hello & thanx anton
maybe i should say hello more often too
but i dont imagine us actually leaving & returning
i am glad to see you agreeing with my first guess
a cafr land boundary
in message 8263
rather than my second guess
a cafr coastal boundary
in message 8280
because lately i have been thinking that the truth may lie
somewhere even stranger
combining both of these guesses
& i have been wanting to backslide that far anyway
but you may wonder how could it be neither the one nor the other
but something of both
i think it could thanx to that odd remark you also picked up on
in message 8359
about the islands having been both considered & ignored in the
delimitation of this maritime boundary
i imagine they were considered in the sense that certain points
upon their perimeters were designated as turn points
& i imagine they were ignored in the sense that a maritime
boundary is then evidently allowed to perform the absurdity of
cutting straight across dry land
without distributing that land between the parties
but only the waters surrounding that land
so i think our great discovery here is that it is neither a land
boundary nor a coastal boundary but a metaboundary
& such a creation may be unique in the word
how exciting
or at least i have never seen such weird doubletalk about things
being both considered & ignored in any other boundary treaty
not to say there isnt any such
& please anyone sock it to me who can
but anyway
if something that looks like a land boundary in one light & like a
coastal boundary in another light
but isnt really either one
is hard to imagine
then just think of it as a wet&dry reversal of one of those old
allocational boundaries for divvying up islands
long before the days of eez boundaries etc
& which still appear on many maps of the pacific as various fairly
regular polygons
but which are actually meaningless as water boundaries
well here it is just the opposite
a dry line that is meaningless for divvying up dry land & that only
has meaning in relation to the surrounding maritime territory
very weird & possibly unique but thats my new guess
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "anton_zeilinger
<anton_zeilinger@h...>" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have now posted the map in the Photo section of BP. Hope
you can
> see it now!
>
> Apparently, two of the turning points (a.k.a. "virtual" border
> markers) of the maritime boundary are actually islands of our
famous
> Ile Verte group.
>
> I would say that a land border cafr is highly probable, since the
map
> and the treaty suggest that the direct line between the turning
> points would touch and probably even cross at least part of the
> shore/beach of these two tiny islets!
>
> AntonZ
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002
<orc@o...>"
> <orc@o...> wrote:
> > wish i could see this map
> >
> > can anyone describe or retransmit the pertinent area
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "anton_zeilinger
> > <anton_zeilinger@h...>" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > There is now a map and the 1974 agreement on cafr
available
> > on the
> > > webpage of the Florida State Law School:
> > >
> > > Map here:
> > >
> > >
> >
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/ls57
> > .php
> > >
> > > agreement here:
> > >
> > >
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/ls057.pdf
> > >
> > > One of the turning points is located at the low-water mark
on
> > the
> > > west point of the south-westernmost island of the Little
Green
> > Island
> > > group, "which is Canadian" (!). (see page 8)
> > >
> > > Another passage says: "Islands were both considered and
> > ignored as
> > > locational factors in the boundary delimination."
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > AntonZ