Subject: Re: OKTX<br/>
Date: Apr 17, 2003 @ 18:22<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="9716.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic9716.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="9718.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="9720.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-14023883">good to hear from you again saz<br/>
& a belated welcome<br/>
<br/>
i am not sure i see or follow all your reasoning here<br/>
but i do emphatically agree that a boundary line is a thought form<br/>
<br/>
& that in itself is an enormous contribution toward truth imo<br/>
<br/>
but because thought really exists<br/>
this thought boundary line is in fact a real existing one<br/>
<br/>
& that is where we seem to begin to diverge<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
but further <br/>
in reality <br/>
one persons real existing thought boundary line may be different <br/>
from someone elses & probably will be<br/>
<br/>
& also<br/>
it appears to be impossible to measure accurately & objectively <br/>
the distance of a thought form per se <br/>
unless that distance is specified in the thought itself<br/>
<br/>
like happily if you say your thought oktx is say 1000 miles long<br/>
well then voila & ipso facto it really is 1000 miles long<br/>
& it has thereby been accurately measured<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
but objective statutory oktx itself is a thought form too<br/>
defined as it happens not by distance but only by positions<br/>
some of them fixed but some actually variable & approximate<br/>
<br/>
& you apparently think you can just go find all the points & <br/>
measure the full distance between them that this peculiarly <br/>
defined statutory thought form objectively travels or <br/>
comprehends<br/>
from point to point to point to point etc<br/>
once & for all<br/>
<br/>
but it seems to me that the thought form you are really defining & <br/>
measuring in such a valiant try<br/>
even if you pull it off by pulling it apart <br/>
as you say<br/>
is still only your own subjective thought form<br/>
<br/>
the objective oktx still seems to me to be largely unknowable <br/>
geopositionally <br/>
& therefore fundamentally unmeasurable<br/>
<br/>
estimable perhaps <br/>
tho always more or less fudged by subjective fantasy<br/>
& ever slipping away into infinitude<br/>
but measurable not<br/>
<br/>
--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;SAZ&quot; &lt;saz@e...&gt; <br/>
wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; A boundaryline is always a thought line, never a real existing <br/>
 </span></blockquote>one. So if this line is running across land or water, this doesn&#39;t <br/>
matter. What matters is how long this thought line is. If it follows <br/>
e. g. the middle (center) line of a river, it&#39;s bend like the river flows <br/>
its way down. All this bendings prolong the boundary line. If, for <br/>
example, the river dries out or is led into another direction, the <br/>
boundary line still will exist according its original definition there <br/>
where the center line of the river was.<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
&gt; In case of the Red River boundary betwenn OK and TX there is <br/>
 </span></blockquote>a thought line with many bows and curves following the Red <br/>
River line. Thus, if &quot;pulled&quot; apart, it will be a longer line than the <br/>
CANV boundary that runs mostly in two straight lines.</div>