hahahahaha
well as i say
i think it would be more doable to match all the beacons to the
alignments & just see whats left over
than to actually find any good maps
i am content with the global bottom line at a perfectly glib couple
dozen tho
& with the olympic medals for
bjng gold
mxus silver
dzly bronze
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> Wait rereading I think I see what you're saying. Ok
> well we would need to get some good maps for this, but
> it is certainly doable.
>
> --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>
> > oh ok
> > i didnt realize you actually understood it all
> >
> > can you diagram the 3 non border arcs for me then
> >
> > maybe that will show me why they are necessary
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael
> > Kaufman
> > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > what mystery? the text is clear and not
> > complicated.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > thanx
> > > > this goes a long way toward solving the mystery
> > i
> > > > think
> > > > for at least it clearly states the greater part
> > of
> > > > it
> > > >
> > > > why are radial distances used at all here to
> > > > pinpoint the
> > > > locations of the border turns
> > > > if not for use in actual border circumference
> > arcs
> > > > in places where simple linear distances would
> > > > suffice to
> > > > pinpoint them
> > > >
> > > > why this apparently needless complication &
> > > > confusion of terms
> > > >
> > > > & if there is no method to be found for such a
> > > > madness
> > > > then we are right to continue to suspect
> > confusion
> > > > in the text
> > > >
> > > > & i realize this particular mystery does not
> > apply
> > > > equally to all 3
> > > > mentions of the supposedly gratuitous
> > circumferences
> > > > but perhaps only to 1 or 2 of them
> > > > yikes
> > > > so it looks like there could well be a fork in
> > the
> > > > mystery too
> > > >
> > > > delicious enough to warrant a revisitation &
> > > > recitation of browlie
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael
> > > > Kaufman
> > > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > I think it's just a matter of practicality.
> > The
> > > > > circles are used only in regards to specific
> > > > tangent
> > > > > lines. It is easier to do this since the
> > circles
> > > > are
> > > > > centered in the "centers" of villages. It is
> > > > easier
> > > > > to talk about that than to try and describe a
> > > > point in
> > > > > the middle of nowhere that may be where the
> > > > tangent
> > > > > line touches the radius and a turnpoint may
> > be.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > & all as previously noticed & noted
> > > > > > but still no clear explanation of why the
> > arcs
> > > > or
> > > > > > circumferences
> > > > > > which the border doesnt follow are even
> > > > mentioned in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > alignments at all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > why such gratuitous geometrical figurations
> > for
> > > > > > reference only
> > > > > > when it would have been far easier to make
> > > > reference
> > > > > > to some
> > > > > > physical object &or straight line distance
> > > > > > as they do everywhere else
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & we have just been calling arcs what they
> > call
> > > > > > circumferences
> > > > > > so there are not really 2 different things
> > > > needing
> > > > > > distinction here
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so unless i have misunderstood
> > > > > > you are simply restating the enigmatic texts
> > > > > > but not really resolving their mysteries
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > not that they absolutely need to be resolved
> > tho
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the writers could have been just as confused
> > as
> > > > they
> > > > > > seem to us
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & perhaps the only way to fully resolve the
> > > > > > confusion would be to
> > > > > > match all the marker positions with all the
> > > > > > alignments
> > > > > > & then see if we have anything left over
> > > > > > hahahahaha
> > > > > > but i am not suggesting we drive ourselves
> > so
> > > > crazy
> > > > > > as that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > Michael
> > > > > > Kaufman
> > > > > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > 36. No since the border only runs on a
> > tangent
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > circumference and then again a straight
> > line
> > > > in
> > > > > > 37.
