Subject: Re: Gibraltar<br/>
Date: Jun 09, 2004 @ 17:20<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="14318.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="14343.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic14288.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="14322.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="14324.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1960288197">i agree with & appreciate your ongoing effort to parse as well as keep <br/>
everything straight for us<br/>
especially where our beloved diglyphs are concerned<br/>
<br/>
but i still cant help thinking gibraltar british<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
i am open minded tho<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
i realize canada neednt necessarily be campobellish<br/>
<br/>
nor spain penonish<br/>
<br/>
so why cant i get over gibraltar being british <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, Kevin Meynell &lt;knm@m...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt;Just reinforces the status of Gibraltar as the worst geopolitical pimple <br/>
&gt; &gt;on the face of the earth since Hong Kong and Macao became SARs of China.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; I have long been of the opinion that external territories/dependencies <br/>
&gt; should be identified by their specific ISO 3166-1 entry for <br/>
&gt; geopolitical/geophysical purposes. This does produce a few anomalies, but I <br/>
&gt; still think it&#39;s more accurate than claiming such territories are integral <br/>
&gt; parts of the parent country.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; There is arguably a case for producing separate codes for &#39;federated&#39; <br/>
&gt; states (e.g. Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, China) so one <br/>
&gt; can clearly distinguish between the parent state or the combined entity.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Regards,<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Kevin Meynell </span></blockquote></div>