
in the very distinctive way the equator is fixed by nature
so the tudes of lat & long are oranges & apples par excellence
by your reasoning of tude equals tude
you might as well expect exactitude & negritude & quietude to
behave exactly like latitude too
crabapples pomegranates potatoes
but you are careful to distinguish lat from long otherwise
because you know full well they behave quite differently
& that they will trip you up if you dont respect that
so why disregard or deny what you know to be their very real
distinction just in the moment of greatest truth
the truth is they are not the same thing at all
& neednt be expected or forced to act as if they were
> What about that point in the Atlantic Ocean "under the hump of
> Africa" where these two lines cross? Does it have no
coordinates?
but wait
you are into pineapples now too
of course it has coordinates
we werent talking about coordinates
coordinates are something else
it has zero longitude for one coord
which is a distinct meridian of longitude
& zero or no latitude for the other coord
which is not & cant be a parallel of latitude
because it is the equator
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> if you were on the Equator, are you telling me that
yes
& thats all she wrote
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:01 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
>
>
> > aw lets compound the technicality anyway
> > just to make sure we really are correct
> >
> > for are you absolutely sure the equator is a parallel of latitude
> >
> > my dictionary says a parallel
> > in geography
> > is
> > any of the imaginary lines representing degrees of latitude
> > encircling the earth parallel to the plane of the equator
> >
> > & i dont think it is possible for the equator
> > which is a line in the plane of the equator
> > to also be parallel to the plane of the equator
> > because parallel in this basic & original geometric sense
refers
> > to 2 things that are beside one another & thus never meet
> >
> > also as previously mentioned
> > the equator is said to lie at zero degrees of latitude because
it
> > has no latitude
> >
> > does that make it a parallel of latitude
> >
> > i dont think so
> >
> > or is it simply parallel to the parallels of latitude that are
parallel
> > to it
> >
> > my dictionary says latitude
> > in geography
> > is
> > the angular distance north or south of the equator
> > measured in degrees along a meridian
> > as on a map or globe
> >
> > so from this i also gather the equator has no latitude & is not
a
> > parallel of latitude because it lies no distance & no degrees
> > either north or south of the equator
> >
> > the advantage of this view
> > if it is indeed correct
> > for your technical formulation
> > is that it can thus be tightened up as follows
> >
> > any parallel of latitude
> > or any other line of constant bearing that is not a meridian of
> > longitude or the equator
> > is not straight
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > You are correct. The Equator is the only parallel of latitude
that
> > is also a
> > > great circle. I thought of that after writing my message, but
> > didn't want to
> > > compound the technicality.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 1:53 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit
border
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes, but I think the Equator would be the exception to
> > > > this rule. Of course this is assuming the earth is a
> > > > perfect sphere. But we know that it is just an
> > > > approximation, and its irregular shape varies.
> > > >
> > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > Well, this is a technicality, but...
> > > > >
> > > > > Any parallel of latitude, or any other line of
> > > > > constant bearing that is not a
> > > > > meridian of longitude, is not straight. Only an arc
> > > > > of a great circle is a
> > > > > "straight" line. Even then, it is straight only in
> > > > > the horizontal dimension,
> > > > > since it curves with the surface of the earth and
> > > > > probably goes up hill and down
> > > > > as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 4:14 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section
> > > > > chit border
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which leads to the question of which manmade
> > > > > segments
> > > > > > are NOT straight. The only thing that comes to my
> > > > > > mind is the DE-PA Arc (or Arcs). Are there any
> > > > > world
> > > > > > class examples? I can not think of one, but I may
> > > > > be
> > > > > > forgetting about something.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
> > > > > > > Smaardijk"
> > > > > > > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Note also that it is a municipal exclave of
> > > > > > > Innerferrera.
> > > > > > > > Cf.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > http://www.innerferrera.ch/innerferrera/geschichte.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (mentions
> > > > > > > > a territory exchange with Italy in 1962/63 as
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > cause).
> > > > > > > > Peter S.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "chris
> > > > > > > schulz"
> > > > > > > <23568@g...>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Thats right,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > as i know its result of special interests
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > switzerland.
> > > > > > > > > the shown situation is from val di lei.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > http://www.home.pages.at/maxifant/Frames/val-di-lei.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (german)
> > > > > > > > > when the wall had been build, switzerland
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > to save
> > > > > > > this wall
> > > > > > > > by itself,
> > > > > > > > > because in the case the wall would be hit
> > > > > (by a
> > > > > > > bomb or
> > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > all the water would come to the val di Avers
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > Switzerland.
> > > > > > > > > so now switzerland can save the wall with
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > guns,...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > regards, chris
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: Artur Kroc
> > > > > > > > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:07 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Strange section
> > > > > chit
> > > > > > > border
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This section looks strange - like african
> > > > > > > borders - like made
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > ruler...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > straight looking sections of borders are
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > fairly common
> > > > > > > everywhere
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > indeed they occur wherever a border runs
> > > > > directly
> > > > > > > between 2
> > > > > > > markers
> > > > > > > or in other words
> > > > > > > just about everywhere there is a manmade rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > a natural
> > > > > > > delineation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & that means the great majority of the
> > > > > individual
> > > > > > > delineations in
> > > > > > > the world
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > it is just that a much larger scale map is
> > > > > needed to
> > > > > > > see most of
> > > > > > > them