The Omanis owned the peninsula, but the boundary between British Baluchistan and Omani Gwadar was never defined, as it's all desert inland.
The Sultan did not choose to sell it to Pakistan over the USSR etc as suggested on this list... rather he had to be persuaded to. I went through some files at the PRO in London.
Recall that although independent in 1947, Pakistan did not adopt its republican constitution until 1956. Until then it was a monarchy like Austrlia and NZ and Canada are now, with a governor general.
The sultan felt that as such, he should be negotiating with the Brits not the Pakistanis. The Brits said, 'no, speak to the Pakis'. The Pakis said 'speak to us', the sultan said' but you're not fully independent yet, I must speak to the Brits'.
And around it went, until either the Pakis became republican or the Brits finally persuaded the Sultan he was wrong...
Exactly why he sold it (did he want to get rid of it? did the Pakis put pressure on him to cede this 'enclave' as the Indians did on Portugal over Goa?), I haven't ascertained. It would make a good topic of investigation... if you can get into hte Paki archives in Karachi or Islamabad...
Brendan
In message <
1080568510.480.22494.m12@yahoogroups.com>
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
writes:
>
> There are 19 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: first myth border monument found
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> 2. Two suggestions for a better forum
> From: "Dave Patton [DCP]" <dpatton@...>
> 3. New island surfaced in disputed border area with Ukraine
> From: Artur Kroc <kroc@...>
> 4. Re: Two suggestions for a better forum
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> 5. Re: Two suggestions for a better forum
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> 6. Re: Czech stones of all kinds
> From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@...>
> 7. caus declared neglected & ibc tiny & overwhelmed
> From: "m donner" <maxivan82@...>
> 8. New Subject - Gwadur
> From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
> 9. Re: New Subject - Gwadur
> From: "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>
> 10. CA-US Boundary Maintenance Problems
> From: Doug Murray <doug@...>
> 11. Re: first myth border monument found
> From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@...>
> 12. Re: Re: first myth border monument found
> From: "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>
> 13. Re: Re: first myth border monument found
> From: Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@...>
> 14. Re: New Subject - Gwadur
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> 15. Re: first myth border monument found
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> 16. Re: New Subject - Gwadur
> From: "chris schulz" <23568@...>
> 17. oz timor gas squeeze a done deal but for the roaring
> From: "m donner" <maxivan82@...>
> 18. Re: New Subject - Gwadur
> From: "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>
> 19. Re: Gorizia, Italy - Nova Gorica, Slovenia
> From: "Artur Kroc" <kroc@...>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:29:46 -0000
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> Subject: Re: first myth border monument found
>
> in morning light it turns out this golok or myth river is aka kolok
> & should be added to the short list of ambidirectional rivers in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypoint/message/2315
>
> & it also turns out
> coincidingly overnight
> this previously peaceful kolok & myth were practically exploded
> when some thai smoking pubs blew on the north bank
>
> but that will be in the world news this morning
> so i spare you the link
>
> & will only try to make more light of it by wondering if we arent at
> least partly responsible for everything that happens
> & if we shouldnt therefore be quite careful as to what & how we
> think
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m donner"
> <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> >
> http://www.malaysiagis.com/gis_in_malaysia/news/news_article
> 44.cfm
> > but is it truly the oldest myth marker
> > or merely the first one we have found a photo of
> >
> http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS057.pdf
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
> > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
> > http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:09:16 -0800
> From: "Dave Patton [DCP]" <dpatton@...>
> Subject: Two suggestions for a better forum
>
> 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 st�tn�ch hranic Česk� republiky,
> >Slovensk�
> > > republiky a
> > > > Polsk� 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
> > > > > > > s�
> > > > > > > > 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 s�
> > > > > > > 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/
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: 28 Mar 2004 20:02:11 +0200
> From: Artur Kroc <kroc@...>
> Subject: New island surfaced in disputed border area with Ukraine
>
> http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=607858&PageNum=0
> http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=612078&PageNum=0
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:57:38 -0000
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> Subject: Re: Two suggestions for a better forum
>
> --- 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
> 6
> > > > , but what
> > > > > we need is the protocol, mentioned in this agreement,
> > >named
> > > > "Protokol
> > > > > o bodu styku st�tn�ch hranic Česk� republiky,
> > >Slovensk�
> > > > republiky a
> > > > > Polsk� 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
> > > > > > > > s�
> > > > > > > > > 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 s�
> > > > > > > > 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/
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:15:27 -0000
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
> Subject: Re: Two suggestions for a better forum
>
> ok & shortening up as much as possible now again
> since i agree this is really important
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> <orc@o...> wrote:
> > --- 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
>
> & imo this vitally important fact really should be restored to the
> otherwise completely improved boundarypoint boilerplate that
> appears atop the bp home page
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:19:09 -0000
> From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@...>
> Subject: Re: Czech stones of all kinds
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, udomet@g... wrote:
> > > 4th picture at
> http://jove.free.prohosting.com/nemec/luzicke.shtml is
> > > a tripoint stone, by the looks of it on CZDE. Near the Elbe river
> I
> > > think. Can anyone tell me what kind of tripoint it is?
