wonderful
tho how can i be wrong just to doubt this
based on the evidence presented til now
which i believe has consisted entirely of busted rumors
& of course i would love to see any real examples
in pix &or treaties
or however else you might bring them to bear
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Karolis B."
<kbajoraz@y...> wrote:
>
> > but other than that single hope
> > i rather doubt vertical borders or any kind of vertical
> differentiation
> > of sovereignty can be pointed to as a present reality
anywhere in
> > the world today
>
> Here you are wrong Mike. Tho I give 0 credibility to that
apartment
> building story and Len's case involves administration, not
> sovereignty, all Lithuanian border teaties establish that the
border
> in water constructions (such as bridges, dams, lake drains
and stuff)
> do not follow the border there vertically present, but instead go
> trough the physical axis (middle) of such constructions. So for
> example (and there must be a whole bunch of these cases)
there's a
> river, somwhere around the middle is the border line. We can
extend
> the border line to ground depths and air and it makes the
> border "wall". However there is a bridge suspended in the air
and the
> middle of the bridge doesn't match exactly the borderline
below, thus
> causing an iterruption of the border wall. A piece of Lithuanian
> bridge slammed two meters trough the Russian wall and stuff
like
> that. Sadly, it is impossible to be in this disturbed border area
as
> it is only INSIDE the bridge. Even if you would try to make a
hole in
> the bridge, the hole would then not be a part of the bridge but
> become air space and follow the normal border. Very weird,
yes, but
> this is not referred to in any terms of exceptional conditions or
> anything, the border treaties simply say that BORDER in water
> constructions is the axes of such.