>
>
> >
> > Dear Bela and others.
> > It may behoove you to read the interesting article in The Economist
> > (current issue) that has a "cost of having Eastern Europe join NATO"
> >
> > The article basically shows that it would cost the west practically
> > nothing and the East would benefit greatly.
> >
>
> How about the cost to Hungary? If you look at the cost for
> the west, you should
> look at the cost for the East too, not only the "benefit".
> Also - who is likely to pay, have further cut in living/social care
> standards.
>
> > Udv.
> > Peter
> >
> 

>
> I cannot see the relevance of past "behaviours":
> Hungarians were running over the west  when they last had a chance
> ... so they must be into attacking neighbours... (following your
> logic). Lovely new allies: USA, UK(England), France(practically in Nato),
Germany, Holland,
>  Spain etc.
> all have pretty agressive periods in history.
>
>
Eva D


> >         Joe, please don't push this point because you don't know enough
> > history to sustain the argument. The fact is that Muscovy, ever since they
> > threw off the Mongol yoke has been expanding, first by "gathering of
> > Russia," and later by moving northward and southward and eventually eastwar
d
> > to form a huge empire. And once this was achieved, they kept going and goin
g
> > or meddling in the affairs of the Balkans. Yes, there was a temporary
> > setback as a result of the Russian revolution and civil war, but both befor
e
> > and after World War II the expansion continued.
> >
> >
> > >In the major conflicts, Europeans were the aggressors.  Napoleon and Hitle
r
> > >come to mind.  It might be well to remember that it was Hitler who attacke
d
> > >the Soviet Union.
> >
> >         Yes, but think of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the division of
> > Poland and eventually Bessarabia.
> >
> > >Stalin was simply defending his nation.  Were it not for
> > >Hitler's actions, Russian style "existing socialism" may never have come t
o
> > >Eastern Europe.
> >
> >         Oh, really? The innocent lamb. Russia had its territorial demands
> > already in World War I, if there had been no revolution and no civil war an
d
> > the Allies (including Russia) won against the Central Powers, Russia would
> > have submitted its bill. If you are at all interested, a whole book was
> > written on Russia's war aims in World War I.
> >         ESB
> >
> >
> >
> 

>
> Just to put suspicious Russian minds at rest...
> and yours about your new wonderful ally fighting for peace - as ever...
>

Eva D

>
> THE PEOPLE
> May 1997
> Vol. 107 No. 2
>
> NEW NUCLEAR BOMB
> ENTERS RANKS IN SILENCE
>
> BY WILLIAM ARKIN*
> (C)PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE
>
> The first new nuclear warhead to reach the Air Force since the
> end of the Cold War was formally received in February, and not
> one major newspaper or television network thought the event
> important enough to report it.
>
> The weapon, called the "B61 Mod 11," is a 12-foot-long nuclear
> bomb that can burrow some 50 feet into the ground before
> detonating with a blast many thousands of times greater than
> the largest conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal. Nuclear
> war planners--yes, they are still busy, despite President
> Clinton's constant assurances that the threat of nuclear war
> has disappeared--claim the "earth penetrator" is needed to
> destroy Russian command bunkers buried deep underground.
>
> The weapon previously earmarked for this task, the B53, is 6
> million times bigger than the B61 Mod 11 in terms of its blast-
> -the arithmetic is truly stunning--and so huge that the new B-2
> stealth bomber can't easily carry it.
>
> In the "logic" of nuclear war, the new weapon is necessary and
> an "improvement." In other words, smaller is somehow a moral
> step forward because fewer Russian citizens will be incinerated
> if the button is ever pushed.
>
> The first order of business of Clinton's foreign policy team
> this year has been to coax Russian legislators into ratifying
> the START II Treaty. This agreement, signed in January 1993,
> would further reduce strategic nuclear arsenals to some 3,500
> warheads.
>
> Moscow has hesitated on this, complaining of the inequities and
> expenses involved in implementing the mandated reductions. One
> of the biggest problems is that economic and technological
> disarray in Russia means bombers are perpetually grounded,
> submarines hardly ever leave their ports and mobile missiles
> stay in their garrisons. The fact that Russia's nuclear arsenal
> is slowly disintegrating no doubt weighs heavily on the minds
> of Yeltsin's nuclear planners. In the "logic" of nuclear war,
> Russian nuclear forces are probably more vulnerable to an
> American first strike now than ever before.
>
> Because the United States does not currently assemble new
> nuclear weapons from scratch, the B61 Mod 11 is a modification
> of a B61 bomb already in the arsenal. In fact, the Department
> of Energy downplays its significance, telling the trade
> newspaper DEFENSE NEWS it "is not new, in any way, shape or
> form." Surprisingly, many in the arms-control community agree.
> Making too big of a deal about the "new" weapon, they say,
> might further upset START II ratification and even undermine
> the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
>
> In effect they are saying keep quiet about a new nuclear weapon
> so as to not get too many people upset. New or not new, the
> reality is that the B61 Mod 11 represents a mindset that does
> U.S. national security more harm than good. Russian naysayers
> can conclude rightly that their worst case view is indeed
> valid.
>
> President Clinton authorized the B61 Mod 11 when he signed the
> 1994 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum. The connection with
> larger U.S. interests was never made. START II ratification was
> not then considered critical. The otherwise minor program did
> not seem to signal either aggressive intentions towards Russia
> nor a potential for public outcry.
>
> Now, as agreed reductions flounder and disarmament is utterly
> stagnant, nuclear advocates have their first post-Cold War
> weapon, with the aid of arms controllers who cannot see the
> forest for the trees.
>
> It is the very routine nature of it all that is most
> frightening.
>
> *William Arkin is a columnist for THE BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC
> SCIENTISTS.
> 

Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
<snip>


>  That is, you cannot engage in rational
> discussion without showing a modicum of respect for the dignity of
> the person you are arguing with; which means you cannot engage in
> rational discussion while attacking the beliefs and emotional
> committments that constitute the personal core of your opponent.
>
Conditio sine qua non of a civilized exchange. It4s a necessary, albeit
not sufficient condition. The problem however appears to be - on the
list, too - that :

> It has been said that man is a rational animal.  All my life I have
> been searching for evidence which could support this.
>      -- Bertrand Russell

Regards
Miklos

E.S. Balogh wrote:
>
> At 09:07 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> >Religion is just so much piffle.  I have no use for it.  Mind you, I
> >believe in freedom of religion.  I also believe I have a right to express
> >my thoughts on the topic.  Religion and religious people do not agree with
> >me.  Does that make me intolerant?
>
>         Yes, I think so.

Me, too.

> >Why don't you take such a laissez faire attitude towards Marx or Marxists,
> >or other political theorists and their followers?
>
>         Marxism has "scientific" claims. It contains, among other things, a
> scientific explanation for history, economics, and politics. Religion has no
> claim on science.

Not quite so. We would have to disect religion and consider the
different aspects of it. Take theologist e.g., in my opinion they
are an aspect of religion, of rekigious life of religious thinking.
Oh yes, the claim to be scientific and how scientific! ( No matter
that IMHO they do more harm to than help religion. )

On the contrary, it stands squarely on the basis of
> individual beliefs.

Yes, but pretty soon with most religions there came the institution
telling you how your individual belief has to be like...And it4s called
religion.

I criticize Marxism and Marxists because their
> "scientific" claims to the study of history, society and economics are
> bogus.

I would put it more friendly : no doubt Papa Marx was an eminent
scientist in his days and contributed a lot to new economic thinking.
Today, there is barely any scientific theory which was falsified so
thoroughly and so often than Marxism. A the pupils still stick to it...
but this is more a quasi-religious attitude than a rational one.

And in the name of these scientific claims Marx's followers committed
> unspeakable crimes against humanity.

Well, when people commit crimes in the name of what-you-have, it is
not necessarly the fault of the people starting with what-you-have
back in old days...
Regards
MKH

S or G Farkas wrote:
>
> At 08:33 AM 4/30/97 -0400, Joe Szala wrote:
> >At 01:38 PM 4/29/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>Compared to these guys anyone boasting about being a missionary in Hungary
> >>in the late 1980s is a bloody wanker.
> >
> >You make it sound as if masturbation is a bad thing.  It is not.
> >
> >The way I look at it, Kristof's problem, if he has one, is that he's not
> >wanking enough.  If he did, he'd have a better grip on "existing reality".
> >But, that's his shortcoming.
>
> It is the learning of all these new words that makes this group so valuable
> to me...;-)
>
> Gabor D. Farkas
Like "shortcoming"? Good guy. Innocent guy!;-))
Miklos

MDtoCEO wrote:
>
> >Well, I am not quite sure about this "excuse...". It appears
> >to be more with this curious cultural characteristic of anglo-saxons.
> >I wonder what the effect will be, when the Hispanos become the
> >majority in the US.
> >MKH
>
> Actually, we don't have to wait to find out.  Look at the propositions in
> California to make English the official language there.  It's not the
> language police that Eva mentioned, but enforcement of such a statute will
> necessitate one, it looks like.
>
> Kristof
 ...in justice ans freedom for all?
Miklos

Eva Durant wrote:
>
> I don't agree.

With whom, to start with.

Better with IMHO : > Religion is not out of bounds; it sticks
> to statements that has no evidence, and attempts to
> rule people's actions, based on these shaky grounds.
>  I have the right to question
> (very politely, ofcourse) the uncritical acceptence of irrational
> beliefs. I have no right to do anything else, ofcourse, unless
> there are human rights abused in the name of such beleives - which
> happens quite a lot all over the planet, unfortunately.
> It is not like born a particular colour or inclanation.
> It is something people can, and often reconsider.
> Eva D
>
> >
> > To be more precise: I don't think tolerance itself is a supreme virtue.
> > Respecting the dignity of others is.  Religion is one of those things that
> > go the the very center of people's existence -- like family, ethnicity, or
> > sexual identity.  Therefore it must be treated with special care.  If I may
> > suggest a Gedankenexperiment, let's try out your sentence with a few minor
> > twists:
> >
> > [Specimen #1] "Religion and religious people do not agree with me.
> > Does that make me intolerant?"
> >
> > [Specimen #2] "Homosexuality and homosexuals give me the creeps.
> > Does that make me intolerant?"
> >
> > I trust you can come up with other variants.  In each of these cases
> > the (putative) speaker may be stating a fact.  He may be perfectly
> > within his right in stating it, and he may even have perfectly sensible
> > reasons of his own for feeling this way.  But if the speaker is someone
> > who believes in showing a decent respect for the dignity of others, then
> > he would keep his opinion to himself.  Or share it, if he must, with a
> > small circle of his very best drinking buddies.  If you catch my drift...
> >
> > -----
> > Gabor Fencsik

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> At 10:24 AM 5/1/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Yes, but.
> >
> >It is clear that the populist 'policies' preached by Torgyan are
> >attractive to a significant segment of the Hungarian populace.
>
> And Vladimir Zhirinovsky's policies are attractive to some Russians.  And
> Gheorghe Funar is popular with some Romanians.
>
> Torgyanism is not unique to Hungary.  A lot of Eastern Europe is still
> confused, nervous, and rudderless.   Demagogues in Eastern Europe are a
> dime a dozen.
>
> >It is also clear, however, that there are many people who are attracted by
> >his policies but repulsed by his personal record.  (Those not attracted to
> >his 'policies' tend to find him unattractive too, as a rule.)  Apart from
> >a minority of the populace, he is not considered Prime Minister material.
> >Hence, it remains to be seen how effective he really is as a political
> >leader and how many votes he will gain for his party.
> >
> >But Eva is right: he has to be taken seriously and has to be taken on
> >seriously by his political opponents.
>
> If Torgyan is taken seriously don't we risk giving his ideas credibility.
> I remember that Zhirinovsky's popularity in Russia rose when the West was
> reporting on his antics.  For sure, I'd keep a close eye on these guys, but
> I wouldn't take their ideas seriously.
>
> Joe Szalai
Indeed.
Miklos

Joe Szalai wrote:

> At 10:24 AM 5/1/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:
> >It is clear that the populist 'policies' preached by Torgyan are
> >attractive to a significant segment of the Hungarian populace.

> And Vladimir Zhirinovsky's policies are attractive to some Russians.  And
> Gheorghe Funar is popular with some Romanians.

> Torgyanism is not unique to Hungary.  A lot of Eastern Europe is still
> confused, nervous, and rudderless.   Demagogues in Eastern Europe are a
> dime a dozen.

Zhirinovsky and Funar are more like Csurka in the Hungarian political scene.
Torgyan is a more sophisticated demagogue, making him much more dangerous.
I think he is closer to Meciar than to the ones you mention.

His party is nowadays at the top of the opinion polls, hence dismissing him
just like another irrelevant soap-box stomper is a great mistake.
Especially that the peculiarities of the Hungarian electoral system lead to
the disproportionately large representation of the best-polling party in
Parliament.

> If Torgyan is taken seriously don't we risk giving his ideas credibility.
> I remember that Zhirinovsky's popularity in Russia rose when the West was
> reporting on his antics.

I would think that he was given increasing coverage in the West BECAUSE
his popularity rose at home, not vice versa.  If you think that the type
of East-European voter that contemplates voting for Zhirinovsky or Torgyan
gives a stuff about what the foreign press says you need more sense of reality.

> For sure, I'd keep a close eye on these guys, but
> I wouldn't take their ideas seriously.

Yep, this is pretty well the stand so many people took about Hitler.

Now, Torgyan is no Hitler, but he is still dangerously unpredictable and
has the potential to set Hungary back by many years, economically, socially
and in her international position, instead of continuing on the path of the
current tentative recovery.  Again, Meciar's Slovakia is the relevant
comparison.

George Antony

I think the statement can be read in the sense where Americans is used as a syn
onym for citizens of USA which I have often used in a loose way. As far as I kn
ow the Mormons have collected large numbers of adherents in Central And South A
merica while they have had much lower rates of success in Europe.

Dénes 



----------
From:  George Antony[SMTP:]
Sent:  Monday, 28 April 1997 9:08
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: church growth in Hungary

Miklos Hoffman wrote:

> George Antony wrote:
> >
> > Kristof wrote:
> > > I could not agree more about fast-food, but I have this feeling you don't
> > > know very much about the Mormon church, or you would likely not have said
> > > what you did.  There are about 10 million members of the church, and more
> > > than half of them are not Americans.  Spanish is the most commonly spoken
> > > language.
> >
> > Whoa, millions of Mormons in Spain ?  Never heard that one,
>
> ?! You never heard about Middle and South America? And the USA?
> ( Spanish being there the dominant language soon? );-)

In case you have not read it carefully enough, the original stated that "more
than half of them are not Americans.  Spanish is the most commonly spoken
language."

If most of them are Spanish speakers and more than half are not Americans,
this can only mean a few million living in Spain.  ?Claro?

George Antony

I wonder who attacked Hungary in 1849 to crush the Hungarian Revolution then. A
nd who attacked in 1914 when the Russian troops were all drawn up for the attac
k months be for the assassination started WW I.

Dénes 



----------
From:  Joe Szalai[SMTP:]
Sent:  Tuesday, 29 April 1997 8:48
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: NYTimes on NATO

At 12:57 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>E.Durant wrote:
>
>>tremendous expence, nuclear weapons and troups
>>to be stationed in Hungary? I don't think so.
>>Who is the enemy exactly?

>Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States or
>whatever is her actual name.

Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of
attacking Europe.  On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia
often.

Joe Szalai

I really must take issue with some of the statements. Mormons DO go doorknockin
g, it is one of their main methods. They tend to be very pushy, though usually 
courteous but they do not easily take no for an answer. I have the Book of Morm
on and to be frank I gave up on it after the first ten pages because of its lan
guage, style and hypocrisy. At the same time I respect any organisation which c
an persuade 19 year olds to do something which is basically unselfish.

Dénes 



----------
From:  Gabor Fencsik[SMTP:]
Sent:  Tuesday, 29 April 1997 7:59
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: church growth in Hungary

I am a bit perplexed by the vehemence of the Mormon-bashing
contingent.  Perhaps George or Sam or Joe can explain (in 200 words
or less) why is it that anti-Mormon bigotry is any more acceptable
than bigotry directed at any other religion.  As far as I know,
Mormons do not use mind control, sensory deprivation, involuntary
servitude, or other methods that are characteristic of sects like
the Hale-Bopp lunatics, or the Branch Davidians.  True, the Mormons
are a proselytizing religion, but at least in my neck of the woods
they do not recruit door-to-door.  I have seen them trying to
initiate conversations with passers-by (usually in rather seedy
parts of town) but I always thought being pestered by panhandlers and
religious zealots is part and parcel of living in a free society.
Why would Hungarians be any different?  People who are not interested
in shopping for a religion can always say no, if they are so inclined.

Had Kristof offered religious propaganda on the list, then
I could understand the animus against him.  When people tried that
in the past, they got the ridicule and ostracism they so richly
deserved, and gave up after a few weeks.  I will mention no names...

So let me repeat: in 200 words or less, explain the moral difference
between Mormon-bashing and other forms of religious bigotry.  For
bonus points, you can also explain what dangers the Mormons
represent for Hungary, and why do you think Hungarians would be
less able to resist their blandishments than other folks in other
countries.  Meantime, I for one would be curious to find out about
the number and geographic distribution of Mormons in Hungary, if
Kristof would care to post the numbers.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant. It h
appened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from the ai
rfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport" to machineg
un anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not only industrial and milita
ry targets that were hit. We lived in a small town just to the south of Budapes
t and we spent many nights in a shelter if we had enough warning.

Dénes 



----------
From:  Peter I. Hidas[SMTP:]
Sent:  Thursday, 1 May 1997 0:51
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: NYTimes on NATO

At 8:18 AM -0400 4/30/97, Joe Szalai wrote:
>At 07:35 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:
>
><snip>
>>Hungary was attacked in 1849...Poland...Sweden...Alexander I marched with
>>his troops all the way to Paris; not a particularly defensive action. The
>>Danubian Principalities (present day Romania) was attacked several times by
>>Russia...The list can be made longer.
>
>Fair enough, Peter.  Since we're talking about the prowess of big powers,
>do you know how many countries in Latin America have NOT experienced US
>military intervention.  Do you know how many have experienced intervention
>more than once?
>
>Joe Szalai

I thought we were discussing the importance of Hungary joining NATO. If
that is the case I do not see the relevance of US policies in South
America. When did the US attack Hungary? In fact, many Hungarians would be
happy to see a little American "occupation". We were certainly hoping for
it in 1945.

Peter

Dear Eva...
The cost of joining Nato of course may be relatively large.
However, the benefits are probably even greater.
Most Hungarians are clamouring to get into Nato and some also in the EC.

It all has costs and benefits.  One must compare the benefits to cost ratio.

I think that The Economist article basically said, that The West should
hurry up and do it -- from a cost perspective it is miniscule for the West.
There are some costs for the East.

How much protection can you afford????? That is the question I suppose?
Udv.
Peter

At 08:15 AM 5/2/97 +1000, you wrote:
>The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew
from the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a
"sport" to machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not
only industrial and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small
town just to the south of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if
we had enough warning.
>
>Dénes 

Denes,

Your particular choice of words and use of orthography
reveals a kind of animosity toward Americans that caught me
totally by surprise. Given that I lost my only sibling and a
set of grand-parents to Anglo-American bombing raids, I
would have thought that perhaps such bitterness would be 
justified. Yet I fail to understand you. Stating that Americans
airmen killed for fun in WWII is beyond my comprehension.
Maybe I am in denial, given that I have been an American
citizen for 30 years. Maybe I am a Pollyanna

But I am also very disappointed. It appears that I have
misjudged you.

My loss.

Bandi

At 07:45 PM 4/30/97 +0200, Miklos Hoffmann wrote in connection with my note
on a popular historical magazine:

>Eva, I couldn4t follow back the thread. What is this?

        A few weeks ago we had a discussion on the numerus clausus and
during debate Janos made some reference to "entrance examinations." I
expressed my doubt about the existence of entrance examinations in those
days. As it turned out someone sent me a couple of issues of *Rubicon,* the
popular magazine in question and in one of them I found a reference to this
very question. The answer is: No, there were no entrance examinations.
        And by the way, Denes Bogsanyi suggested during the debate that the
number of university students had to be restricted because of the
overproduction of university graduates and the economic difficulties of the
country. Hence, the introduction of the numerus clauses. Although there was
some reference to overproduction of university graduates as a reason for the
law, the fact was that the number of graduates didn't diminish. On the
contrary, they produced as many graduates as before the war but for a much
smaller country. ESB

At 08:15 AM 5/2/97 +1000, Denes Bogsanyi wrote:

>The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from
the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport" to
machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not only industrial
and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small town just to the
south of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if we had enough
warning.

        After the German occupation of Hungary Allied planes did bomb
Hungarian targets: they were both British and American planes. As far as I
remember there was no machine gunning people on the street "just for fun,"
but they tried to bomb targets they considered important. In my hometown of
Pecs, they tried to bomb the railway station but they missed. They missed a
lot because in those days it was impossible to drop bombs with great
precision. ESB

While we are busy supporting the renovation of the New York Kossuth
memorial, his mausoleum in Budapest is in trouble, as needed repairs are
slow in coming. Objective is to complete the work in time for the 1998 March
15 festivities, 150th anniversary of the revolution. Below is an article
from the Apr. 30 Magyar Hirlap. Not clear whether the problem is
mismanagement, no management or what. Will try to find out. Andy.

Magyar Hirlap.
BUDAPEST 1997. április 30., szerda
Ki menti meg a Kossuth-mauzóleumot?
Németh Erzsébet
Elképzelhető, hogy még jövőre, az 1848-as forradalom és szabadságharc 
150. évfordulójára sem fejezik be az évek óta életveszélyes állapotban 
lévő Kossuth-mauzóleum felújítását. A kivitelezők a szerződést megszegve 
három év csúszással és a korábban vállalt 30 milliós beruházási költség 
helyett 400 millió forintért lennének hajlandók befejezni a Nemzeti 
Panteon Alapítványtól kapott megbízást. 
A Nemzeti Panteon Alapítvány négy évvel ezelőtt, a nemzeti síremlékek 
megmentésére alakult. A nagy felújítási munkákat, azok kivitelezői 
pályáztatását, az értékek felkutatását és nyilvántartását évente 30-70 
millió forintos központi támogatásból a végzik. A Fiumei úti temetőben 
található Kossuth-mauzóleum megmentése Deák és Batthyányi síremlékének 
felújításával együtt az első projektek között szerepelt - mondta Ráday 
Mihály, a Nemzeti Panteon Alapítvány társelnöke. A munka lebonyolítására 
a kuratórium a Főber Rt.-t kérte fel, a kivitelezői pályázatot pedig 
1993-ban 30 millió forintos ár- és kedvező határidő ajánlatával a Közép 
Rt. nyerte el. A nyertesek a külső munkálatok elvégzését 1994. 
márciusára, a belső felújítás befejezését pedig szeptember végére 
vállalták.
A restaurálás nagy lendülettel kezdődött - körülkerítették a síremléket, 
leemelték a tetejéről a szobrot - ám hamar alább hagyott. Kiderült 
ugyanis, hogy a kivitelező cég ezért a pénzért a teljes munka kis 
töredékét képes elvégezni. Most, három évvel a szerződésben vállalt 
határidő után a Közép Rt. az eredetinek több mint tízszeresét, vagyis 
400 millió forintot kér a befejezésre. A 
példátlan szerződésszegést az alapítvány társelnökei - Ráday Mihály és 
Katona Tamás - jogi úton kívánják rendezni. Azt remélik azonban, hogy 
addig is akad olyan kivitelező cég, amely megfelelő áron megmenti a 
pótolhatatlan nemzeti értéket.
A gazdag sírbolt egykor a temetőlátogatók kedvenc célpontja volt, ám a 
kerítéssel és kutyás őrökkel védett omladozó épületet ma már biztonsági 
okokból sem tanácsos felkeresni. A szomorú - véli Ladányi Jenő, a 
Fővárosi Temetkezési Rt. igazgatója -, hogy sok nagy nemzeti síremlék is 
hasonló sorsra juthat, hiszen felújításuk egyenként csaknem 100 millió 
forintba kerül.

S.Stowe wrote:

>As an aside, it's now been nearly 48 hours since I posted and received
>back through my server a message inviting Gabor Fencsik to explain to me
>in as many words as he chose how I was bashing Mormonism in general rather
>than Krystof Jones in particular.

While I was not invited to explain anything, let me have a comment to
the above. Sam himself states that he was bashing Kristof and not the
Mormon Church or Mormonism (I have never heard this expression before).
I think Kristof did not give any reason to be bashed. The only reason why Joe
and Sam can attack him is his religion. Interestingly but not surprisingly
Sam claim he attacked the person and not the ideology.

J.Zs

D.Bogsanyi wrote:

>The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
>It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from
>the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport" to
> machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun".

This is interesting. As far as I know there was an unofficial shift between
the Brittish and American forces. The Americans were bombing  during the day
 while
the Brits at night. They called it 'around the clock bombing'.

J.Zs

In article >,
Janos Zsargo > writes:

>>>Sam, you are talking about the reality?! You, who would send the mass-
>>>-murderers to UN mission or want NAFTA for East-Europe?
>>
>>This, as I have pointed out before, is another Jancsi favorite -- taking
>>stuff way out of context. You wouldn't happen to hold creationist views,
>
>The problem is, as I told earlier, these concepts do not make any
>sense in any kind of context. Or you may elaborate to us how you meant
them.
>
>J.Zs
>
>

I have already elaborated on them in the past. If they were as nonsensical
as you claim, you would have wasted no time or effort reposting my
elaborations. Not only are you a twit, but you're a dullard ensnared in
his own mendacity as well. (That oughta keep the little weasel busy with
the dictionary for an hour or two)
Sam Stowe

Think globally;
act erratically.

In article >, "E.S. Balogh"
> writes:

>  First and foremost I have been warning people for a long time that
>not taking Torgyan seriously is a mistake. Calling him a clown and laugh
at
>his antics are shortsighted. So, let's not talk about "nuttiness" in
>connection with Torgyan. "Dangerous" would be a much more apt
description.
>        Second, I don't think that a religion can be compared to a
platform
>of a political party.

I do when it becomes the platform of a political party. We've seen the
Christian Coalition try to impose its version of Christian morality as
public policy here in North Carolina and elsewhere with laws aimed at
restricting women's access to abortion and teaching creationism in the
state's public schools.


>>
>>>Moreover, if their missionary work is successful: well, who am I to
>>>criticize either them or their followers. ESB
>>
>>Why don't you take such a laissez faire attitude towards Marx or
Marxists,
>>or other political theorists and their followers?
>
>        Marxism has "scientific" claims. It contains, among other things,
a
>scientific explanation for history, economics, and politics. Religion has
no
>claim on science. On the contrary, it stands squarely on the basis of
>individual beliefs. I criticize Marxism and Marxists because their
>"scientific" claims to the study of history, society and economics are
>bogus. And in the name of these scientific claims Marx's followers
committed
>unspeakable crimes against humanity. ESB

Once again, I commend to you the drive in several states in the U.S. to
establish creation science (quel oxymoron) on an equal epistomological
footing with evolution in public schools. It is undoubtedly an instance of
what has, since the Scopes Monkey Trial, pretty much been a matter of
individual belief making truth claims, dolled up in the garb of science,
in the public square.

As an aside, it's now been nearly 48 hours since I posted and received
back through my server a message inviting Gabor Fencsik to explain to me
in as many words as he chose how I was bashing Mormonism in general rather
than Krystof Jones in particular. He has not responded to my invitation.
Since Eva B. intemperately chose to repeat Gabor's unsupported assertion
in her original post in this thread, I extend the invitation to her as
well. I think Joe Szalai has been done a disservice as well as myself.
While you may not like Joe's outright dismissal of religion, I think you
have to acknowledge that any argument in favor of religion that dwells
solely on its basis in individual belief overlooks the often troubling
impacts it has beyond the individual level. The track record is muddled.
Sam Stowe

Think globally;
act erratically.

On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Joe Szalai wrote:

> I didn't choose being born to Hungarian parents.  I didn't choose being
> born male.  And I didn't choose my sexual orientation.  Religion does not
> belong with those immutable human characteristics.  Religious faith can be
> suspended, altered, denied, changed, or abandoned.
>
> I have a question regarding you "showing a decent respect for the dignity
> of others".  How much respect do you have for those young men who do a
> suicidal bomb attack on a bus full of innocent people, knowing that those
> attacks are sanctioned by some religious leaders and knowing that those
> young men believe that their personal 'sacrifice' means going to heaven?

I can count at least three red herrings in these two paragraphs.  The
business about religious terrorism is red herring number one.  No one
has advocated any such thing around here recently, as far as I can
recall.  What we had here was a poor soul -- since chased away -- who
mentioned, by way of a digression within a digression, -- hell, all of
the Net is one gigantic digression within a digression, right? -- that
he has earlier engaged in the entirely peaceful activity of sidewalk
preaching, in Hungary, no less.  An amazing enterprise, if you think
about it.  It is hard to imagine less fertile soil for the Mormon creed,
with the Hungarian talent for argumentation, heckling, and sheer
contrariness.  In any case, he was not advocating bombing anyone, nor
did he try to convert anyone here on the list.  He was duly attacked
for his pains, as you may recall. My problem is not that he was attacked
-- my problem is that he was attacked as a Mormon.

Which brings us to the second red herring.  You are quite right that
religious faith can be "suspended, altered, denied, changed, or abandoned",
but it is highly unlikely that such momentous transformations would come
about as a result of an argument on the Net.  You cannot seriously expect
to change the beliefs of a sincerely religious man by having him look at
little specks of phosphor on the screen.  Bringing the religion of
your opponent into play is a signal that rational discussion is about
to end, and the mudwrestling has begun.

Which brings us to the biggest red herring of all: this business about
whether one's religion is an "immutable characteristic" or not.  This
has no bearing on the point at all.  If sexual orientation were a
matter of choice, and religion were hardwired into us, the situation
would not change one whit.  That is, you cannot engage in rational
discussion without showing a modicum of respect for the dignity of
the person you are arguing with; which means you cannot engage in
rational discussion while attacking the beliefs and emotional
committments that constitute the personal core of your opponent.

Here of course I am assuming that rational discussion is what you are
after.  I may be wrong, and you may prefer the "yo'mama wears army boots"
school of debating.  Or perhaps you would like to go even further down
memory lane, all the way back to kindergarten, to the "poo-poo-caca"
style of schoolyard discourse, in which case I can recommend several
places on the Net where you can do that in English or in Hungarian,
whichever you prefer.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

It has been said that man is a rational animal.  All my life I have
been searching for evidence which could support this.
     -- Bertrand Russell

At 10:24 AM 5/1/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:

<snip>
>Yes, but.
>
>It is clear that the populist 'policies' preached by Torgyan are
>attractive to a significant segment of the Hungarian populace.

And Vladimir Zhirinovsky's policies are attractive to some Russians.  And
Gheorghe Funar is popular with some Romanians.

Torgyanism is not unique to Hungary.  A lot of Eastern Europe is still
confused, nervous, and rudderless.   Demagogues in Eastern Europe are a
dime a dozen.

>It is also clear, however, that there are many people who are attracted by
>his policies but repulsed by his personal record.  (Those not attracted to
>his 'policies' tend to find him unattractive too, as a rule.)  Apart from
>a minority of the populace, he is not considered Prime Minister material.
>Hence, it remains to be seen how effective he really is as a political
>leader and how many votes he will gain for his party.
>
>But Eva is right: he has to be taken seriously and has to be taken on
>seriously by his political opponents.

If Torgyan is taken seriously don't we risk giving his ideas credibility.
I remember that Zhirinovsky's popularity in Russia rose when the West was
reporting on his antics.  For sure, I'd keep a close eye on these guys, but
I wouldn't take their ideas seriously.

Joe Szalai

 on Apr 28 21:47:56 EDT 1997 in HUNGARY #984:

>On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
>> Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of
>> attacking Europe.  On the other hand, European nations have attacked
Russia
>> often.
>
>Gee, I could have sworn those were Soviet tanks on the streets of Prague
>in 1968, but I guess they came from behind the Hale-Bopp comet after all.
>Thanks, Joe, for settling this once and for all.
>
How interesting (or is it revealing?) that no mention is made of Budapest
1956>

Ferenc

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
 normal

Background:
  In spite of several requests of the Csangos (the Hungarian minority
in Moldova, Romania) the Roman Catholic Curch is still not offering
them the Holy Masses in their native tongue. Even the Hungarian
minority in Slovakia do not receive sufficient support from the Catholic
church: They still do not have an own Catholic bishop despite their
adjuration to the Pope.
  On June 3 the President of Hungary, Arpad Goncz, will meet the Pope.
This is an excellent opportunity to ask President Goncz to
intervene at the Pope on behalf of the Csangos and the Hungarian
minority of Slovakia.

What to do:
  Please write a letter to President Goncz and ask him to speak up
in favour of the Csangos and the Hungarian minority in Slovakia
during his meeting with the Pope. Feel free to use the attached form
letters. Letter #1 is written in Hungarian, letter  #2 in English.

Address of President Goncz:
Dr. Arpad Goncz
A Magyar Koztarsasag Elnoke
1357 Budapest, Orszaghaz, HUNGARY

**************************************************************

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter written in Hungarian:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<datum>

Dr. Arpad Goncz
A Magyar Koztarsasag Elnoke
1357 Budapest, Orszaghaz, HUNGARY

Tisztelt Elnok Ur!

tudomasom szerint On junius 3-an, Szent Adalbert halalanak
1000-ik evfordulojan, talalkozik a Papaval. Ez a talalkozas egy
kivalo alkalmat kinal az Elnok Urnak a Csango es a szlovakiai magyar
honfitarsaink szorult helyzetere felhivni a Szentatya figyelmet.

Csango testvereinknak  mind a mai napig nincs lehetosege
magyar Istentiszteletet latogatni. A helyi roman puspok, Petru
Gergel, a csangok es az erdelyi magyar puspokok hatarozott keresere
sem engedelyezi a magyar nyelvu Szentmiseket. Tekintettel a kedvezo
politikai korulmenyekre a Szentatyanak csak egy szavaba kerulne,
hogy ezt a tarthatatlan allapotot megszuntesse.

A szlovakiai magyar honfitarsaink a paphiany az egyik legnagyobb
gondja. Tiz ev mulva varhatoan a mai plebaniaknak a fele
rendelkezik sajat lelkipasztorral.  A "Jopasztor Alapitvany" szerint,
a helyzet javulasat egy magyar pupok kinevezese hozhatna. Az
alapitvany e keresere a Papa eddig nem tett eleget, valoszinuleg a
szlovakiai puspoki kar ellenallasa miatt.

Kerem tisztelt Elnok Urat, jarjon kozbe a Szentatyanal csango es a
szlovakiai magyar testvereink erdekeben.

Oszinte tisztelettel

<nev, cim>



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter written in English:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<date>

The Honorable Dr. Arpad Goncz
President of Hungary
1357 Budapest, Orszaghaz,
HUNGARY

Dear Mr. President:

please speak up in favour of the Csangos and the Hungarian minority
in Slovakia on the occasion of your meeting with the Pope on the 3rd
of June.

Several Csango congregations have been asking for years, that the
Holy Mass shall be offered in their archaic Hungarian language. Up
to now their bishop Petru Gergel has refused this request. This
denial is both contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church
and is also an affront to their most basic human rights. Furthermore
it promotes the cultural assimilation of a unique nation. Considering
the advantageous political situation one word of the Holy Father
would be enough to solve this unsustainable problem.

One of the major problems of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia is
the diminishing number of pastors. At this rate within 10 years
their number will halve. To help the situation, the "Jopasztor
alapitvany" has appealed to Pope John Paul II to name a Hungarian
bishop. This is opposed by Slovak Catholic interests and to date
there had been no action.

Mr. President, please intervene on behalf of the Csangos and the
Hungarian minority of Slovakia at the Pope on June 3.

Respectfully,

<name, title, address>