Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strovilia, and two more defacto tripoints (visited)
Date: Jan 20, 2005 @ 18:53
Author: Jesper Nielsen ("Jesper Nielsen" <jesniel@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----From: aletheiakSent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 7:30 PMSubject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strovilia, and two more defacto tripoints (visited)
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper Nielsen" <jesniel@i...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> also jesper
> usually
> for dejure there is diplomatic recognition & explicit tripartite
agreement with ratifications etc
>
> but you know dejure is just a more refined development of defacto
anyway
>
> everything is defacto but only the most completed & refined
confections deserve the name of dejure
>
>
> also i am curious
>
> how did you decide on these exact markers as the exact tripoints
>
> I have seen a map made by UNFICYP
>
> Jesper
well ok but you say in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.discuss.boundary-point/5953
that the turks only reached the north side of the road
yet you show marker 237 on the south side of the road
& you also indicate a turnpoint opposite it in red line
so dont you rather mean that this imaginary turnpoint is actually the
best available approximation of the eastern tripoint
rather than marker 237 per se
& that in any event both markers 233 & 237 are merely best available
approximations of what are actually rather more indefinite tripoints