> > > > > > > It never runs along the circumference and
> > > > there is
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > arc. The Grand Bete circle is used for
> > > > reference
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > specify the turnpoint, and the border does
> > not
> > > > run
> > > > > > > along this circle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 49. It just runs along the line that is
> > > > tangent to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Lusi 3.5 km circle, but again does not
> > ride an
> > > > arc
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the circle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 54. Just following the tangent from one
> > circle
> > > > to
> > > > > > > another. AKA straight line segment
> > between
> > > > two
> > > > > > arcs
> > > > > > > (53 and 55).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 58. Just follows tangent from Kankali
> > circle
> > > > to
> > > > > > > Gusin-Sura circle without riding an arc of
> > > > > > Gusin-Sura.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 59. It follows the tangent from Gusin-Sura
> > > > circle
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > Daku circle from point of intersection
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > tangent in 58 to the circumference of the
> > Daku
> > > > > > circle
> > > > > > > (an arc of which it rides in 60).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The 5 paragraphs are describing straight
> > line
> > > > > > > segments. The three extra circles only
> > serve
> > > > as
> > > > > > > references from which to draw straight
> > lines.
> > > > So
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > are still at 10 arcs: Under Alignment
> > section
> > > > -
> > > > > > 26,
> > > > > > > 33, 35, 42, 44, 47, 53, 55, 57, 60.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > as mentioned
> > > > > > > > i couldnt be sure
> > > > > > > > & on closer examination i still cant
> > > > > > > > because the text occasionally varies its
> > > > > > formulaic
> > > > > > > > description of
> > > > > > > > the arcs from one example to the next
> > > > > > > > & evidently incorporates several
> > geometric
> > > > > > > > conundrums as well
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > what i can see is
> > > > > > > > there are in all 13 different arcs
> > mentioned
> > > >
> > > > > > > > in a total of 15 different numbered
> > > > paragraphs
> > > > > > > > including your mentioned 10 paragraphs
> > plus
> > > > 36
> > > > > > 49 54
> > > > > > > > 58 & 59
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > which may or may not add to your count
> > of 10
> > > > > > border
> > > > > > > > arcs
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > i agree there could be as few as 10 arcs
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > bjng border
> > > > > > > > actually follows
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but in any case
> > > > > > > > i dont see why they would even have been
> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > > if the
> > > > > > > > border isnt supposed to follow them
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > can you perhaps positively dispose of
> > any or
> > > > all
> > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > odd men out
> > > > > > > > from the mentioned 13
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > just to keep track
> > > > > > > > we have in sequence the following 13
> > > > villages as
> > > > > > > > centers
> > > > > > > > with radii in km
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > okuta 8 & a half
> > > > > > > > guri 4
> > > > > > > > yashikira 8
> > > > > > > > grand bete 4
> > > > > > > > kenumbe 4
> > > > > > > > besi 8
> > > > > > > > gauzhi 3 & a half
> > > > > > > > lusi 3 & a half
> > > > > > > > naganzi 4
> > > > > > > > kade 4
> > > > > > > > kankali 5
> > > > > > > > gusin sura 4
> > > > > > > > daku 5
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > & about your map
> > > > > > > > i dont know what the mapmaker was doing
> > or
> > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > perhaps a temporary question or
> > situation
> > > > during
> > > > > > > > wwii
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > i think modern dztn is the dash & dot
> > line
> > > > > > > > not the black dash dash line
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > & of course the other convergents
> > > > > > > > lytn & dzly
> > > > > > > > are shown by the crosses
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > & i cant account for any of the other
> > lines
> > > > > > > > but assume they are irrelevant to
> > finding
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > tripoint
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the only presently outstanding question
> > i am
> > > > > > aware
> > > > > > > > of in this
> > > > > > > > vicinity is probably too small to be
> > shown
> > > > on
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > map
> > > > > > > > namely whether dztn meets the arc at its
> > > > > > northeast
> > > > > > > > terminal
> > > > > > > > or subdivides the arc 2km
> > counterclockwise
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://home.worldonline.dk/jesniel/border/african_tripoints.htm#d
> > > > > > > > zlytn
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so as i understand it
> > > > > > > > only 2 possible tripoint positions are
> > on
> > > > this
> > > > > > arc
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > Michael
> > > > > > > > Kaufman
> > > > > > > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > BJNG - Ok by my count I get 10:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Under Alignment section - 26, 33, 35,
> > 42,
> > > > 44,
> > > > > > 47,
> > > > > > > > 53,
> > > > > > > > > 55, 57, 60
> > > > > > > > > Which are the other one or two?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also: On
> > > > > > http://www.manntaylor.com/FtSaintM.jpg -
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > solid green arrow almost points right
> > to
> > > > > > DZLYTN.
> > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > boundary is the hollow green arrow
> > > > pointing
> > > > > > to?
> > > > > > > > > Currently this must be all in DZ. And
> > the
> > > > > > line
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > the south - what is this? It would
> > divide
> > > > > > > > territory
> > > > > > > > > which is currently all in Libya. How
> > many
> > > > TPs
> > > > > > > > > (including ghost points) can be on
> > this
> > > > one
> > > > > > arc?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > please look for several insertions
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > > > > Kaufman
> > > > > > > > > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. DZLYTN
> > > > > > > > http://www.manntaylor.com/FtSaintM.jpg
> > > > > > > > > > > (this could be DZLY and LYTN or
> > just
> > > > DZLY
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > per
> > > > > > > > > > msg.
> > > > > > > > > > > 13465)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > correct & we still dont know which
> > is
> > > > true
> > > > > > > > > > so you are right to keep counting it
> > or
> > > > them
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > either 1 or 2
> > > > > > > > > > borders
> > > > > > > > > > but this is apparently only a single
> > > > sweep
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > arc in
> > > > > > > > > > any case
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. DZLY
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs1
> > > > > > > > > > b.php
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. LYNE
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs2.
> > > > > > > > > > php
> > > > > > > > > > > 4.-15. BJNG (12 of these?)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > i still cant be sure
> > > > > > > > > > but the following text seems to
> > indicate
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > 11
> > > > > > > > > > or 12
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS091.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > 16. NENG
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS093.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > (but not evident)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > it is evident in the above text
> > > > > > > > > > but i think we just havent yet found
> > a
> > > > good
> > > > > > > > enough
> > > > > > > > > > map
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 17.-??? MXUS (msg. 13937; how
> > many
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > there?)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > > > > but i believe only 1 has been
> > reported
> > > > so
> > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > & suspect the 1970 mxus treaty will
> > > > reveal
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > if there are any others
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > SO,
> > > > > > > > > > > We can't put a firm number on it.
> > > > Depends
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > > variables:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Where DZLYTN falls. If there
> > is a
> > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > LYTN
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > have 18 not 17.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Also, do we know 12 for BJNG?
> > So
> > > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > or less if not exactly 12.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. And how many more arcs for MXUS
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > channelized
> > > > > > > > > > > Rio Grande?
> > > > > > > > > > > I am not yet counting ITVA since I
> > > > think
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > be talking about features (not
> > > > figures)
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > be perfectly geometrically true
> > arcs.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > > > & other reasons not to count any of
> > the
> > > > itva
> > > > > > > > curves
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > that they are elliptical rather than
> > > > > > circular
> > > > > > > > > > & that their total number is so
> > highly
> > > > > > debatable
> > > > > > > > > > amounting to either 1 or 3 or 5 or
> > even
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > depending on point of view
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > what a mess
> > > > > > > > > > & good idea to sidestep it
> > > > > > > > > > on any grounds
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > we have
> > > > > > > > > > by this exact count
> > > > > > > > > > at least 16 international border
> > arcs
> > > > > > > > > > but still perhaps as many as 18
> > > > > > > > > > or more
> > > > > > > > > > if more are found
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > & they are evidently situated on 6
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > borders
> > > > > > > > > > & 1 tripoint
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanx
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > of course some wag will now come
> > along
> > > > to
> > > > > > remind
> > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > that all
> > > > > > > > > > small & great circle arc borders
> > > > > > > > > > including every single segment
> > between
> > > > > > > > intervisible
> > > > > > > > > > markers
> > > > > > > > > > are technically border arcs too
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so we should add an extra zillion or
> > 2
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > end insertions
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > arif
> > > > > > > > > > > > i too believed in this arc
> > report
> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > easternmost
> > > > > > > > > > > > gmsn
> > > > > > > > > > > > & may even have been responsible
> > for
> > > > > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > rumor about it
> > > > > > > > > > > > but i have been unable to
> > > > substantiate
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > this border is set at a fixed
> > > > distance