> >
> >
> > Well, pic 3 were made from CZ-site the border crossing Hrensko,
> river is
> > the Elbe, over there the river
> > Elbe you can see the German village Sch�na
> (border
> > crossing railway Berlin-Dresden-
> > Prag-Wien, border crossing for ships and for
> hiking),
> >
> > other pics by nicolette.dk, Czech Republik, link
> Bahnhof
> > Sch�na an der Deutsch-
> > Tschechischen Grenze (railway station Sch�na)
> >
> > or http://www.lutz-hauptmann.de/cycling/elberadweg/index.php
> >
> >
> > pic 4 it`s an old TP (since 15. century between the
> german town
> > Zittau and 2 austrian (since 1918
> > CZ) towns. To 1932 the great natur stone was the
> border
> > stone. All data of the common
> > border (Saxony-Austrian) controls until 1848
> were made in
> > the natural stone with hammer
> > and chisel (1657, 1679, 1719 (2*), 1731, 1783).
> > 1932 CZ and D built the white granite border
> stone.
> > In all CZ-maps the name this borderstone is
> TROJHRAN
> > (CZ-nickname for Three border).
> >
> > Actual is Trojhran (white borderstone) the 1th
> border
> > stone of the border sector number
> > 4, border division CZ-D (head borderstone)
> >
> > Many pics and maps are
> >
> > http://www.luzicke-hory.cz/mist/06/troj_f01.jpg
>
> Thanks a lot. I have read the German explanation at
> http://www.luzicke-hory.cz/td06.html and can now pinpoint it on a
> map. It is indeed an old, but also a new tripoint. The old tripoint
> is between the cities of Zittau, Rumburk, and Z�kupy (German name
> Reichstadt). These last two cities are the Czech ones, the first one
> is German.
>
> Nowadays, it is a secundary tripoint CZDE2LIUSSN (Liberec - �st� nad
> Labem - Saxony). In the text on the website, the names of the Czech
> districts are mentioned, but these are tertiary entities. Luckily
> (for us), the districts involved are part of different regions.
>
> Peter S.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:31:23 +0000
> From: "m donner" <maxivan82@...>
> Subject: caus declared neglected & ibc tiny & overwhelmed
>
> http://www.boston.com/dailynews/088/region/Report_Tiny_agency_falling_beh:.shtml
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet
> access.
> https://broadband.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:54:02 -0000
> From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
> Subject: New Subject - Gwadur
>
> I found a recent philatelic reference to Gwadur - and it's having been
> purchased by Pakistan in 1958. THe reason it is of interest, is that
> it was one of three locations where India ran post offices in other
> countries - Dubai, Muskat and Gwadur. When Pakistan separated from
> India on 15 August 1947, it took over the three post offices. A few
> months later, on April 15, 1948, the office in Muskat and Dubai were
> taken over by the British; Gwadur's post office remained Pakistani.
> Ten years later, in 1958, Pakistan bought Gwadur. End of story.
>
> Question. Where is it, from whom was it purchased, and is it now an
> exclave of Pakistan?
>
> Regards
>
> Len Nadybal
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:22:21 -0600
> From: "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>
> Subject: Re: New Subject - Gwadur
>
> Gwadur is a port in southwestern Pakistan. It was a coastal enclave belonging
> to the Sultan of Muscat between 1797 and 1958, when it was offered for sale.
> The Sultan chose to sell it to Pakistan, despite better offers from the UK,
> Iran, and even the USSR!
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 5:54 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] New Subject - Gwadur
>
>
> > I found a recent philatelic reference to Gwadur - and it's having been
> > purchased by Pakistan in 1958. THe reason it is of interest, is that
> > it was one of three locations where India ran post offices in other
> > countries - Dubai, Muskat and Gwadur. When Pakistan separated from
> > India on 15 August 1947, it took over the three post offices. A few
> > months later, on April 15, 1948, the office in Muskat and Dubai were
> > taken over by the British; Gwadur's post office remained Pakistani.
> > Ten years later, in 1958, Pakistan bought Gwadur. End of story.
> >
> > Question. Where is it, from whom was it purchased, and is it now an
> > exclave of Pakistan?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Len Nadybal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:27:51 -0800
> From: Doug Murray <doug@...>
> Subject: CA-US Boundary Maintenance Problems
>
>
> Report: Tiny agency falling behind on border maintenance
>
> By David Sharp, Associated Press, 3/28/2004 12:30
>
> PORTLAND, Maine (AP) A tiny agency responsible for marking and
> maintaining the expansive border between the United States and Canada
> has fallen so far behind that it may never catch up without more money
> and resources.
>
> The International Boundary Commission warns that border markers are
> deteriorating and parts of the border are becoming overgrown by trees
> and brush to the point that the border's location could be lost in some
> areas.
>
> The five-year plan for turning things around involves something the
> Canadian and U.S. governments have failed to provide: more money.
>
> The agency, which is funded this year with $1.23 million from the U.S.
> government and a similar figure from the Canadians, will likely ask for
> its budget to be doubled, said Michael O'Sullivan, Canada's IBC
> commissioner.
>
> ''For a number of years we have formally recognized that we're losing
> the battle,'' O'Sullivan said from his office in Ottawa.
>
> The agency, consisting of two commissioners, six field engineers and a
> small support staff, is responsible for surveying and maintaining more
> than 8,000 monuments and reference points on the 5,525-mile border.
>
> Its workers also are responsible for slashing a 20-foot-wide path
> through woods. With no fence, the boundary has the appearance of a
> utility easement with markers dotting the ground down the middle.
>
> Created by treaty in 1925, the agency toiled in relative obscurity
> compared to the larger International Boundary and Water Commission,
> which is responsible for maintenance, flood control and other issues on
> the southern border. The IBWC's budget is more than $30 million.
>
> Then came the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that brought fresh attention
> to the northern border and underscored the importance of having a
> well-defined boundary for federal and state law enforcement officials.
>
> An overgrown border reduces the effectiveness of infrared detection,
> observation scopes, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and aircraft used
> for monitoring purposes, said Marvin Foust, assistant chief patrol
> agent for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in Spokane, Wash.
>
> ''There are some areas where the brush is getting thick,'' Foust said.
> ''It's more difficult to detect (border) intrusions if it grows too
> much.''
>
> Many U.S. residents are familiar with crossings in places like Detroit,
> Buffalo, N.Y., and Blaine, Wash. But much of the border away from those
> busy crossings consists of vast stretches of rugged wilderness that
> includes woodlands, mountains and prairie.
>
> Maine's 611 miles consist mostly of forests. New Hampshire has 58 miles
> of border, and Vermont has 90 miles.
>
> The commission completed a report this month that lays out what's
> necessary to get the border back into shape.
>
> A copy provided to The Associated Press chronicles a backlog of work
> that suggests both governments have fallen short of their treaty
> obligations of maintaining an ''effective'' boundary.
>
> In addition, the agency contends the original, 80-year-old maps created
> by the agency are in need of being updated.
>
> ''Each year that passes, we dig the hole a little deeper. It's not like
> getting up to snuff would take that much money,'' U.S. Commissioner
> Dennis L. Schornack said from Washington.
>
> In the past, the six teams were working on a 15-year cycle for clearing
> brush and trees and restoring markers.
>
> The goal, outlined in the report, is to clear the border and to
> complete all of the work within five years.
>
> The additional money, if it is allocated at all, would go toward hiring
> contract crews and replacing some of the outdated bulldozers and other
> equipment, much of it army surplus from the 1960s and 1970s.
>
> Schornack said the agency is roughly $1 million shy of what's need for
> a ''reasonable budget.''
>
> ''Sooner or later, we need to put some real money to work,'' said
> Schornack, who also serves as commissioner of the International Joint
> Commission, which handles water issues on the northern border.
>
> Any relief is at least a year away. The agency's U.S. budget will be
> reduced to $1.15 million in the next fiscal year, so any hopes for
> additional funding will have to wait for fiscal 2006, Schornack said.
>
> Kevin Haskew, a field engineer in Houlton, said the lack of resources
> makes his job frustrating at times. He has come to accept the
> situation, but he still looks in wonder at resources given to other
> agencies.
>
> ''You see these other agencies getting airplanes, new four-wheelers,
> and new snowmobiles. And we're losing money every year,'' he said.
>
> On the Net:
>
> http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:36:19 -0000
> From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@...>
> Subject: Re: first myth border monument found
>
> Strange - I thought Internet URLs were case INsensitive.
> The link to 2315 does not work for me.
> However when I capitalize the "b" and "p" in boundarypoint and make
> it BoundaryPoint, it does work fine. I tried these (alternating)
> several times and came out with the same result each time. Never
> seen this phenomenon before.
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> > in morning light it turns out this golok or myth river is aka kolok
> > & should be added to the short list of ambidirectional rivers in
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypoint/message/2315
> >
> > & it also turns out
> > coincidingly overnight
> > this previously peaceful kolok & myth were practically exploded
> > when some thai smoking pubs blew on the north bank
> >
> > but that will be in the world news this morning
> > so i spare you the link
> >
> > & will only try to make more light of it by wondering if we arent
> at
> > least partly responsible for everything that happens
> > & if we shouldnt therefore be quite careful as to what & how we
> > think
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m donner"
> > <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > http://www.malaysiagis.com/gis_in_malaysia/news/news_article
> > 44.cfm
> > > but is it truly the oldest myth marker
> > > or merely the first one we have found a photo of
> > >
> > http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS057.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > _______________
> > > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
> > > http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:53:18 -0600
> From: "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: first myth border monument found
>
> Internet URL's are case-insensitive through the end of the domain name. Beyond
> that, the folder and file names are case-sensitive if the site is hosted on a
> UNIX server, but not if on a Windows server.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:36 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: first myth border monument found
>
>
> Strange - I thought Internet URLs were case INsensitive.
> The link to 2315 does not work for me.
> However when I capitalize the "b" and "p" in boundarypoint and make
> it BoundaryPoint, it does work fine. I tried these (alt<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)