On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:

On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
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.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

In what way is the boundary of the territory inhabited by an ethnic group
not geographical?

tom

--
Ideas are bulletproof. -- V

On 23 July, 00:20, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
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.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

In what way is the boundary of the territory inhabited by an ethnic group
not geographical?

So Cheshire is now a territory? You just said it was an ethnic group.

If Cheshire ever was defined as the area occupied by an ethnic group,
its boundary is probably pretty much the whole world by now.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:

On 23 July, 00:20, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
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.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

In what way is the boundary of the territory inhabited by an ethnic group
not geographical?

So Cheshire is now a territory? You just said it was an ethnic group.

I've changed my mind.

If Cheshire ever was defined as the area occupied by an ethnic group,
its boundary is probably pretty much the whole world by now.

Alright, Cheshire is the area inhabited predominantly by the Cheshese.

tom

--
Technology is anything that wasn't around when you were born. -- Alan Kay