John B wrote in news:7e4d44a7-3974-43c8-883a-
:

doesn't define government or geographical boundaries.

The two are not identical.

On 19 Jul 2009 22:37:41 GMT, James Farrar
wrote:

John B wrote in news:7e4d44a7-3974-43c8-883a-
:

doesn't define government or geographical boundaries.

The two are not identical.

They can be.

(perhaps if you had left a bit more in....)

Charles Ellson wrote in
:

On 19 Jul 2009 22:37:41 GMT, James Farrar
wrote:

John B wrote in news:7e4d44a7-3974-43c8-883a-
:

doesn't define government or geographical boundaries.

The two are not identical.

They can be.

Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

James Farrar wrote:

Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

In message , at 11:13:14 on Tue, 21
Jul 2009, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sometimes difficult to draw on a map. Is it possible for "within the
sound of Bow Bells"?
--
Roland Perry

On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government
boundaries are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:07:14 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

I suspect it has something to do with the length of time the
administrative concept of counties has existed. Not only that, until
relatively recently the administrative concepts did not change
boundaries too often.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government
boundaries is not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense
"geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government
boundaries are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

Cheshire is a group of people, many of whom were born as Cheshire and grew
up as Cheshire long before a particular group of Here Today, Gone Tomorrow
politicians told them that they no longer had the right to be Cheshire. Oh,
and it's a cheese.

MIG wrote:

On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government
boundaries are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

Many counties were originally defined by reference to *topographical*
features, for example having rivers as boundaries. A statement on
whether something is geographical or not is probably a malapropism for
that. For example, the northern border of historical Cheshire is largely
defined by the River Mersey, whose name is derived from an OE word
meaning "border", signifying that it was formerly the border between
Mercia and Northumbria, before Cheshire was invented.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683819.html
(156 502 at Edinburgh Waverley, 4 Jun 1999)

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:

On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

tom

--
If you had a chance to do any experiment you pleased, unconstrained by
any considerations of humanity or decency, what would you choose?