Your proposal for using whatever is the datum (however elusive) of the
demarcated segments of EGLY for undemarcated LYSD and EGLYSD seems entirely
reasonable and justified if they are indeed all delimited in the same treaty.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <boundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:46 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] eglysd datum spec try apparently dies yet could revive
by technicality
> no sooner than i dove back into the treaty collection
> at turtle bay did i realize the game was up on the
> eglysd datum identifcation try as previously proposed
> by lowell
>
> for it was only then it finally dawned on me that the
> lysd agreement i would be looking for there was the
> very same 1934 eggbit i had just found & read there an
> hour before
> hahaha
> & so i already knew full well it contained no datum
> spec or demarcation provision for lysd
> &
> since there are no other known lysd agreements or even
> negotiations
> it follows that the dozen funky rocks that the
> mystified ibs number 10 says lysd
> a p p e a r s
> to be demarcated by could easily fall into the same
> strange mirage category as the 22x27 egsd sign & its
> perhaps 50 or more companions that likewise appear to
> demarcate egsd
>
> & so with 2 of the 3 convergents now appearing to be
> at best only apparently demarcated
> hahaha
> even if we got lucky finding the paperwork with the
> datum spec for the third convergent
> namely the very well demarcated & thus presumably
> datumized egly dating from the late 1920s
> & could extrapolate our way to eglysd from it
> we would still have no known participation by sudan in
> this datum
>
>
> so that was basically a complete show stopper
> qed & rip
> for a brief moment anyway
> until i was then also reminded that sudan was during
> that period an anglo egyptian condo
> aha & phew
> so the 1934 eggbit or now eglysd tripoint agreement
> does very much appear to complete the elusive
> requirement of trilaterality all by itself
> perhaps without our ever needing to find the datum of
> a second convergent demarcation
>
> now let me hastily insert i am not absolutely sure of
> this inference & of course would like to hear what you
> think of it as well as anything else in all this
> before proceeding
>
> but if the above reasoning is indeed valid then it
> means we might proceed to the eglysd datum on the
> strength of the egly datum alone in this uniquely
> special circumstance
> or rather
> that the eglysd datum is hereby confirmed as the egly
> datum even sight unseen
>
> & that all we need to do then is to find the egly
> datum
>
>
> but anyway upon that surmise or realization i
> immediately & excitedly plowed back into the united
> nations agreement index in order to try to do just
> this
> until i was stopped dead cold again by the apparent
> absence from it of any of the several italo egyptian
> agreements that occasioned these egly demarcations
> hahahahaha
>
>
> so at this point i dont really know where that leaves
> us if not in hopeless complexity & obscurity
> i mean above & beyond the apparent extreme research
> challenge still before us
> nor even if it will make any difference in our result
> if anyone can figure out how to find any of the likely
> very pertinent 1925 & 1926 & 1938 egly or rather egit
> agreements mentioned here
> http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS061.pdf
>
>
> any bright ideas while we are still waiting for
> mohamed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>