so the really staggering question here
is
does iqir ichor mean the shatt al arab is really the
blood of the gods
--- aletheiak <
aletheiak@...> wrote:
> in lowellspeak
> so far as i know
> only iqir could be said to accrete & avulse
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > Okay, I will confess that the rivers and
> boundary to not
> > themselves accrete and
> > > avulse. Rather, they move by processes of
> accretion and
> > events of avulsion. To
> > > say that the rivers and boundaries accrete and
> avulse is a
> > convenient but
> > > oversimplified shorthand, but I think we all
> know what is
> > meant.
> >
> > please
> > i didnt & still dont understand
> > which is why i raised the question of the meaning
> >
> > & i think what you say below indicates you still
> dont understand
> > either
> > steadfast as you may be
> > as i will try to also explain below
> >
> > > However, I do steadfastly defend what you call
> my "pet
> notion"
> > that MXUS,
> > > contrary to the general behavior of fluvial
> boundaries, does
> > move when the
> > > rivers move by events of avulsion. It does so
> because the
> > Treaty of 1970 says
> > > that it does.
> >
> > you say it does
> > but then you say it doesnt actually say so
> >
> > & you only rephrase & rationalize what it says
> > to make it mean what you want it to mean
> >
> > you do not actually find it saying what you say it
> says
> >
> > moreover please continue below
> >
> > See http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/1970Treaty.pdf
> . This is
> not
> > > the only way in which this particular boundary
> behaves
> > uniquely because the
> > > treaty says so.
> > >
> > > The treaty does not use the words "accretion"and
> "avulsion,"
> > but rather
> > > describes the processes. Article III, paragraph
> A says "When
> > the Rio Grande or
> > > the Colorado River moves laterally eroding one
> of its banks
> > and depositing
> > > alluvium on the opposite bank, the international
> boundary
> shall
> > continue to
> > > follow the middle of the channel occupied by
> normal flow..."
> > (This is movement
> > > by accretion.) Paragraph B of the same article
> says, "When
> the
> > Rio Grande or
> > > the Colorado River, through movements other than
> those
> > described in paragraph A
> > > of this Article, separates from one Contracting
> State a tract of
> > land, which
> > > might be composed of or include islands..."
> (This, of course,
> > is by movement by
> > > avulsion.) It goes on to explain that the state
> losing land by
> > such events
> > > shall notify the other state through the IBWC
> "at the earliest
> > possible date"
> >
> > right
> > exactly
> > it is not the avulsion that changes the boundary
> > but the notification of intent
> > or the ultimate expiry of the time allowed
> >
> > that is why your saying that the border changes
> because it
> > avulses is not understandable
> > but even if it were understandable
> > it is still not a correct reading of the text you
> are citing
> >
> > > whether or not it intends to restore the river
> to an artificial
> > channel in the
> > > prior location at its own expense. If so, then
> the boundary is
> > frozen in the
> > > prior location for three years, renewable for
> one additional
> year.
> > If it
> > > notifies that it does not choose to channelize,
> or if it does not
> > channelize in
> > > time, then "the international boundary shall be
> fixed in
> > accordance with the
> > > provisions of Article II (A) of this Treaty..."
> > >
> > > So, it is entirely fair to say that the boundary
> moves as a
> > consequence of
> > > either natural accretion or natural avulsion
> >
> > yes as an eventual consequence
> > but not directly
> >
> > you are only imagining that the borders
> > as you used to say
> > avulse
> > but borders dont really avulse even in your dreams
> >
> > so the reason we cant understand this is that it
> just isnt so
> >
> > , subject only in the latter case to
> > > the right of rectification by artificial means.
> During every
> flood,
> > there must
> > > be numerous small changes by avulsion that do
> not justify
> the
> > expense of
> > > channelization.
> >
> > but each such avulsion still requires a
> notification of intent
> > whether positive or negative
> > before anything can happen to the border
> >
> > & i imagine
> > if an avulsion is too tiny for anyone to care
> enough about to file
> > the notification
> > then it is practically or really only an accretion
>
> >
> > > Article III, paragraph C provides that, if the
> rivers should
> > separate by
> > > avulsion a tract with an area more than 617.76
> acres (250
> > hectares) or with a
> > > population more than 100, then the boundary is
> frozen and a
> > rectification by
> > > artificial channelization shall be undertaken by
> the IBWC at
> > joint expense of
> > > the two states.
> >
> > again
> > but a fortiori this time
> > because this is both the model & big enough for
> special notice
> > the avulsion itself doesnt cause any change of
> boundary
> >
> > end inserts
> >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:23 AM
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail