Good reply. Thanks for the discussion of your points.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:10 PM
Subject: everyones land was Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Cyprus - SBA Maritime
Boundaries
> thanx
> several good points
>
> land is indeed not the same as water
>
> but all territory
> be it land or water or variable on the surface
> is solid land at base
>
> in fact earlier discussions have entertained 3
> distinct modalities of everyones land
> namely
> everyones land proper &
> everyones water &
> everyones ice
>
> & i would add now on further reflection that because
> everyones ice occurs upon both everyones land &
> everyones water
> there are thus perhaps really only 2 fundamental
> modalities
> namely
> wet or liquid
> & dry or solid
>
> or else
> there may be as many as 4 or more modalities
> namely
> wet
> dry
> wet icy
> dry icy
> & variously variable
>
> any or all of which however can for convenience be
> subsumed under the single rubric & indeed the single
> nationhood of
> everyones land
>
> & we have been designating all of it in just this way
> for some time
> i think because there is probably no better or truer
> name available for it when considered all together
>
> & it includes de jure not only all of antarctica but
> all land & seas south of 60 degrees south latitude
> since 1959
> as well as all high seas everywhere
> since i think 1973 or 1981
> but probably numerous other specks of unclaimed dry
> land & rocks north of 60slat
> & perhaps various other legally uncertain &
> traditional no mans lands on continents other than
> antarctica as well
>
>
> & indeed there is nothing at all wrong & everything
> right with the term high seas
> so long as one realizes that these are in every case
> situated within & or on top of our beloved greater
> everyones land
> & that their true nationality & sovereignty is always
> everyonese
>
> admittedly this is perhaps more credit than they are
> usually given by law
>
> the united nations for example consider the high seas
> to be a human heritage area under united nations
> trusteeship
> per unlos
> while they confer some of our sovereign rights away to
> adjacent states for up to 197nm & even beyond where
> continental shelves protrude beyond standard eezs
>
> but they are only the united nations
>
> of which everyones land is after all not a member
>
> the everyonese view is that there is more than just
> the united nations
> & that in fact everything & not just everyones land
> belongs to everyone & not just to the countries of the
> world
> because the world is in fact equally free for all
>
> --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
>
>> While I understand the concept of your "everyones
>> land," I think it
>> inappropriate to apply the term "land" to what is
>> not land, but rather sea. The
>> largest true Everyone's LAND would be part (or all)
>> of Antarctica (depending on
>> who you choose to believe)--and about a quarter of
>> Antarctica is doubtfully
>> land, really just a solid sea, the ice-earth
>> interface being well below sea
>> level. (Somehow, an iceberg sitting on the sea
>> bottom never quite qualified as
>> land in my view.)
>>
>> So, what is wrong with the age-old and widely
>> accepted term "high seas"?
>>
>> Lowell G. McManus
>> Leesville, Louisiana, USA