That was about the nicest way I've ever seen anyone tell someone else
to do their own "looking up". That is not meant sarcastically or to
be criticism.
We could go on for years if questions about more esoteric places were
asked - Antigua & Barbuda, for example, with it's outlier dependency
of Redonda. Or the external dependencies of the Falkland Islands.
LN
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "fabio" <fabiov@f...> wrote:
> > Thanks everyody for the detailed and useful information on U.S.
External
> > Territories.
>
> you are welcome fabio
>
> most of our apparent erudition comes rather cheaply tho
> since many standard reference sources answer all such questions
> in the conventional or jurisdictional sense anyway
> for any country you may ask
>
> the cia world factbook is good for starters
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook
>
> & equipped with such power
> you see how many unasked questions people are eager to also answer
>
> > It would be nice to discover if and which are the DISPUTED islands
between
> > U.S. and the other Countries.
>
> as mentioned
> machias seal island
>
> & a nearby companion rock
>
> plus navassa & wake
>
> > The same analysys could be done on British External Territories.
> > BTW there is a nice website on this topic:
> > http://www.eurolegal.org/botresources.shtml
> >
> > And what about the French External territories? there is a
complete list?
>
> of course
> but why not factbook or google it & enjoy the feeling of instant
erudition for yourself
>
> all such answers are easy enough to find
>
> a more challenging & original search
> as distinct from ordinary old hat research
> might begin from such conventional data
> & then proceed to seek out all the separate territorial areas that
obtain from it
>
> this has been done here well enough at the eez level for the entire
world
> but never completely at the sovereign territorial level
> which is of course more difficult because the territorial areas
involved are smaller
>
> so happily we still have somewhere new to go here
> that involves discriminating precision pursuit
> as distinct from just looking things up
>
> > Bye fabio V.