--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@c...> wrote:

> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>
> but territorial extraterritoriality
> if ever there was any
> was extinguished by the vienna treaty of 1961...

> WRONG. ...and you have no proof of the assertion with respect to this
> place. The treaty of '61 didn't apply to this place. Evidence: the
> sign remained after the treaty and so did the non-German administration.

what specifically is wrong
other than your standard truncation miscomprehension misapplication & obfuscation
of what i actually said & meant

& of course i have no proof of what i neither said nor meant

for why would i even want to prove that

but if you will reread my entire message 17544 more carefully
you will realize that you have merely imagined that i meant that the 1961 treaty applied to
this place

your german sign is evidence
if indeed it is evidence
only of a usage that may or may not have been correct in german
for i dont know about that
but which cant in any case be rendered into meaningful english as extraterritorial territory

extraterritorial territory is gibberish in english

however
the english phrase external territory
or excluded territory
or something more to that straightforward effect
might make sense of the german phrase you are using

& of course the germans played no part in any of these militarily occupied locations
for the simple reason that they were under military occupation the whole time

in german it may well be that the extraterritorial words can be applied to territory
& might mean in that case
simply outside of or exclusive of the adjacent & or surrounding territory & jurisdiction

but if so then thats just a clave or an occupied territory when rendered into standard
english

so i think you will have to continue piling up your nonexamples & your indisputable
disputations with yourself alone
since i havent been & wont be participating with you in them

> In fact, the treaty didn't apply to enclaves like Büsinge, which are
> indesputably "extrateritorial" with respect to the territory, laws,
> people and economy of the countries that surround them.
>
> To Lowell: It was housing and seat of operations for the Russians
> assigned to watch allied movements in the West Sector of W. Germany -
> put into place by the Hubner-Malanin agreement to reduce cold war
> tensions and reduce flare ups that kept starting because of
> perceptions of maneuvers being threats.
>
> A similar post that the Russians kept out of the DDR / East German
> territory (like W. Berlin and its' enclaves themselves were not part
> of the East regime) existed in Potsdam - which the Russians placed at
> the disposal of the US. There were two others that the Russians
> operated out of, one was operated by the French in Baden-Baden and the
> other was in the north, operated by the British in what was the
> British sector in western Germany.
>
> The Russians murdered an American who worked at the Potsdam site (I
> think in 1980s - after the '61 treaty!!!), and claimed he was snooping
> at Russian military operations where he wasn't supposed to be. The
> Germans had no legal part to play (nor did they play any role) in the
> resolution of the incident because it was extraterritorial under the
> agreement that W Germany respected as a limit on its sovereignty when
> it came into existence and when the allies conferred sovereignty on it
> in 1955.
>
> Len