From: "ps1966nl" <
smaardijk@...>
>Subject: Re: one last itch to scratch re atchde
>
>acroorca2002 wrote:
>(...) since the condo option is effectively blocked by the stated
>preference of at least one of the other parties for the default
>principle of equidistance then there exists in fact a much stronger
>presumption of that default occurring here than might otherwise be
>expected
>
>Of course, but just as it is true that Austria sees its desire to
>make the lake a condominium blocked by an unwilling Switzerland and a
>less that clear (in this matter) Germany, it is Switzerland that is
>being blocked from partitioning the lake by the unwillingness of
>Austria to fix an atch border in the lake.
well equipartition is only a thought form anyway & it is either more or
less advanced in reality depending on whose mind we are talking about
but lacking agreement it would only make sense to keep to ones own half or
third of the lake especially if ones shore share were so minuscule as
austrias is & that is apparently the de facto reality here cum de facto
equitripoint
& i would love to learn what actually gives diplomatically re atchde for
without better intelligence i can only imagine germany in its apparently
longstanding unclarity may not actually have been blocking or unclear about
anything but methodically equilibrating or neutralizing the conceptual
opposition of the other 2 because for some reason not yet divined the er
constancy or er yikes stability of the state of suspense is somehow to
everyones advantage even if perhaps only to promote this notoriously boring
region
>And the tripoint is bound
>to be on that line. It may well be that Austria is fighting an up
>hill battle, but Switzerland isn't there yet either, and even
>boundaries that are formed by applying the simplest equidistant
>principle have to be agreed upon by the parties concerned, if only by
>not objecting to it. I think that Austria does object.
ahh this fighting & objecting are news to me
oh i know there have been little incidents but i was imagining only an
ongoing multiagreement to multidisagree in nondispute
>> as gideon apparently also saw & indicated by his fairly exactly
>equidistant placement of the putative tripoint
>>
>> & as many mapmakers have apparently also sensibly concluded in the
>absence of anything more definitive
>
>Yes, but many mapmakers very often suffer from a Pavlov-like reflex
>in drawing boundaries wherever it serves them to make a map more
>clear (or what they think is clear). By drawing boundaries in the
>water, they connect Bornholm to Denmark. They could even connect the
>Faeroer Islands to Denmark, if they wanted to.
right & these would all be horrendous mistakes in light of ready & better truth
>> since we are pretty sure there is no treaty i would rather say it
>looks like a clear case of a perfectly stalemated tripoint at present
>& in the absence of any further express preference from any party it
>looks unlikely ever to stray very far from where gideon has recorded
>or envisioned it in the following passage
>
>As for a "de facto" tripoint, I agree.
>
>But legally, I still think it takes, in this case, three to tango.
to be sure
m