Path: utzoo!mnetor!geac!sq!lee
From: lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin)
Newsgroups: ont.uucp
Subject: Re: Could someone explain this for me?
Message-ID: <1989Nov19.202624.15502@sq.sq.com>
Date: 19 Nov 89 20:26:24 GMT
References: <1989Nov8.195924.29680@eci386.uucp> <89Nov9.144803est.2778@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <735@ecicrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: lee@sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin)
Distribution: ont
Organization: Unixsys (UK) Ltd
Lines: 25

In article <735@ecicrl.UUCP> clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes:
>> [Rayan left undeleted:]
>>>	- Are .ca and .on.ca bogus?  From the point of view of the UUCP
>>>	  maps they appear to be simply an exercise in inventing new
>>>	  and non-functional naming.  They certainly don't seem to work 
>>>	  anywhere as well as the ol' "telly!....".  Though,
>>>	  of course from other networks they are pretty important.

My [mis-]understanding of North American geography has been throwin into
turmoil.  Until I visited Canda, I had thought that lots of places I had
known only through news and mail were in the States, since they were so
clearly marked with CA, the state abbreviation for California.

Now I doscover that dome of the Californian places are really in Canada.
This is most confusing, as I am fairly sure that Canada and California,
whilst lexicographically proximate, are geographically remote.

What am I missing?  Why is Canada CA and not CAN, and why CAN't CAlifornia
be CA?

Lee
-- 
Liam R. Quin, Unixsys (UK) Ltd [note: not an employee of "sq" - a visitor!]
lee@sq.com (Whilst visiting Canada from England)
lee@anduk.co.uk (Upon my return to England at Christmas)