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > river on both sides
> > > > > > > > > > > > presumably from both its banks
> > > > rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > thalweg
> > > > > > > > > > > > just like the manh state line is
> > > > offset
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > merrimack
> > > > > > > > > > > > except doubly so
> > > > > > > > > > > > as you probably also realized
> > > > > > > > > > > > & can see here
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/gambia_pol88.jpg
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > however
> > > > > > > > > > > > as beguilingly arclike as all
> > this
> > > > may
> > > > > > seem
> > > > > > > > > > > > such a regime would not actually
> > > > > > presuppose
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > > > > > arcs at all
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > except
> > > > > > > > > > > > i would agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > conceivably a single one
> > centered at
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > headspring
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > however
> > > > > > > > > > > > the source of the gambia river
> > is
> > > > not in
> > > > > > > > gambia
> > > > > > > > > > > > but in senegal
> > > > > > > > > > > > as you can also see in the above
> > map
> > > > > > > > > > > > & therefore the simple offset
> > regime
> > > > > > couldnt
> > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > such a
> > > > > > > > > > > > simple terminal arc sector
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > only by varying the apparent
> > regime
> > > > &
> > > > > > > > reducing
> > > > > > > > > > it to
> > > > > > > > > > > > a single
> > > > > > > > > > > > offset center point in the
> > middle of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > river
> > > > > > > > > > > > could such a final true arc have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > produced
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > also the map doesnt show any
> > such
> > > > > > terminal
> > > > > > > > > > rounding
> > > > > > > > > > > > or bulge
> > > > > > > > > > > > as one would expect in such a
> > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > but quite the contrary
> > > > > > > > > > > > something more like a
> > foreshortening
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > truncation
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the basic regime
> > > > > > > > > > > > & indeed it makes the cutoff
> > point
> > > > look
> > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > arbitrary & artificial
> > > > > > > > > > > > & somehow distinctly at odds
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > regime
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > so at this point i think the
> > > > existence
> > > > > > of an
> > > > > > > > arc
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > gmsn hasnt
> > > > > > > > > > > > been & probably wont be
> > demonstrated
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > & was just a wishful thought &
> > > > > > misconception
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > first place
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > mind you
> > > > > > > > > > > > i dont actually know how the
> > gmsn
> > > > border
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > accomplish this
> > > > > > > > > > > > remarkable turnabout at its east
> > end
> > > > if
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > approximation of an arc or arcs
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > & i can still imagine how it
> > might
> > > > > > somehow
> > > > > > > > > > involve a
> > > > > > > > > > > > true arc or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > based at some known terminal
> > cross
> > > > > > section
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > river
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > but i dont believe there is any
> > text
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > specifies
> > > > > > > > > > > > to this effect
> > > > > > > > > > > > nor any map that suggests it
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > meanwhile
> > > > > > > > > > > > i have scoured the ghost frgb
> > lines
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > period
> > > > > > > > > > > > & have discovered nothing new
> > > > > > > > > > > > so our world class border arc
> > census
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > again
> > > > > > > > > > > > stalled
> > > > > > > > > > > > at a top count of about 20 now &
> > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > > forever
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> > > > BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > Arif
> > > > > > > > Samad
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > <fHoiberg@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure, but isn't there some
> > (at
> > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > arc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the border of Senegal and
> > Gambia.
> > > > As
> > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > as I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thought, the Easternmost point
> > is
> > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > > > east of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Center of the arc in that
> > border.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Arif
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > __________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail -
> > > > 100MB
> > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > storage!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > > > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail -
> > Send
> > > > 10MB
> > > > > > > > messages!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than
> > other
> > > > > > > > providers!
> > > > > > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB
> > > > messages!
> > > > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it
> > out!
> > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail