 |
 |
This post raises interesting questions. The inhabitants moved from Nigeria to Cameroun without consultation are also becoming a linguistic minority, For an overview of the perceived marginalization of the Anglophone Camerounian citizens of the former British Southern Cameroon, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cameroons. But I wonder about losing their nationality. Are these people really ipso facto deprived of Nigerian citizenship? If they have Nigerian passports (which of course most of them don't have, but still) are these cancelled? Is it lawful to deprive people of citizenship, whatever happens to the territory where they happen to live? Would a resident of a transferred area not have, at a minimum as a matter of law, continuing Nigerian citizenship, the right to change to Camerounian citizenship but only if s/he wants to, and the right to remain in what has become Cameroun even if s/he elected to remain a Nigerian citizen? Can you have your citizenship changed without your consent? Can a Nigerian become a deportable alien without moving from where s/he has always been? I would be interested to hear the views of listmembers on this admittedly narrow issue. David Phillips San Francisco -----Original Message----- From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:35 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: on self determination was Re: Is total Delimitation and Demarcation desireable? gbenga said here on 14 december about self determination Of course it is never funny when it comes too close to home and I would wish that Nigeria will never break up and defend it with "all my might" as the 'national pledge' (I recited every schoolday) goes and God forbid it but hey no one knows the future. and there is no shortage of candidates for this phenomenon. & in todays guardian this report & editorial opinion http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article01/indexn2_html? pdate=050109&ptitle=Ceding Taraba communities to Cameroun Ceding Taraba communities to Cameroun THE recent ceding of three communities in Taraba State to Cameroun is understandably generating concerns similar to the situation in August 2007 when the long-disputed Bakassi Peninsula was handed over to Cameroun by the Nigerian authorities. The dust raised by that event has not yet settled. The latest action, like the Bakassi episode, is raising questions about the welfare of the people and communities involved. According to one Alhaji Bashir Usman, a Taraba community elder, his people have been part and parcel of Nigeria for decades and should not be compelled to join a different country without dialogue or agreement. Not involving the people in the decision to hand them over to another country would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights as citizens of Nigeria. But citing a 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that was in favour of Cameroun, the Taraba State Boundary Commissioner, Philemon Saredau said the ceding "was in line with the 2002 World Court judgment...which gave the right to Cameroun to possess parts of the communities". And, in the same ruling, some communities on the Camerounian side of the border were ceded to Nigeria. While the ICJ ruling might appear to be balanced going by the apparent give and take arrangement, and the realignment of boundaries between Nigeria and Cameroun, it should be appreciated that on both sides, the feelings of human beings and communities with emotional attachment to ancestral roots in Nigeria and Cameroun are involved. We note that, while the affected Nigerian communities are reluctant to be transferred to Cameroun, the Camerounian communities are apparently happy to become part of Nigeria. What is on display is the people's right to choose where they want to belong. The Taraba State Commissioner in charge of Boundary issues has explained that, "government created the much-needed awareness campaign for residents of the affected communities". We hope that this is true. The three affected communities are Kan-Iyaka, Tamiya and Dorofi, all in Sardauna Local Government Council. The second phase of the ceding exercise would also see Nigeria losing parts of Takum and Kurmi councils to Cameroun. The World Court judgment that ceded Bakassi Peninsula also realigned the common boundary between Nigeria and Cameroun. That judgment was based on an earlier 20th century colonial agreement between Britain and Germany. Many have faulted the ruling as it failed to take cognisance of later developments during the colonial administration. In readjusting the boundary, some communities on either side may face the reality of being relocated from their ancestral lands and handed over to another country with the consequence of losing their ancestral heritage and changing their nationality. It is doubtful if this is the real intention of the World Court ruling. The discontent arising from the unexpected displacement of indigenous peoples could be avoided if the authorities of both countries made adequate arrangements for their citizens. In this regard, rather than forcing villagers to change nationality against their wish, Nigeria should plan for a relocation of the affected communities to new towns as was done during the construction of the Kainji Dam. Communities affected by the dam project were relocated to New Bussa. The same measure should be applied for boundary communities affected by border realignment instead of disowning them as it were. Nigeria has a duty to protect her citizens' interests especially when they are faced with circumstances beyond their control. The Taraba communities should not be subjected to any undue stress. The federal and state governments should join hands to relocate and cater for them accordingly. It is regrettable that indigenes of the Bakassi Peninsula who were displaced in the wake of the handing over of the area to Cameroun have not been properly settled. Government has been playing unnecessary politics with the welfare of the people. The measures taken so far have been inadequate. Government should expedite action in providing necessary infrastructure in New Bakassi, which is being established for the returnees, in Akwa Ibom State. In the case of the Taraba communities, government should act expeditiously. As border realignment appears to be a recurrent issue in view of our colonial heritage, government should have a blueprint for dealing with it whenever it arises. There should be a systematic way of handling associated problems in the interest of Nigerian citizens. The lesson in all of this is that in the future, Nigeria should make haste slowly in agreeing to cede Nigerian communities to its neighbours. Faced with such circumstances, government should explore diplomatic options or seek arbitration in a different way in order not to jeopardise the country's interests. these data appear to suggest global boundary justice & state government practice may very well be continuing to make new determinations for people even while disallowing people to make new determinations for themselves & that the supposedly unstoppable tide of self determination may in fact not yet have even turned happy new year all ak md the original context in full below Dear Friends Self determination is unstoppable in practice. Governments and majority groups try to slow it down but it progresses non the less steadily in all places. A common trick of undergraduate and graduate students in their international law essays in the late 80s was to beef up their presentation by attaching an Appendix consisting of the list of UN members copied from the UN Yearbook. I regret to announce that yours truly partook in this interesting yet futile strategy. One good thing came from the practice though . It allowed me to notice in real time the enlargement of the list of independent states. By 1989 I think the list was 145 or so by the end of 1991 it had shot up by over 25 states ant last check on the CIA world fact book it was 195 states. Thus we can theorise as much as we want. the trend is unrelenting and I support the trend. Of course it is never funny when it comes too close to home and I would wish that Nigeria will never breakup and defend it with "all my might" as the 'national pledge' (I recited every schoolday) goes and God forbid it but hey no one knows the future. and there is no shortage of candidates for this phenomenon. In the UK strains are occurring in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Even Wales is making a few noises. I understand at least from anecdotal sources that the American authorities still keep a close eye on the eleven Confederate Southern States that had declared their secession from the U.S. No one is safe. China? Basque of Spain? I do think the important thing is to prepare strategies that will prevent bloodshed because it is not beyond our capacities as the human race to think and solve problems. We should be looking at the route of the erstwhile Czechoslovakia and other such 'peaceful' examples. But I know that this view is not popular at all and asking academics particularly lawyers to look at things is this way is not only unfashionable but perhaps even unwanted. Perhaps our friend Aletheia may have a rhyme that fits the disappearance of the lawyer that preached the doctrine of more new states :-) Best Regards Gbenga ----- Original Message ----- From: [log in to unmask] Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:25 pm Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FW: aha very clever To: [log in to unmask] > This discussion has highlighted for me the moral difficulties of > takingany position beyond the equities of an individual > case. Naturally we > have to root for self-determination. But we also have to > root for not > starting civil wars, especially hopeless ones. Somaliland, > because of > the extremes of that situation, is too easy a case. Sri > Lanka is a > better exemplar of a hard case, especially as it is not a failed state > and has tried to be a civilized place. We have to be for > self-determination for the Tamil population, but we also have to be > against their waging a war against the majority opposed to > partitioningtheir country. So where does that leave > us? > > To "relax and let things happen" is tempting, since they will happen > anyway, but the things that then happen are often so horrifying > that (as > in Bosnia) we soon wish we had interfered. But when we > interfere (which > it is always very hard to get agreement to do until it is too > late) we > often make things worse, or at least stop things indefinitely from > getting any better. In a way it is almost fortunate that > we (most of > the members of this mailgroup) have no control over what > happens, almost > anywhere, even in our home countries. That at least > relieves us of > moral responsibility for the result when our recommendations are > ignored. Philosophers should be kings, of course -- they > could hardly > do worse than the actual kings. But until then we are free > to root both > for peace and for self-determination at the same time. If > we had the > power we as philosophers know we really deserve, then we would > have to > choose. And whatever we chose would be at least partially > wrong. > > David Phillips > San Francisco > > -----Original Message----- > From: International boundaries discussion list > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:22 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: FW: aha very clever > > > > several great observations & questions there > > i would say the right of secession is as inherent & universal as the > right of union > > & that doesnt mean people who assert these rights dont have to > be very > careful about it > > indeed we all have to be very careful & deliberate & adhoc about > everything political > > for there are all sorts of pitfalls landmines snags applecarts > resistances etc at every turn > > & yes > some fragmentation of states & perhaps of many states > is a most probable outcome > > but that is happening anyway > > & recombination of some fragments is a very probable secondary outcome > > in fact many secessions would likely be with a view to recombination > rather than isolation or atomization > > & the size of the seceding unit is naturally limited by many factors > anyway > > & all things being equal > the majority in each locality would tend to rule anyway > > so it is not as if gradually subordinating territorial integrity > to the > greater integrity of self determination really presents any new > practical challenges > > indeed it appears > self determination already tends to happen naturally in every way > everywhere except when disallowed > > & no surprise really to find it is the underlying way of the world > > so perhaps it is just a matter of relaxing & letting it happen > > --- On Sat, 12/13/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FW: aha very clever > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 7:27 PM > > > The UN was behind Somalia but not behind augmented Somalia. What > happened was that during the war the Italians conquered British > Somaliland briefly, but then the British took it back and conquered > Italian Somaliland. The British held the Italian part > until 1949 or so, > when it was returned to the Italians (!) under UN > trusteeship. When > that trusteeship terminated in 1960 and the country became > Somalia under > UN auspices, the British part, independent for a few days only, joined > Somalia after a referendum. So the marriage of the two > states was not > UN-sponsored. But as the whole thing took place within a > few days, > everyone (Italians, Brits, UN, local populations) must have > known what > was going to happen, and agreed to it. I think I have that > right. > But you put your finger on the real problem. People should > be allowed > to secede, but if everyone has the right to secede, then (1) > states are > atomized, and (2) secession is bound to be forcibly > resisted. How large > a local majority should you have to be in order to secede? > Could I > secede my house from the United States? How about my local > neighborhood? Or San Francisco (it has been suggested more > than once)? > How about all of California? We in the USA had a very > unpleasant war > about that question once upon a time. > > But when the state from which a local majority wishes to secede > is a > fiction, and secession is fait accompli, as in Somaliland, then > it seems > foolish and harmful of the international community to regard the > fictional state as real and the real state as fictional. > Still the > question presents complexities. Recognizing Somaliland > would harm no > one. But recognizing Kurdistan in the north of Iraq, > despite the > equities of doing so, could set off numerous local wars. > Examples could > be multiplied. This is why is seems best to approach these > issues on an > ad hoc basis, rather than erect a general principle that any local > majority can secede at will, attractive though that principle > seems in > the abstract. But it should be allowed perhaps more than > it is now. > > A shipping protectorate in Somalia is only necessary because of > anarchythere. A protectorate like that would be better > than what we have now. > If the Islamic Courts regime had been allowed to survive in Somalia, > pirates might not now infest the place and make the Suez Canal > close to > unusable. I find it really hard to understand why the > navies of the > world feel they cannot intervene forcefully and directly to suppress > piracy, as used to be done routinely back to the days of Pompey. > > David Phillips > People's Republic of San Francisco > > > -----Original Message----- > From: International boundaries discussion list > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:03 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: aha very clever > > > > well i didnt realize the united nations was behind the marriage of > somaliland to somalia > > could you perhaps be thinking of the unga arranged marriage of eritrea > to ethiopia instead > > not that that one was any better > nor much different really in its outcome > > but anyway > it shouldnt matter who mismatched or mismarried you > if all you want is a divorce or annulment > > & > it may already be too late now for any more international protectorate > over somalia > > indeed the 17year protectorate led by the usa & african union & > ethiopia > such as it was in all its fits & starts > appears to be pulling up stakes one last time as we speak > soon to be replaced again it seems by the local resurgence > which at least is bound to check the pirates by islamic law as before > > some fresh takes > http://news.antiwar.com/2008/12/12/floundering-somali-govt-nears- > collapse/ > http://www.nation.co.ke/News/africa/-/1066/501798/-/13t5j9kz/-/ > http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20081211_geopolitical_diary_s > ignificance_pirates > > & how ironic that the new level of protection would be just an onshore > shipping protectorate > or an international license to hunt pirates & or insurgents with > dronescommandos etc > > a sort of supersized gaza in which everyone who wishes may play > the part > of israel > > & i am not saying brute force is necessarily ineffective in > accomplishing its ends > tho it often is > but am only surmising that it might not actually redound to > anyones true > benefit even when it is effective > > for the question was about benefit rather than effectiveness > > & we know violence is destructive all right > but there is no evidence that it is ever directly creative > beyond producing the holes in which new growth & new flow might > subsequently emerge & proceed > > but it seems to me > unilateral secession by a local majority should be as > fundamental a > right & almost as easy an act as political union > everywhere > & no matter how that union came to be > > one should not have to demonstrate > by dint of force or reason > how exceptional & specially deserving one is > to simply maintain ones sovereign divinity & divine sovereignty > > the whole notion of sovereignty began with the assertion of the divine > right of kings > > but sovereignty really begins & ends with the divinity of all people > > it should be interesting to see the ibru evolution on all this > as the april fools sovereignty symposium approaches > > --- On Sat, 12/13/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: RE: aha very clever > To: [log in to unmask] > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 11:47 AM > > > You are right and maybe right again. > > It is hard to reply to you with normal paragraphing. > And indeed why try? > This is very liberating. > I may use it in all my correspondence. > > The Somaliland case is a particularly easy one > because Somalia itself was set up by the UN. > What the UN giveth, > the UN can take away. > Maybe. > > We need an international protectorate over Somalia. > That would be relatively easy to proclaim > in the Security Council > if no one vetoed it, > but hard to establish on the ground. > Proclaiming it would be enough, though, > for the UN as de jure protector > next to proclaim > Somaliland's divorce. > > Maybe when the pirates snatch a Russian ship > and a Chinese ship > this will take shape in the Security Council. > Or maybe it needs a General Assembly resolution. > Do I know these things? > What am I, a philosopher? > > That's the punch line to an old joke. > > Your verse form is not as easy as it looks. > My lines are too short. > But it feels great to write. > > Perhaps the powers are right, though, > to keep this remedy > for exceptional cases. > If things are allowed to flow as they will > there will be a lot of people who want things > to flow their way > and don't mind using > force > to get or keep them flowing. > > It has taken centuries to get Europe > out of that kind of jungle law, > and Yugoslavia shows how shallowly > it is buried. > East Timor too. > The Falklands too. > Kuwait too. > And on > and on. > > To allow that kind of thing > on a routine basis in Africa > would be really dangerous. > But it should be available > in special cases > like Somaliland > so people who are trying > to establish lawful regimes > in place of anarchy > can do so. > > Amen. > > > > -----Original > Message----- > From: > International boundaries discussion list > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos > Sent: Saturday, > December 13, 2008 8:25 AM > To: INT- > [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: aha very clever > > > great thanx david for so generous a review of such scribblings > > & your reservations & other comments are well taken too > > & indeed why not somaliland > i echo > > that doesnt seem to be a case of postcolonial successor & possessor > state uti possidetis at all > for it would have been & can still be a blessed event > to simply restore the territory & borders of independent postbritish > somaliland > > rather it seems only to be a case of ordinary hotel california uti > possidetis > the principle being if you are stuck in a collapsed state of any > description > under the socalled sovereign state system > you are stuck with your possession & or its possession of you > such that > you can check out any time you like > but you can never leave > until the dead state that possesses you can be resurrected > so the divorce can then be formalized under mutually acceptable & > properly civilized terms > or > until one or more of the major powers removes you forcibly by > war & or > hopefully only diplomacy from your otherwise sacrosanct union > > & that is the socalled sovereign state system & that is its > international law > i think > so that is perhaps the greatest part of why not somaliland > > & > to try to answer your other question also > it may be that the major powers are actually benefitted by this > semblance of stability > in terms of economics or security or whatever > but i believe that may be a grand illusion > & that in reality no one is ever actually benefitted by disallowing > anyone else > since things do seem to work best generally if allowed to flow > as they > will > > --- On Thu, 12/11/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:53 PM > > > Once again, Aletheia, you show yourself to be the most artistic > writer on this blog. It is always a pleasure to read your verse > commentaries (as I think of them). > > Unfortunately it is not an easy matter to discern > authoritatively the will of the people in a subdivision of a > larger unit > which claims to be a "nation-state," because the larger unit > will not > want to risk losing the vote, and all other states side with the > affected state on this, because making uti possidetis into an eternal > law lets them keep their maximum power, however minimal that > power turns > out to be in practice. That's why, for example, the > Kashmir issue was > not settled decades ago. > > It is especially heartening to see you supporting international > recognition of such earnest attempts at civilized conduct as we > see in > Somaliland. That the international order prefers, on > wholly fictitious > grounds, to tie Somaliland to a state in anarchy rather than > allow it to > succeed on its own (especially as its adherence to Somalia was > so recent > an event) is pretty outrageous. Who benefits by that, when > the only > "government" of Somalia is a few guys cowering in a dusty > village behind > the soon-to-be-withdrawn guns of the Ethiopian > intervenors? If the > world can support the reduction of Yugoslavia into separate > parts, and > most recently the independence of Kosovo, why not Somaliland? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: International boundaries discussion list > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:21 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: aha very clever > > > > yes thank you my friend > right wholesome full viable & brave > > uti possidetis > or somehow by dog latin uti possidetis juris > is not at all the revered pedigreed hoary & permanent principle of > international law it pretends to be > but is a bastard & an upstart > & in fact a totally inappropriate & slapdash application to modern > international law > of a > temporary restraining order > of all things > in ancient roman common property law > > uti possidetis ita possideatis in full > > as you possess so you may continue to possess > > but only in order to keep the peace > & only until a proper court of law can permanently decide the > true & > legal ownership of the disputed object > > & that express restriction upon personal ownership > & qualification upon personal ownership > has somehow gotten magically transmogrified > beginning around 1922 in latin america & 1963 in africa > into the supposed axiom behind the purported principle of sovereign > territorial integrity > of states > > yes it is that ridiculous > > i am not making this up > > see my favorite border bible prescott & triggs 2008 pp142ff & > 245f for > starters > if you doubt this reading of the facts at hand > > so i would say ok > if thats the way the powers that be have wanted it & continue to > want it > no problem at all > > but again > in strict keeping with this cockamamie citation of law such as > it is > i would not only demur but demand & insist > uti possidetis may again be asserted only to keep the peace > & only until true ownership of the lands in question can be > decided by > the proper authority in this case also > which is of course > the will of the people living on them > region by region > but also district by district if necessary > > yes existing boundaries on all levels should remain sacrosanct > but local secessions & recombinations should be a commonplace within > such a regime of international law > > it is all there already > written in stone & indeed in latin > with no need for anyone to become a revolutionary > > now where was that cat you didnt ask me to bell > > --- On Thu, 12/11/08, [log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > > > From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever > To: "Aletheia Kallos" <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 4:26 PM > > > Dear Aletheia, > Without asking you to bell the cat am I right to understand that > you stand for a wholesome discussion about existing boundaries > in Africa > altogether and for a full discussion about current geographic > descriptions as viable states or are you saying uti possidetis > is an > everlasting truth. Somehow I suspect the earlier for which if I > am right > you are a brave man indeed. > Regards > Gbenga > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Aletheia Kallos <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:47 pm > Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever > To: [log in to unmask] > > > but aha again > > as well as yikes > > & hopefully not in quadruplicate any more either > > > > for even more clever than conflict avoidance in this case > would > > be the > > realization that no extended shelf claims are even possible in > the > > referenced dispute areas > > of the kuriles & senkakus & takeshima > > as this handy & probably reliable map also appears to confirm > > > http://geology.usgs.gov/connections/mms/landscapes/508_descriptions/shel > f_map_image_text.htm > > > > so most likely no puzzle at all here after all barbara > > > > > > & for gbenga et al > > if i might conserve a message by also adding here to the other > current > > discussion > > about boundary ultraconservatism in africa > > whether of the purely sentimental or the really proactive > variety > > i feel the present drift of international boundary practice is > > > already far > > too conservative everywhere on earth for the general well > being > > to really be > > served > > but most especially too conservative as applied by africans in > africa > > > > the unexamined & sometimes even express assumption is that > boundary > > conservatism & boundary conservation > > no matter how inappropriate or ignorant the boundary being > conserved > > actually is > > prevents wars & genocides & other miseries > > > > but our actual experience appears to fly directly into the > face > > of such a > > lame belief > > > > the fact that places like the congo or sudan or somalia etc > dont > > & wont & > > cant be allowed to disintegrate into more natural groupings > > but are artificially sustained in all their dysfunctionality > by the > > international system > > led by the usa & other majors > > while functional & sensible places like somaliland or south > > sudan etc go > > begging & hoping & praying for recognition > > is an extra tragedy that africans are inexplicably visiting > upon > > themselveseven today > > as if they hadnt yet had enough of the enslavement & other > > exploitationvisited upon them by outsiders > > > > & this appears to happen > > mainly if not exclusively > > because the oas & au have always been so largely comprised of > > thug regimes > > that are simply paranoid on principle about their personal > > security & turf > > that anything novel which might work better or that already > > clearly works > > remains a nonstarter > > > > it is not a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie or not > > > > the solution in my view is simply to elevate the principle of > self > > determination above the principle of territorial socalled > integrity > > where it rightly belongs > > > > first things first > > & then we will have real integrity > > > > just as the sea follows the land > > so in reality does the land follow the people > > > > & only then would it make any real sense to repair the few > technical > > imperfections in the delimitations & densify the demarcations > etc > > > > cheers > > ak md > > > > Dr. Gbenga Oduntan > Lecturer in International Commercial Law, > Kent Law School, > Eliot College, > University of Kent, > Canterbury, > Kent CT2 7NS, UK. > > Phone: > Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000 (ext 4817) > Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817 > Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831 > > Email: [log in to unmask] > http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm > > > > > > > > > Dr. Gbenga Oduntan Lecturer in International Commercial Law, Kent Law School, Eliot College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NS, UK. Phone: Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000 (ext 4817) Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817 Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831 Email: [log in to unmask] http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm continuation may be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/messages messages 882 thru 887 inclusive