For the most part, your english is pretty understandable. But I will kindly break down what you said and how I saw it. Please do not take offense in what I respond to as it is not meant to be. I'm just trying to point out why I, personally, did not comprehend what you wrote and what your main point was. 
"In my opinion, a "Hypo" is an "Nominat" with an reduced amount of black."
The main problem with this sentence is the word Nominat. I have no clue what it means, nor have I been able to successfully determine it's meaning using Google. I'm sure it's a misspelling, but it confuses the idea of the whole sentence.
The second part is the fact that you state that your opinion of what the definition of Hypomelanistic is "[a] reduced amount of black". Well, that's not really your opinion, mainly because it IS the standard definition of hypomelanism. Nobody that understands what hypomelanism is is going to dispute that definition.
My main point, and I'll reiterate it here from my previous posts, is that what is now being currently termed as a Hypo Western Hognose is probably incorrect since these animals do not show any black at all. If we all agree that being Hypomelanistic is a reduction of black but still having black coloration whereas being Albino is a complete lack of melanin, therefore, the currently termed Hypo Hogs do not seem to fall within the Hypomelanistic definition but do for the definition of Albinism.
Now, in regards to the Toffees, from what I have gathered from several posts is that all of them seem to have some black pigmentation in varying degrees. Please correct me if I am incorrect in my understanding. I would be highly interested if there do exist Toffees with absolutely no black at all. I think it would definitely help to clarify on how to try and classify them.
Moving on...
"I think it is a kind of line-breeding, like they do at the Leopardgeckos or the Pastell-Boas."
I didn't understand this statement either. While line breeding can bring out hidden genes within a small gene pool of relative parentage, it does not necessarily equate that hypomelanism is purely a fabrication of man-made origin. In other words, while mutations can occur from line breeding, it is still a random mutation that happens without the breeders hand at complete gene manipulation. We do not currently have the technology to alter an animals DNA to produce specific mutations. All we can hope to achieve is through line breeding that something unique might hatch out, live and prove heritable. That aspect is totally up to nature with only a little help from us. That's why things like Punnett squares are based on ratios and statistics but never absolutes. It's because we cannot currently even control what will hatch out should we breed two het x het or het x homo animals. You might get all homo, no homo, or just the right ratio of homo's as the Punnett square merely suggests, there's no guarantees.
"The main point is, that an "Hypo"-gene should only have an influence at the amount of black and have !NO! effect on the melanin-synthesis-cycle!"
But isn't melanin and black pigmentation the same thing? It's all based on the protein that is activated on the genetic level on how or whether it is going to produce the tyrosinase protein which determines the levels of melanin are going to show which is dark/black pigmentation. So, I really didn't follow that sentence at all unless I'm just not comprehending my simple understanding of genetics.
"Nobody would say, that the Banana-BP or the Piebald-BP is an Hypo."
No, I doubt most if not all people would. But it's like comparing apples and oranges at this level. From the little I've seen of Banana BP's, they look like a lavender type of albino with black speckling, but I haven't seen anybody claim that the black speckling is of a paradox nature either or at least referring to the name of the animal as a Paradox Banana Ball Python. In regards to Piebaldism, that's just something entirely different. That would be like trying to say that Leucistics and Albinos are the same type of animal due to lack of melanin on their skin. They are not the same, it's a completely different genetic and phenotypic type.
So again, I did not understand your point with this sentence.
"The best sign for an "Hypo" would be the reduced amount of black and a black tongue(as a sign of an "healthy" melanin-cycle), like it is at the "Blonde"-Hogs, for example."
Again, we agree what the phenotypic definition of a Hypomelanistic animal. But while we agree that that being Hypo is a reduced amount of melanin, how does that correlate to having a black tongue and why would an otherwise considered Hypo phenotypic animal have to have a black tongue to be deemed as a Hypo. What if it's tongue is not black colored, does that reclassify it as a different phenotype? I have a picture of a normal phenotypical Western Hognose that has completely white forks on it's tongue, does this classify that is has an "unhealthy" genetic protein and therefore might not be classified as a true normal? I even have a picture of one of Casey Lazik's Hypos exposing it's tongue and it looks completely red, does that then completely quantify my assumption that these then are not indeed true Hypos?
I think the jury will still be out on the whole tongue coloration aspect of determining whether a phenotypic animal is true based on it's tongue coloration.
Last but not least...
"ALL! Toffeebellys have the Paradoxspots and they did not increase. They become only more visible, when the snake grows."
This was really the gist of my main argument before in the previous thread. One definition of paradox is "any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature." Example, if you breed two absolute albino animals and every one is albino except one individual who is partly albino and partly normal, that is a paradox. A paradox is defined as being something out of the ordinary, not expected to be there considering the circumstances. In regards to your Toffees, you claim "ALL! Toffeebellys have the Paradoxspots". So, where is the paradox in that? Like I said in previous posts, if the spotting is in itself a heritable genetic trait that can be passed along to other morphs, then that would be interesting, but I still wouldn't regard it as a true paradox. Now, if you showed me a partly Albino and partly Normal colored hognose, like you see in true paradox BP's, then THAT would be something that would be a paradox. Even a Piebald, although not regarded or termed as such, is a type of paradox of nature by definition. But black spotting might just be a part of the genetic phenotype for your line of hognose. I'm not saying definitively whether they are Albino or T Albino or Hypo, I'm just saying that extensive line breeding and cross breeding should be done before assigning absolute terminology to them. Otherwise, to term something as a paradox when all the animals from a specific phenotypic lineage have this phenotype sounds more like a marketing scheme to me than scientific evidence. Even assuming that this is a T Albino without true empirical evidence is pushing it. Why does the animal even have to have these terms applied to it in the first place if not to try and sell more? I won't argue that it is possible that both of these terms apply, but nobody has any empirical evidence to prove their case nor has any extensive line/cross breeding been done to prove this either.
So again, I really didn't understand what your overall point in this thread was supposed to be. We all pretty much agree to what the definition of a Hypo is, just not which Hognose animals currently fit into that definition.
I hope I was able to convey to you what my confusion was to your thread without being condescending nor disrespectful as that is not my intention. I'm always happy to engage in a lively discussion though.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles
