--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Patton [DCP]"
<dpatton@c...> wrote:

> 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

hi & thanx
i do & shall
& glad to hear from you again

& would like to second your second suggestion here below first
as it is an excellent idea in its own right
to which i would like to add the further suggestion
being now in your position
that you take matters into your own hands as well by seeking any
otherwise missing attachments at
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.culture.discuss.boundary-point
since they usually do arrive there & often faster than email

& also
being still in your position
that you protect yourself from the wealth of detail that our
esteemed colleague m06079 often feels it is essential to
include for full & immediate access to total context in matters of
trypointing
which was after all the original focal topic of our group
you can likewise take matters into your own hands there also by
shifting over to web access in that case
whenever the load of his necessary detail burgeons to burden
you so greatly as this

& moreover once you are there you can entirely skip his offerings
or those of anyone else who waxes longer than you like

as for now
i cannot bring myself to cut another word
least of all any of that danish at the end of message 1
if thats all you meant
since i confess i dont understand it
but respect it enough not to clip it

so cheers to all
& end insertion

, 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@h...>
> > 2. Canada Gets Uppity!
> > From: Doug Murray <doug@d...>
> > 3. Re: Canada Gets Uppity!
> > From: Doug Murray <doug@d...>
> > 4. Re: Canada Gets Uppity!
> > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > 5. Re: Czech stones of all kinds
> > From: udomet@g...
> > 6. first myth border monument found
> > From: "m donner" <maxivan82@h...>
> > 7. IE-UK Republic Smokers forced to Northern Ireland
> > From: Doug Murray <doug@d...>
> > 8. Re: IE-UK Republic Smokers forced to Northern Ireland
> > From: "Bill Hanrahan" <wjhanrahan@e...>
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________

_______________________

>
>_________________________________________________

_______________________

> >
> >Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:41:12 -0000
> > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> >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=Z199724

> > > , 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,

> > > > 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

> > > 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

> > > 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

> >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

> > > 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,

> > > > > > 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

> > > 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

> > > > > > > > > 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

> > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > 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@d...>
> >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/