thanxx to your several recent theories & other new info
i have substantially revised my own mnndsd guess
in fact much of my 1858 to 2002 chronology guess is now smithereens
tho its basic idea of benign neglect & sublime ignorance is unchanged
& i no longer agree with my former opinion that it isnt worth talking
about without proof
for that was a folly anyway
it is always worth talking if it feels good
m
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> truth
> good luck
> m
>
>
> >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss
> >discovered
> >Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:03:48 -0000
> >
> >Truce. I will try to get the proof.
> >BJB
> >
> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "bjbutlerus"
> > >
> > > >Sorry if I made you feel insecure.
> > >
> > > & silly of me not to understand why you think in these terms
> > > for i would rather be silly than sorry insecure etc
> > >
> > > & it is of course ones own thought that primarily makes one feel
> > > not anothers
> > >
> > > m
> > >
> > > & you are the accredited geologist here
> > > so i am listening to you closely about all that loam
> > > for i am only a punctologist
> > >
> > > but yes please do give me the proof
> > >
> > > >
> > > >The facts from BUS&SS that you mention are the very ones I am
using in
> > > >my hypothesis. We have a difference of opinion as to whether
the Bois
> > > >de Sioux could produce a meander of approximately 450 feet
over the
> > > >course of 110 years (or less, depending when the river was
> > > >channelized). The soil in that area is loamy and not
particularly
> > > >resistant, so I think a meander of that size would be quite
possible.
> > > >Further evidence is provided by the other meanders north and
south of
> > > >the one in question. The pattern is unmistakably that of a
meandering
> > > >river.
> > > >
> > > >But are right about needing further information to reach a
conclusion.
> > > > I am trying to get some details about where the river flowed
just
> > > >prior to being straightened.
> > > >
> > > >BJB
> > > >
> > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > > > brian
> > > > > i know you have offered this opinion before
> > > > > nor did i disagree out loud a second time by offering these
new
> >sources
> > > > > because you already heard me once
> > > > > so this time i will only note 2 facts from bus&ss p4f
> > > > >
> > > > > 1
> > > > > when bed & channel are changed by the natural & gradual
processes
> > > >known as
> > > > > erosion & accretion the boundary follows the varying course
of the
> > > >stream
> > > > >
> > > > > 2
> > > > > if the stream from any cause natural or artificial suddenly
leaves
> > > >its old
> > > > > bed & forms a new one
> > > > > by the process known as avulsion
> > > > > the resulting change of channel works no change of boundary
> > > > > which remains in the middle of the old channel tho no water
may be
> > > >flowing
> > > > > in it
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > now i believe a stream of this small size couldnt possibly
have
> > > >accreted
> > > > > anywhere near so much as you believe it has
> > > > > namely several times its own width
> > > > > even in these 11 decades
> > > > >
> > > > > if streams could routinely sneak around that way they
wouldnt make
> > > >very good
> > > > > boundaries
> > > > > & accretion would be a terrible problem
> > > > > which it generally isnt
> > > > >
> > > > > yet somehow usgs has gotten the idea that mnndsd has moved
> > > > > & this cant be entirely ignored or poopooed until we know
for sure
> > > >why they
> > > > > think this
> > > > > but in the meantime i think they probably mistook an
avulsion or
> > > >work of man
> > > > > for an accretion
> > > > >
> > > > > remember
> > > > > except for only the very minor inching of accretions
> > > > > only a supreme court decision or act of congress could
actually make
> > > >the
> > > > > tripoint move
> > > > >
> > > > > so i continue to think mnndsd will be found basically
unmoved
> > > > > & moreover since the witness rock pinpoints it
> > > > > this tripoint might be uniquely empowered to withstand even
> >accretion
> > > > > & thus remain absolutly unmoved even despite accretion
> > > > >
> > > > > in any case it will be interesting to see how far the 9
chains fall
> > > >from the
> > > > > thalweg today
> > > > > & then we can see what there is to argue about
> > > > > probably very little
> > > > > because tho i myself reached & identified this usgs mnndsd
position
> > > >first i
> > > > > still just cant see it as even being worth talking about
> > > > > unless substantiated by something real
> > > > >
> > > > > m
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement
to bus&ss
> > > > > >discovered
> > > > > >Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:31:31 -0000
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Except, of course, for the unratified means of erosiion and
> > > > > >accretion. I still like the hypothesis that MNNDSD moved
gradually
> > > > > >from the point 9 chains east of the nearby witness
monument to the
> > > > > >position shown on the topo map (or thereabouts) and was
then frozen
> > > > > >at that position by the man-made avulsion of straightening
and
> > > > > >leveeing the river. A possible discrepancy would occur if
the topo
> > > > > >map was not made at the time the river was rechanneled (a
likely
> > > > > >discrepancy). We really need to see the maps that were
used during
> > > > > >the construction project. Also, this hypothesis leads to
an
> >infinite
> > > > > >number of paleoMNNDSD points along the 9-chain line
segment east of
> > > > > >the witness monument.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >BJB
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > if you are searching for a particular topic such as
mnndsd for
> > > > > >example then
> > > > > > > you can simply scan the list & see that the court at
least has
> > > > > >never ruled
> > > > > > > on any of the 3 interstate boundaries that terminate
there at
> > > > > >mnndsd
> > > > > > > & thus can conclude that if any change has occurred in
the
> >mnndsd
> > > > > >position
> > > > > > > since its creation it would have had to have been
approved
> >by the
> > > > > >only other
> > > > > > > possible means of ratification
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > > > > http://www.hotmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
http://mobile.msn.com