thanxxx doc
this is just what i needed to hear
for of course it is better to read the author than the
book
especially as we are lucky enough to have you in the
present

but when you say the jalpaiguri report
was still secret
do you mean to indicate you believe it no longer is
secret
& thus that your presumption might now be confirmed
somehow
one way or the other

--- Brendan Whyte <bwhyte@...> wrote:

>
> >
> > but before i try again
> > just in case it is a fools errand for my purposes
> > maybe you would just say if this new map really
> does
> > help with the outstanding questions from
> >
>

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/19015

> > where you promised us this addition
> >
> > which are
> >
> > on the basis of what data or data gap do you
> > distinguish the confirmed quadripoint from the
> merely
> > presumed one
> >
>
> one is mentioned in Hartley's boundary commission
> report of Rangpur/Cooch Behar,
> included as an appendix 1-17 to the text. See PArt
> V, para 2. on p300 of my text.
>
> As the other report, of Jalpaiguri/Cooch Behar
> boundary was still 'secret', i am
> unable to confirm the other quadpoint NE of Patgram.
>
>
> > &
> >
> > if there is still this order of partial
> uncertainty
> > then how can you safely conclude there are in fact
> no
> > more than 2 quadripoints in all this complexity
> >
>
> Cartographic evidence and the descriptions in the
> appendix mentioned above for the
> Rangpur-Cooch Behar enclaves appear to preclude any
> further quadripoints.
>
>
>
> > or in other words
> > could you say a little more about exactly how
> closely
> > you were able to study all these borders
> > or what the limits of your cartographical purview
> > actually were
> >
>
> Read the book carefully and fully; it is all
> explained, and the evidences presented in
> the text and appendices.
>
>
> Brendan
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com