Hello All.
I'm pretty much a lurker here - I post only very occasionally.
Because BP isn't my main focus, I've elected to receive the
list's messages via a Daily Digest.
I have two suggestions that I think would improve this list,
both for people who use the Digest option, and for those who
either read the list's messages as individual emails, or via
the web-based message archive.
1)
Please take a moment and trim any unnecessary text from
the email to which you are replying.
I don't want to suggest that anyone in particular is at
fault for this(I'm not familiar enough with all the
personalities on the list to make such a suggestion).
Below is an example from the most recent Digest - put
yourself in my position, where I wanted to read message #2,
and count how many times you have to "page down" to scroll
down to find message #2.
2)
When received as a Digest, Yahoo doesn't include attachments.
If possible, when sending emails to the list that contain
'only attachments'(or at least very little text), it would help
to include either a brief description of the attachment(s),
or, if suitable, a URL(e.g. to more info).
At 04:47 AM 2004/03/28,
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>There are 8 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: ATHUSK/CZPLSK/ATCZSK border maps
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
> 2. Canada Gets Uppity!
> From: Doug Murray <doug@...>
> 3. Re: Canada Gets Uppity!
> From: Doug Murray <doug@...>
> 4. Re: Canada Gets Uppity!
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> 5. Re: Czech stones of all kinds
> From: udomet@...
> 6. first myth border monument found
> From: "m donner" <maxivan82@...>
> 7. IE-UK Republic Smokers forced to Northern Ireland
> From: Doug Murray <doug@...>
> 8. Re: IE-UK Republic Smokers forced to Northern Ireland
> From: "Bill Hanrahan" <wjhanrahan@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:41:12 -0000
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
>Subject: Re: ATHUSK/CZPLSK/ATCZSK border maps
>
>yes i agree
>but given the difficulty of exact measurement on steep terrain
>anyway
>my guess is we can already find the truest available czplsk
>by just eyeballing along the perpendicular pyramid edges at the
>apexes of the cz & pl obelisks
>so as to determine the intersection of the projections of these
>respective sight lines
>somewhere down in the hollow
>whatever the horizontal &or vertical distances may prove to be
>
>it is just a question of whether the obelisks were actually
>intended & erected with enough care to be used in this way
>
>
>also pending the necessary protocol text
>we can still continue to party down here
>by continuing to accept both the official tripoint diagram & the
>most recent text by the unknown trypointer
>while taking note of any contradictions
>
>so
>further study of the diagram below reveals the actual border lines
>may possibly be indicated by the zz symbol
>
>& if so
>then the tripoint may actually be depicted in 1 of 2 places
>
>one
>apparently in the larger creek just above the confluence
>is marked by a line junction just to the east of jespers red arrow
>tip line junction
>
>& the other
>at the next line junction to the north
>& evidently on the bank of both creeks just above the confluence
>appears to be marked by a tiny triangle
>
>
>it is noteworthy that both of these possible versions of the tripoint
>are visually equidistant from the pair of points on the banks of
>the tributary creek that are apparently marked by the symbol v
>& which could thus well indicate 2 of the obelisks
>
>however there is no way to fit the third obelisk into the drawing
>if the relative distances between them are truly as stated
>
>a third obelisk may be indicated
>but far to the south & nowhere near the stated intervals
>
>so it seems a grain of salt is still very much in order
>both for the tripoint diagram & the trypointing accounts
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
><orc@o...> wrote:
> > which may mean
> > the true road to the true czplsk
> > now loops back thru bratislava
> > or at least thru a phonebooth
> >
> > perhaps to pursue the sources of the slovakian tripoint
>diagrams
> > &or of the equally fascinating slovakian trypointing texts
> > simultaneously
> > but certainly to seek the needed source protocol document
> > within the primary & host government there
> >
> > for now that we see the clear possibility of it
> > there is every reason to want to check our sources
> > & focus now on getting these bedrock data if we can
> > before proceeding to try for the tripoint again
> > dont you agree
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
> > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > The CZSK boundary agreement is at
> > >
> >
>http://www.podnikame.cz/zakony9597/index.php3?co=Z1997246
> > , but what
> > > we need is the protocol, mentioned in this agreement,
>named
> > "Protokol
> > > o bodu styku státních hranic České republiky,
>Slovenské
> > republiky a
> > > Polské republiky "Beskydy"" ("Protocol on the meeting point
>of
> > the
> > > state boundary of the Czech republic, the Slovak republic,
>and
> > the
> > > Polish republic "Beskydy"") (Part I, art. 2, h). Unfortunately, I
> > > haven't been able to find it online.
> > > Peter S.
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
> > <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > also the texts of the agreements are evidently available
> > online
> > > > for any further corroboration anyone might want
> > > > please
> > > >
> > > > i mean
> > > > if anyone wants to just check them for us
> > > > even without slaving to polish them
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
> > > > <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > ok thanx
> > > > > & wonderful to see the progressive ideas & tries of a
>fellow
> > > > > seeker too
> > > > >
> > > > > & i do assume these new improved data are indeed at
> > least
> > > > > more nearly correct
> > > > > which i think we practically must assume
> > > > > at least for the time being
> > > > > & even if only for the sake of seeing where they may lead
> > > > > since he seems no less careful & punctilious than
> > ourselves
> > > > >
> > > > > & it is especially good to be relieved of the earlier illusion
> > > that
> > > > all
> > > > > 3 obelisks define the circle of which the tripoint is the
> > center
> > > > > for these new data mean the circle is actually defined by
> > only
> > > > the
> > > > > cz & pl obelisks & central tripoint
> > > > >
> > > > > the sk obelisk isnt part of nor anywhere near the definitive
> > > > circle
> > > > > which thus actually boils down to just a definitive triangle
> > > > >
> > > > > so again assuming these new improved data are indeed
> > > > correct
> > > > > hahaha
> > > > > we can forget the circle per se & focus on the triangle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > it is good also to be reminded that our fellow seeker &
> > writer of
> > > > > these progressive compilations was of the opinion that
>the
> > > > > tripoint may well have been in the brook
> > > > > but that since the installation of the obelisks in 1995 the
> > > tripoint
> > > > > has become geometrically determinate rather than
> > necessarily
> > > > > defined in any way by the brook itself any more
> > > > >
> > > > > indeed his belief that a linden was planted at the tripoint
>in
> > > > 1990
> > > > > & my surmise that it could even today still mark the exact
> > spot
> > > > > could tend to rule out the creek bottom per se
> > > > >
> > > > > & could tend to advance the crazy but still possible idea
>that
> > > the
> > > > > obelisks are all pointing toward & facing just this linden
> > tree
> > > > >
> > > > > & for starters
> > > > > our next visitors could simply pace off the 27 or 28 giant
> > steps
> > > > > down from the cz & pl obelisks just to see if there isnt a
>14
> > > year
> > > > > old linden tree waiting for us in that general vicinity
> > > > > if not at that precisely triangulated point
> > > > >
> > > > > or just to see
> > > > > if not this tree
> > > > > then what actually is there at that exactly measured point
> > > > >
> > > > > but regardless of the tree or its placement or fate or
> > relevance
> > > > > we do now seem to have a clear & simple way to
>advance
> > the
> > > > try
> > > > >
> > > > > dont you agree
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
>Smaardijk"
> > > > > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > True, but I found out that the Czech website was altered
> > after
> > > > > Pepijn
> > > > > > made this translation, so he can't be blamed (check the
> > old
> > > > text
> > > > > on
> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2g2es ). Now my Czech is not very
>good,
> > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > understand that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. The CZ and PL markers are 15.05 m. apart (this may
> > be
> > > > > 15.5 m., see
> > > > > > below)
> > > > > > 2. Both CZ and PL markers are at a distance of 73.8 m
> > from
> > > > > the SK
> > > > > > marker
> > > > > > 3. The distances to the real tripoint are:
> > > > > > CZ marker - CZPLSK: 27.9 m.
> > > > > > PL marker - CZPLSK: 27.9 m.
> > > > > > SK marker - CZPLSK: 46.6 m.
> > > > > > 4. The CZPL border runs in between the CZ and PL
> > markers,
> > > > > at a
> > > > > > distance of 4.26 m. from the PL marker, and a distance
>of
> > > > > 11.24 m.
> > > > > > from the CZ marker (totals 15.5 m., and that is why I
>think
> > > > 15.05
> > > > > m.
> > > > > > is an error).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe you (or Pepijn, if he has the time) can verify,
>correct
> > > > > and/or
> > > > > > add to this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter S.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Petter Brabec
> > > > > > <pete2784west@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > Nice translation job and it spares me a job : ). But
>even
> > you
> > > > > can
> > > > > > see, that some pretty important sentences about
> > distances
> > > > > and
> > > > > > geometrical facts are left out in the translation. Just
>check
> > > it
> > > > out
> > > > > > and you'll see what I mean. I believe, that these
> > parametres
> > > > > and
> > > > > > distances around the CZPLSK tripoint will make the
>map
> > > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > Slovakian geodetic atlas, that Jesper posted, much
> > clearer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Petter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Peter Smaardijk <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/6091
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Peter S. (acting as Pepijn H. ;-))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Petter
>Brabec
> > > > > > > <pete2784west@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hallo, at this link, in Czech, the locals explain how
>the
> > > > > process
> > > > > > > of setting up the monoliths around the tripoint went,
>all
> > the
> > > > > > > necessary measures and other trivia.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.volny.cz/obec.hrcava/trojmezi.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At the present moment, I'm unable to translate it, so
> > > > > anybody
> > > > > > who's
> > > > > > > interested can give it a shot. Otherwise, give me a day
> > or
> > > > two,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > I'll translate the core theme that, as I understand it
>from
> > > the
> > > > > > > confusion up to now, is of interest to you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Petter
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I think the 1st three pics are CZ instead of SK.
> > > > > > > > Because the Sk monument was across the larger
>of
> > the
> > > > 2
> > > > > > > > streams and all by itself.
> > > > > > > > Picture 2 - the small marker was actually on the
> > CZ-PL
> > > > > > > > border - direct marker here.
> > > > > > > > Picture 5 - my initial guess was that it looked along
> > > > > > > > CZ-PL and that it was the PL marker. So now we
> > have
> > > > > > > > three different possibilites here! Really this is a
> > > > > > > > confusing pic for me. Perhaps it looks at the SK
> > > > > > > > marker from the tp? But this would not be along a
> > > > > > > > border, just SK territory.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- Jesper Nielsen <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I have already written to the site authors
> > > > > > > > > requesting a better quality map,
> > > > > > > > > plus the other tripoints. Still wating patiently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am very interested in seeing especially CZPLSK
>in
> > > > > > > > > a better scale, as I too
> > > > > > > > > find it difficult too see what's going on, even
> > > > > > > > > after being their in person.
> > > > > > > > > I don't recall all spots.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please find enclosed the CZPLSK map with my
> > arrows.
> > > > > > > > > The blue arrow shows the
> > > > > > > > > angle of which the photo on
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > http://pikomat.mff.cuni.cz/fotky/tabor/1996/f01/24hrcava.html
> > > > > > > > > was taken.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The red arrow show where I believe I was sitting
> > > > > > > > > pointing to the ground
> > > > > > > > > facing south, which probably is not the tripoint
> > > > > > > > > judging from the map. Looks
> > > > > > > > > like it's further east. But it's a very difficult
> > > > > > > > > tripoint because it's
> > > > > > > > > inside forest and down a valley. It would have
>been
> > > > > > > > > nice to have known this
> > > > > > > > > map before we went there.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rolf's site gives a good view af all three tp
> > > > > > > > > markers at
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > http://www.vasa.abo.fi/users/rpalmber/BordersCRPS.htm
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > picture 1, the PL tp marker left, SK right. Facing
> > > > > > > > > south. The crew is
> > > > > > > > > walking N on the path going up a long the border
>to
> > > > > > > > > the road.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > picture 2, closeup on the PL and SK tp markers. I
> > > > > > > > > wonder if Mike Kaufman
> > > > > > > > > noted what the small red hat markers said.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > picture 3, closeup of SK marker
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > picture 5, I think Rolf is wrong here. This is
> > > > > > > > > facing S from the TP and show
> > > > > > > > > the CZ tp marker. I remember the red hat marker
> > > > > > > > > still said CS, so I must
> > > > > > > > > have been an indirect marker from CSPL.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > picture 6, looks very different from mine??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have a picture facing east from the tripoint (or
> > > > > > > > > where I belived it was).
> > > > > > > > > Want to see it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jesper
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > > > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:37 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re:
> > > > ATHUSK/CZPLSK/ATCZSK
> > > > > > > > > border maps
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
>"Jesper
> > > > > > > > > Nielsen"
> > > > > > > > > > <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > http://www.atlaskrajiny.sk/sk/myimages/2_sub_2.jpg
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > these are lovely
> > > > > > > > > > & i wish their 2 remaining sister diagrams will
> > > > > > > > > arrive soon too
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > of course atczsk is the greatest charmer
> > > > > > > > > > having been selected as point 2 on gcebe
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.geocities.com/graenser/tripoints
> > > > > > > > > > & then again as point 1 on geebe
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > http://www.geocities.com/graenser/geebe/tripoints.htm
> > > > > > > > > > with some apparent improvement
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the other diagrams are harder for me to see &or
> > > > > > > > > read tho
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > for example could you show on the czplsk
> > diagram
> > > > > > > > > > where you are situated in the geebe point 2 pic
> > > > > > > > > above
> > > > > > > > > > & where the monuments shown in the link
>below
> > are
> > > > > > > > > situated
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > http://pikomat.mff.cuni.cz/fotky/tabor/1996/f01/24hrcava.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > which btw i found at your site too
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > & what is the cause of my double vision on 2 of
> > > > > > > > > the vectors in the
> > > > > > > > > > athusk diagram
> > > > > > > > > > aka gcebe point 3
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ny versjon av Yahoo! Messenger
> > > > > > > > Nye ikoner og bakgrunner, webkamera med
> > superkvalitet
> > > > > og dobbelt
> > > > > > så
> > > > > > > morsom
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > > Terms
> > > > > of
> > > > > > Service.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ny versjon av Yahoo! Messenger
> > > > > > > Nye ikoner og bakgrunner, webkamera med
> > superkvalitet
> > > > og
> > > > > dobbelt så
> > > > > > morsom
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 08:44:24 -0800
> From: Doug Murray <doug@...>
>Subject: Canada Gets Uppity!
>
>
>Look what the Danes have unleased! Squadrons of Canucks patrolling the
>north and yelling "This is our snow, back off!"
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2ao8z
>
>Happy weekend, all!
>
>Doug
>
>[This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website:
http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/