Subject: Re: U.S. External Territories list<br/>
Date: Apr 12, 2005 @ 05:11<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="17326.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="17331.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic17292.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="17329.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="17331.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-959486948">true enough <br/>
but it was also a matter of giving the whole answer <br/>
to the question actually asked<br/>
as it always is here at bp<br/>
but especially was in this case<br/>
which <br/>
if you will refer again to the original message 17292 <br/>
you will recall went as follows<br/>
<br/>
i would like to know which are <br/>
a l l <br/>
the external territories of usa<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
the word<br/>
a l l<br/>
was even shouted in the original<br/>
evidently just to emphasize that anything less than all would not really satisfy the desire<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
the jurisdictional alone without regard to the topological would not have been all<br/>
<br/>
& the topological alone without regard to the jurisdictional would not have been all either<br/>
<br/>
indeed pr major plus vi major <br/>
tho in 2 jurisdictions <br/>
add up to only 1 unit of topological territory<br/>
<br/>
& only if you count their out islands<br/>
do those 2 jurisdictions really add up <br/>
albeit <br/>
in that case <br/>
to no fewer than 3 topological territories <br/>
<br/>
etc<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& <br/>
i would also add at this point that the term <br/>
geographical territories <br/>
would be confusing to meaningless in this connection<br/>
<br/>
just as would a distinction between external & internal territories<br/>
<br/>
likewise between external territories & a single internal territory <br/>
of er somewhat less than 48 states plus 3 federal jurisdictions<br/>
<br/>
& snippets would be a misnomer since nothing has been snipped<br/>
<br/>
even fragments would be an untruth since nothing has been broken<br/>
tho that term has been commonly used here at bp<br/>
<br/>
& to just speak of 52 exclaves would also be misguided<br/>
since what would they be exclaves of<br/>
<br/>
well perhaps 51 exclaves then<br/>
<br/>
but even to speak of 51 exclaves of a single homeland would be pushing it<br/>
since arent hawaii & the dry tortugas parts of the homeland too<br/>
<br/>
& 51 exclaves plus a single mainland wont make it either <br/>
since alaska too is partly on the mainland<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
but 51 exclaves <br/>
of <br/>
or plus <br/>
a single center or main piece perhaps<br/>
or metropole <br/>
or heartland <br/>
or big unit <br/>
might do<br/>
tho that is still only a hopefully complete & hopefully accurate count & description<br/>
& not yet a complete list <br/>
<br/>
for making it would be work <br/>
& no longer play<br/>
<br/>
--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@m...&gt; <br/>
wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; I agree as to the two elucidations.  It was a matter of whether &quot;external&quot; meant <br/>
&gt; jurisdictionally or geographically.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Lowell G. McManus<br/>
&gt; Leesville, Louisiana, USA<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
&gt; From: &quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@y...&gt;<br/>
&gt; To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
&gt; Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:11 PM<br/>
&gt; Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: U.S. External Territories list<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporated-territory">http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporated-territory</a><br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; also i believe if you go back & read carefully you will see there was never <br/>
&gt; &gt; any dispute<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; neither about what you say there was a dispute about<br/>
&gt; &gt; nor even about anything at all<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; &gt; but only 2 different elucidations of what the term external territories might <br/>
&gt; &gt; mean </span></blockquote></div>