well ok
but knowing len to the extent that i do
i would go so far as to agree that he may well be correct about what the sign said
if that is all you really mean
but i dont know if he is undoubtedly correct even about that
& i dont see how you presume to know either
not that it matters to this particular discussion mind you
but such presumptive judgments as this do affect & often confound ones reasoning
processes in general
& especially so in connection with multipointing tries
where they tend to only multiply & ramify any intrinsic uncertainties in the data at hand
which is why my zeal for punctilious exactitude may seem excessive or even pointless to
some members who are not interested in trypointing but only in arguing
whereas anything less than punctilious exactitude is in fact pointless in the context of bp
just as anything less than actual multidimensional pursuit is really a digression &
excursion away from the original & unique purpose & opportunity of bp
also
the idea of being perhaps analogous
doesnt really wash in this case either
in my view
unless you really like mixing apples & oranges & pineapples etc
the ryukyus were definitely similar to the parts of germany that were & are militarily
occupied
in that they were or are all military occupations
& they were definitely dissimilar in terms of territorial adjacency
just by virtue of being real & entire islands surrounded by seas of uncertain status
rather than parcels of dry land surrounded by other dry land of known status
& this analysis addresses only the most obvious topological aspects
but no actual analogy has been offered or even implied yet
in the sense of
a is to b as c is to d
if you really want to say & mean
perhaps analogous
then i would suggest the tan son nhut airbase in saigon might work for that
where the perhaps would make sense because the americans left there involuntarily
in sufficiently sharp contradistinction to germany
so far anyway
thus providing a good & real reason to hedge or equivocate in this way
or else perhaps the present green zone in baghdad
with the perhaps in this case being contingent on some real similarity of outcomes
which is of course far from certain as of yet also
so there would be some real reasons to say perhaps as well as to say analogous in these
cases
but to say perhaps analogous without really meaning either perhaps or analogous is only
to incite further virtuosity in the disciplines of meaninglessness & pointlessness
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
wrote:
> Len is undoubtedly correct about what the sign said, but I agree with Mike that
> the word "extraterritorial" hardly fits--except perhaps in the sense that it was
> outside the territory of the FRG.
>
> I would classify this parcel from the American point of view as a part of the
> former Germany (Third Reich) that continued under US military occupation longer
> than the surrounding part that was (together with the British- and
> French-occupied zones) reconstituted into the FRG in 1949. In that respect, it
> was perhaps analogous to Okinawa and the other Ryukyu Islands, parts of Japan
> that remained under US occupation until 1972.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:58 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: French Properties on St Helena
>
>
> > whatever this lovely parcel was
> > it was a military emplacement from beginning to end
> > & a superimposition of de facto reality upon & within a preexisting state
> > territory
> > aka a de facto clave
> >
> > or in other words
> > a commonplace
> > albeit with an exotic purpose
> > & accordingly unusual accoutrements
> >
> >
> > to call it an extraterritorial territory or parcel
> > or to say it enjoyed a status of extraterritoriality
> > even after the surrounding territory was reconstituted
> > would be a misuse of english
> >
> > people can of course have a status of extraterritoriality
> > in the sense of both being exempt from local jurisdiction
> > & of being under the jurisdiction of their home country when abroad
> > as the word is commonly used in both these senses
> > but territorial extraterritoriality
> > if ever there was any
> > was extinguished by the vienna treaty of 1961
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> >> There is such a thing as extraterritoriality -
> >>
> >> Until 1990, there was a fence around a piece of property (I estimate
> >> about four to five acres/hectares), in Frankfurt, Germany (suburb of
> >> Niederrad to the SW of downtown). On the fence to the left side of
> >> the single gate that led inside, there was a sign that was headlined,
> >> in German - "Extraterritoriales Gebiet". It was a big sign - six feet
> >> high at least, with lots and lots of other, smaller words explaining
> >> that the U.S. was the sovereign inside the fence, that U.S. Military
> >> Community Commander in Frankfurt was the governor, that the U.S. had
> >> placed the grounds at the disposal of the Soviet Union and that no
> >> German law applied inside, no German citizen for other third country
> >> national was permitted to enter, and talking to the Russian gate guard
> >> was prohibited. There was a American phone number to call at the
> >> bottom of the sign, in case anyone had questions. The number led
> >> callers to a villa in NE Frankfurt (not on a base) where the commander
> >> had a team that governed the operation inside the fence. Two U.S.
> >> Army regulations regulated the operations - the U.S. supplied the
> >> Russians stationed there with radios, telephones (not German), gas,
> >> heating fuels, and special car license plates (not German and not U.S.
> >> forces plates under the Status of Force treaties - US Forces plates
> >> are actually German plates inscribed with "USA" that the Germans let
> >> the Army give out under provisions of the SoFA treaty), etc. German
> >> authorities were prohibited from approaching the vehicles with those
> >> plates affixed when they were out on the German roads. The occupants
> >> could drive over any German roads except those which were marked on an
> >> American map as off limits to the Russians (generally U. S. military
> >> training areas and roads near allied bases. The Russian occupants of
> >> the area (military officials and their family members) were even given
> >> ID cards so they could shop free of German tax and customs control
> >> (and without needing Germany money) in the U. S. PXs in Frankfurt and
> >> Heidelberg.
> >>
> >> The status of the place stemmed from the Hubner-Mallanin Agreement in
> >> the 1940s - it predated the founding the Federal Republic of Germany,
> >> it was not included as part of the land on which Germany was founded
> >> and that was under occupation until 1955. It was basically a
> >> territorial hole in the middle of the Federal Republic. I think (not
> >> sure)it may have technically been part of Prussia. After the U. S.
> >> had taken possession of the Frankfurt site, which was during the
> >> occupation but some years after the war ended (but before the founding
> >> of the Federal Republic), the allies abolished Prussia. It could
> >> even be that the sovereign that the Frankfurt site belonged to before
> >> the Federal Republic came into existence actually went away by U.S.
> >> and allied edict.
> >>
> >> In 1990, upon the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Russians abandoned the
> >> site and the U.S. closed the gate. It stayed that way until the U.S.
> >> was able to negotiate an arrangement with the Germans for the transfer
> >> of sovereignty. Today, it is full of German apartments and the
> >> American buildings are gone. Some of the old fence is still there,
> >> but the apartments are new and surrounded by the much older ones that
> >> were previously outside the fence. When one visits the place now, it
> >> is obvious that something odd was there before, because the
> >> architecture is very different from the adjacent old town.
> >>
> >> The U.S. never annexed the grounds to make it part of the U.S., but it
> >> was, nevertheless - extraterritorial - because it was never a part of
> >> the Federal Republic of Germany that surrounded it.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> LN
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Henry Hirose" <silentcity@h...>
> >> wrote:
> >> > "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...> writes:
> >> >
> >> > <<good point
> >> > followed by a deafening silence
> >> > for i am a little surprised our extraterritoriality mavens havent
> >> responded
> >> > nor even gasped out loud yet>>
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering the same thing. But I also feel that, if I
> >> understand you
> >> > correctly, that the conclusive reply was rather underwhelming.
> >> > Extraterritoriality after all isn't sovereign territory, which would
> >> have
> >> > created bona fide enclaves and got a lot more people fired up.
> >> >
> >> > But I would venture to guess that the hon. consul is mistaken in his
> >> > assumption. It may not be extraterritoriality but mere
> >> "inviolability of
> >> > their premises" just as in embassies. Traditional
> >> extraterritoriality of
> >> > land, as opposed to persons, seems virtually dead, with all cases of
> >> > examples dating from the days of Western Imperialism that were all
> >> given up
> >> > or seized by the host countries. See here for examples:
> >> >
> >> > http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/E/extrater.html
> >> >
> >> > Cheers, HH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >