Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 749
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-08-05
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: NPA, NFerenc (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: and about Hunyad / (mind)  77 sor     (cikkei)
3 Raphael Patai dead at 8.. (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: The nym issue (mind)  255 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: and about Hunyad / (mind)  196 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Anonymus (mind)  124 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Sophistry (mind)  67 sor     (cikkei)
8 A letter of King Bela IV (mind)  240 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: and about Hunyad / (mind)  129 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Sophistry (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: The nym issue (mind)  48 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: and about Hunyad / (mind)  38 sor     (cikkei)
13 On early East-European history (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: The nym issue (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Sophistry (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
16 Smoking in Hungary (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Farkas & Co. vs NPA (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Sophistry (mind)  51 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Sophistry (mind)  42 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: Sophistry (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: and about Hunyad / (mind)  55 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: And now something entirely different: technical lis (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Anonymus (mind)  95 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: and about Hunyad / (mind)  123 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: NPA, NFerenc (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
26 Re: The Nemenyi files (mind)  57 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: Anonymity on the Net (mind)  69 sor     (cikkei)
28 Help! I need a shrink.... (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
29 Looking for a Hotel in Budapest (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
30 Re: Rare Delicacies (Was disgusting food/A growing list (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
31 Re: And now something entirely different: technical lis (mind)  42 sor     (cikkei)
32 Re: The nym issue (mind)  161 sor     (cikkei)
33 Re: The nym issue (mind)  146 sor     (cikkei)
34 Re: The nym issue (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: NPA, NFerenc (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 03:38 PM 8/2/96 -0500,
NPA writes in response to A Kozma

<Snip dialogue from both>

NPA says

"You just let me do my business the way I want to do it".
"Worry about your own life".

Hi NPA:

I'd like to quote/respond to  your above claimed wisdom...and  just to add a
perception or two; .
>
In answer to your 1st line....  I have deduced that you have just done that....

Re 2nd line;  seems to me, that you are coming from within...  in which
light... why, have you not proven this fact?

That is all!
Regards,
Aniko
+ - Re: and about Hunyad / (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva writes:

>>Regarding the "original cradle," if this is what you mean, no, there is no
>>convincing evidence but several theories based on many successive layers of
>>assumptions and hypotheses. IMHO, the best candidates are Moesia Superior,
>>Dalmatia, and Pannonia Inferior.
>
>        These are quite disperate regions. I heard of the Dalmatian
>hypothesis, based on loan words from Albanian but I didn't hear the others.
>Do you care to elaborate for us?

Due to changes in the provinces' organization, frontiers shifted over time,
but, overall, Moesia II, Dalmatia, and Pannonia I bordered on each other and
had a triple-junction point that, between the 2nd and 6th century, was
roughly within a 200 km SE of Belgrade.

Common linguistic elements, pre-Latin and East-Latin, between Romanian and
Albanian are undeniable( and curiously enough, Arumanian-Albanian links are
weaker than the Romanian-Albanian ones), as well as the fact that they were
par excellence shepherds. However, since Vlachs' migration was propelled
mainly by transhumance, it seems normal to assume the same factor also acted
upon the Albanians.

In other words, Albanians themselves are not certainly "in situ."
Illyro-Albanian continuity,  another can of worms, is supported by arguments
similar to those on which the Daco-Romanian continuity is based: no
historical documents, very few linguistic elements, and some highly
debatable archaeological evidence. Moreover, while the Vlachs always called
themselves with an ethnicon derived from Romanus and spoke a Latin-derived
language, Albanians' degree of Romanization was comparatively insignificant,
and Slavic influences did not count for much either. It follows that the
Romanian areal of ethnogenesis (at least its center of weight) was well
inside, and for a long time period, the territory in which Latin was spoken,
but the Albanian cradle was probably, during the Roman times, more closer to
the Jiricek line, and shifted southward with the Slavic invasion.

As expected, archaeology doesn't offer too many clues due to both its
inherent methodological difficulties in dealing with ethnicity issues, and
the lifestyle of the shepherds, not that suitable for producing high
preservation potential artifacts.

Toponimy offers some hints, but not too powerful. Oldest preserved,
uncontested, North Romanian toponyms are in Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro,
dated as "older than the 9th century," which doesn't help too much with
establishing when the Vlach shepherds arrived in that area. Highest
densities of old, Vlach-related place-names occur in the South Morava
watershed, lower Drina valley, and Romanian Banat, but are very loosly and
vaguely dated as "in the Middle Ages."

Written evidence is scarce, yet so much more relevant. I'll mention briefly
only what I think it might be of interest to you:

Presbyter Diocleas (Regnum Sclavorum) records that a certain South Slavic
"regis Svetoplek", visited by a certain philosopher Constantine, later
crowned king in the presence of a Papal legate, urged the Latin Christians,
who had been living in the mountains since the barbarian invasions to return
to their homes. Another chronicle, mentioned in Andras Mocsy's 1974
"Pannonia and Upper Moesia : a history of the middle Danube," describes 6th
century Latins, whose towns were leveled by an earthquake, going into
hiding, in the mountains, scared by the possibility of barbarian attacks.

Miracula Sancti Dimitrii and Porphyrogenitus' DAI support the claim that
"Romanoi" ethnic splinters moved across the Danube, more or less willingly,
from Illyria in Avar Pannonia.

A late-recorded (17th century) Romanian tradition (see Stoica Ludescu
chronicle) mentions "Romanians of the Romans" crossing the the Danube
northward at Turnu Severin and settling at the foot of the mountain, some
inside the Carpathians, others outside. No helpful dating elements were
recorded.

Russian Primary Chronicle, Anonymus and Keza confirm a Vlach presence inside
the Carpathian basin at the time of the Magyar conquest.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache
+ - Raphael Patai dead at 8.. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Sat, 3 Aug 1996 09:28:52 -0700 Tibor Benke > wrote:

> I am forwarding this obituary from Anthro-l.  It might interest some
> of you.  For those with anti-semitic tendencies  (if there are any
> such among you), it is yet another demonstration that Jewish
> Hungarians contribute in many excellent ways to the betterment of
> humanity.

The most popular work the great scholar Raphael Patai wrote  (in
co-operation with Robert Graves) is "Hebrew Myths. The Book of
Genesis". This book was first published in the Netherlands in 1963.
AFAIK the Hungarian translation was published in 1996 and the book is
presently available in Hungary.


Paolo Agostini >
+ - Re: The nym issue (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi, Zoli!

At 11:54 03/08/96 -0400, Zoli Fekete wrote:
>
>On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
<sznip>
 I just assumed when I saw it that the guys who
>> created Star Trek must have borrowed a Hungarian name for the name of their
>> avaricious entrepreneurial race. Are you telling me I'm wrong, and the truth
>> is that *jferengi*, our esteemed Listmember, borrowed the name from the Star
>> Trek series and not the other way around?

> He *IS* from the series ;-).

Gee, and here I thought he was just a guy from a town called *Fereng*!
>
>> > The fact is, as a practical matter 'stowewrite' does not assume any more
>> >responsibility than 'jferengi' does - so there, deal with it...
>>
>> On this one I am inclined to side with Sam, Zoli. I believe you are who you
>> claim to be,
>
> OK I'll tell Zoli if I see him and we'll both have a good laugh (note
>that the previous remark may be a joke in no way proving that the entity
>"Zoli" actually exists ;-)).

That sounds like "Shakespeare's plays weren't written by Shakespeare but by
somebody else with the same name." Are you the *real Zoli* or only the
*pretend Zoli*?
>
>> because there is a history of posts from you, if one cares to
>> search back a ways, which seems to reveal you as a distinct entity, and a
>> generally reasonable one to boot.

> This is flattering {1} - too bad you're married {2}.

Thanks! Now I'm blushing! (despite the footnotes ;-))

 But it has no real
>bearing on me being "Zoli Fekete", or vice versa. How would this be any
>different were I be, let's say, ZFerengi?

Well, for example, your comments are flattering if you're the person I think
you are - but leaving aside the general unattractiveness of the *Ferengi* -
the *identity* of the person in that sense *is* important. It would be a
real come-down, for example, to decide, hmmmm . . .  maybe Zoli and I could
make beautiful music together, and then find out you were actually female!
It may not matter if we are all faceless, featureless entities who meet only
in cyberspace, but I can tell you that having spent the night at Aniko's, I
would have been rather upset had she turned out to be male! So, it was
really rather nice to find out that the Aniko I met more or less conformed
to the image she conveys of herself on the 'Net.

> More to the point, I can't see how this would effect what I write and
>what others should think about the content (as opposed to the person).

Here, I basically agree with you as far as the messages that people post and
the question of whether or not those can be taken seriously. It shouldn't
matter whether I am male or female as to whether what I write should be
taken seriously or not. And, the use of a pseudonym is not of much concern
if, for instance, the person does develop a history of posts from which
their sensibility can be judged. For example, there appears to be a definite
persona behind the *Jeliko* signature, and people generally deal with him -
and we assume Jeliko is a *he* don't we - do we actually know that? Does it
matter? No, because his sex is irrelevant to the question of the value of
the information he posts.
>
>> I am automatically somewhat sceptical of
>> those who are only willing to use pseudonyms, even when their opinions are
>> revealed to be reasonable.
> This is the serious problem with your thinking (and I am really truly
>serious here)! The issue has two sides, both of which seem rather poorly
>understood by you&Sam, if you don't mind me saying.
> One side is that many if not most nyms may have their good reasons,
>not some unspecified dark motives you're imputing, for not using their
>real-life identity.

Nope, you've got me wrong there. I am not trying to impute dark motives to
everyone who uses a pseudonym, but I am a little bit suspicious and
sceptical at the outset at least. And, if you will pardon me saying this, I
think the percentage of people who are really *out there* in their opinions,
or just plain wacko, seems to be higher among those who are using such aliases.

Perhaps this may be simplistic to you, but I live outside a very small town,
where pretty well everyone knows everyone else. Therefore I want to accept
people at face value, and that includes the people I encounter on the Net. I
think this is Sam's reaction, as well. After all, we both live in regions
which are bastions of small town and rural life in North America.

 In any case who are we to decide what are good
>reasons - either their opinions are reasonable or they aren't,
>irrespective of whether their online name is a real one.
> Which leads to the other side: nefarious purposes would much better be
>served by unconspicious false names than mere obvious pseudonyms. But you
>seem to be putting blind faith in things that appear to be real - having
>wasted due scepticism on those declaring straight that they are not
>giving out their real name. While ignorance may be bliss until the goo
>hits the fan, I should point out that this is far larger danger than the
>alleged breach in public scrutiny by nyms in innocent discussions of
>little consequence.

It occurs to me, by the way, that although you are defending the use of the
aliases as in many cases legitimate, (and in that sense more *liberal* than
suspicious Sam and me) you are also the one using the PGP signatures, which
suggests that you are the more suspicious of actual tampering with your
messages. Are you more paranoid, or just more realistic than we are?

> Actually there's a third side too (although saying that in the beginning
>would've botched my metaphor ;-(, but perhaps I could call this the edge
>of the two-sided coin ;-)). 'Stowewrite' mentioned the net.kooks roaming
>around, who do indeed spread an incredible amount of unadultered fecal
>matter all over the net as well as cause serious real-life damages to
>unfortunate victims. Alas these attackers fall mainly in two categories,
>neither of which has to do with pseudonames as such. The first variety is
>making outright forgery (either to mask the culprit, or to impersonate to
>target, or to do both in order to implicate the victim). The second, even
>more virulent strain launches, proudly under their own name, harassment
>campaigns easily amplified in the virtual media. I am afraid people of
>your convictions about the magic verifying power attached to real names
>could be gullibly falling for such tricks based on the "where there's
>smoke there's fire" tempting premise...

Do you mean being gullible in the sense of being *taken in* by such a
campaign of harassment -  that is,believing that such a campaign is
justified, or do you mean that I am more likely to be *victimized* by such a
campaign, in other words to be the target of such a campaign? Why, in either
case?
>
> But of course all this does not tell one way or another why posting as
>"Sam Stowe"/'stowewrite' would be significantly different from doing so
>by "JFerengi"/'jferengi'.
>
>> I wonder for instance why Jeliko, a person for
>> whom I have developed a rather large degree of respect, does not reveal his
>> real identity for us.
> Because it should not make an iota difference in dealing with what he
>posts. But maybe he is in the phonebook after all!?

True, as I have tried to indicate. It seems that there is one *Jeliko* as
*Eva Balogh* as *Joe Szalai*. These people do not appear under one name for
a few weeks, seemingly pushing an extreme ideological agenda, then disappear
only to pop up under other aliases. No, it is not just the use of the
pseudonym, it is the good faith of the person behind that that really
matters at bottom.
>
>> However, in his case, I am willing to put up with a
>> certain degree of discomfort that I feel from this fact in order to have the
>> benefit of his comments, which have been unusually enlightening about  some
>> often obscure (at least to me) elements of Hungarian culture.

> I'd say that this right there should tell you something about how
>unjustified said discomfort is in the first place ;-(...

I think partly at least it is because there is potentially a whole lot more
I can learn from someone if I know more about their background. I relate
this to the best teachers I have ever had - their personas were more
important in their ability to impart the lessons than the texts they used
per se - unless the texts were the original material, such as the Romantic
poets or Shakespeare in the original, perhaps. And, of course, the *persona*
includes everything about the person that makes that person individual. In
other words, although a person may feel a great deal of freedom on the Net,
because his or her identity is cloked to some extent - I have a great desire
in most cases of people who post regularly to discover what they are like -
and I find myself drawing mental pictures of what they are like. Doesn't
everyone do this?
>
>> But I tend to
>> believe that if one is the holder of reasonable and sensible opinions, there
>> is no reason to hide behind a pseudonym, because there should not be
>> repercussions from promulgating reasonable beliefs, and in any case, one
>> should be prepared to stand up for one's beliefs if one feels that they
>> *are* reasonable.
> There should not be repercussions, but there may well be - and often not
>even for beliefs but just because the speaker rubbed someone in a wrong
>way, or simply encountered someone having a combination of loose screws
>with power to harm.

Let's see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that harm may come
in one of two ways. One would be by means of some nefarious character
assuming *your* persona and forging a message which *purports* to be from
you but isn't and then sending it out to damage your reputation. Am I right?
It seems to me, in that case, that everyone on this List would be surprised
if I suddenly announced that I *believed* those blood libel charges after
all. When I found out about such a message being posted, I would simply
disavow it, that is all. And I am sure there must be a mechanism in place
for launching an invetigation to determine who might have originated such a
forgery. The main thing of course for me would be to implement some sort of
security system, such as you have with PGP, so that it couldn't happen again.

The second method of launching an attack on me would be for *nefarious*
characters (for such they would have to be to denounce me :-)) to denounce
me to my superiors. But, why would anyone bother? And, unless, they are
referring to forged material to support their denunciation, where would they
get material from me which would justify my being disciplined for material I
have posted? So, I really cannot see that I have anything to fear from
revealing my *true* identity - maybe I don't feel it is really all that
interesting, anyway.

Yes, I *can* accept that there are legitimate reasons to use a nym. Perhaps
in a relatively small community, the expression of unpopular views could be
grounds for revenge to be taken, or people posting might fear repercussions
from their employers, particularly the government. But my personal
preference would be for everyone who posts to use their real names, or at
least a real nickname, and feel that no one had to fear any recriminations
as long as he or she did not break the law.

The second
 Moreover the nature of the online communications is
>such that things can come haunting you without a chance for effectively
>standing up on the virtual stage.

Wouldn't one *always* have the opportunity to stand up for oneself? When
would one not?

 So there could be reasons to hide, if
>that's the motive for someone's using a nym; but also there are other
>motives as well, just as Sam enumerated for off-line characters.
> And again I should point out that for most practical purposes the
' handle gives no less (nor more) "hiding" than
'.
>
>> Johanne (I'm listed in the phone book) Tournier

> Not in mine ;-). In any event, please note that being listed proves
>precious little unless someone calls and talks to you - which could
>happen with anyone with pseudonymous email address just the same!
>
>- -- Zoli "I'm listed too - but what if someone else answers" Fekete

Ah, but you're a virtual neighbour ;-)), given the fact that your address
indicates a Boston locus, and I am in Nova Scotia.

Johanne (Janka)

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
>
> {1} Really!
> {2} This is a gratious personal remark meant to illustrate {3} what some
>netizens may not want to get subjected to when mingling into discussions
> {3} Altough I have indeed always pictured you cute enough so that even
>those three kids wouldn't matter {4}
> {4} See also {2}

(1) Did you mean *gracious* or *gratuitous* in {2}? (2) You make up for (1)
with (2)! (I'm blushing again!) (3) No kids, just dogs! (Almost the same
thing!) (But, I picture you as being about mid-20's, and you would thus
probably be about the age those kids of mine would be if I had them! Too bad
:-(()

****THE END**** (of a post of Fabos-Beckerian proportions!)


Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - Re: and about Hunyad / (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Liviu Iordache writes:
> Jeliko writes:

> >Liviu, we are talking at times of interpretations of what was written
and
> >what Porphyrogentus meant when he wrote something. It is difficult to
come to
> >complete agreement on those issues, without talking to him

> You are correct, but we should pay more attention to the factual
> inaccuracies in our own formulations. Let's take a close look at
> several examples:

> >I am sorry but from the Byzantine direction, "beyond" to me means that
it is
> >north of the area which was previously described...  in Chapter 40
Moravia is
> >"beyond" (i.e. north) of the Hungarians while in Chapter 13 it is south.

> 1.Nowhere, and I really mean nowhere, is Constantine saying that
> megale Moravia is "beyond Turkey."  It is important to follow him
> closely and understand the logic of his geographical picture. In
> chapter 40 Porphyrogenitus, describing  first the southern border of
> Turkey, starts with the landmarks along the Ister (i.e., lower Danube
> and Sava).The text reads (Boba's 1971 translation differs slightly
> from Jenkins', so read it carefully]:

>       In this place are various landmarks of the olden days: there is the

>       bridge of the Emperor Trajan where Turkey [i.e., Hungary] begins;
>       then, a three-days' journey from this same bridge there is
Belgrade,
>       in which is the tower of the holy and great Constantine, the
Emperor;
>       then, again, at the running back of the river [Ister], is the
>       renowned Sirmium by name, a journey of two days from Belgrade; and

>       beyond lies megale Moravia, the unbaptized, which the Turks have

>       blotted out, but over which in former days Sphendoplokos used to

>       rule. Such are the landmarks and names along the Ister river.

> 1a. megale Moravia is not beyond Turkey, but beyond Belgrade and
>       Sirmium;

That is also a possible interpretation, placing the unbaptized megale (I
agree that it has most likely nothing to do with great) Moravia of
Svatopluk to the east of Sirmium, but at the mountains which start at the
south shore of the Sava, there are the Croats. How much space is there
between Sirmium and the mountains? The history of the wars between the
Bulgarians and the Serbs or Croats which took place a few years before the
Hungarian arrival do not say anything about any Moravians. The Conversio..
in Chapter X for the ~856 area states that "In cuius spacio temporis quidam
Priwina exaltus a Moimaro duce Maravorum supra Danubium venit ad Ratbodum."
Now I do not know if there was another Ratbodus in the southern Danube
area, but I have never heard of one. Please also note that Pribina's son
Kotsilis even according to the DAI was leading Frankish and Slavic armies
against the Croats, without any mention of Moravian involvement, thus a
border existed before the Hungarian arrival between the Croats and the then
Frankish fief in Pannonia. Thus again not much space for Moravia there.


> 1b. all of these [bridge of Trajan, Belgrade, Sirmium, megale Moravia]

>       are **landmarks** along the southern boundary of Turkey, meaning
that

>       megale Moravia is rather a city [a landmark, something similar to a

>       bridge or the other two towns] than a country. All the other forms
>       recorded  in contemporary sources, Latin  [Sclavi Margenses, Sclavi
>       Marahenses] or Slavonic [Moravskaia oblast, Moravskaia zemlia],
agree

>       with this definition of a dominial territory of a prince by the
burg
>       or urban center from which the principality emanated. "megale
>       Moravia" is, therefore,  the old burg of Sventopolk. A city of
>       Moravia is attested by Johannes Skylitzes when describing the
>       Byzantine-Hungarian frontier as of 1040 as running along Morava and
>       Belgrade fortresses of Pannonia.

There certainly is a possibility of another Slavic lord having the name
Svatopluk hanging out in the as stated one or twi city region in the south,
but I do not think that the Franks would have had to worry much about them
to require help from either the Hungarians or the Bulgarians to take care
of them. It is the magnitude of the wars between the Franks and the
Moravians that makes me suspect the small city area based Moravia. Please
note that there are connections in the chronicles between the Moravians and
the Bohemians and that would have been also difficult with all the other
areas between them.


> 1c. a critical part of the original text, in Greek, reads "kai apo ton

>       ekeise he megale Morabia, he abaptisos." Puspoki-Nagy (1982) and
Boba

>       (1991), both stressed that the correct translation, word for word,
is

>       "and from thence [thither, to that place] lies old Moravia, the

>       unbaptized." Jenkins used incorrectly a less specific "beyond,"
>       probably under the influence of the traditional interpretation on
>       Moravia's location; in Jenkins' reasoning "beyond" seemed correct
>       even if megale Moravia had lain 300 miles to the north, away from
>       Sirmium. It is a typical example of a translation "adjusted to fit
>       the translator's prejudice.

I agree that the translations can also cause problems, that is why I like
the Dumbarton Oaks edition, because it has the Greek text on one side and
the English on the other.


> 2.Constantine goes from drawing the southern boundary to the actual
> territory controlled by Hungarians:

>       but the regions above these [i.e., above the landmarks and names--
>       the bridge, Belgrade, Sirmium, and megale Moravia] which comprehend
>       the whole settlement of Turkey..

Yes, but the Chapter 13 part describes the Croats again on the south along
the mountains, thus we have to consider only the region between Sirmium,
and the mountains.

> ...and continues with the rivers Timisis, Toutis, Morisis and Titza.
> The "regions" and enumerated rivers are north of the Danube and above
> [i.e, north] of the landmarks that include megale Moravia. Therefore,
> megale Moravia is below [i.e., south] of the enumerated rivers and
> "regions."

> 3.Constantine follows with the Turks' neighbors:

>       Neighbors of the Turks are: on the eastern side the Bulgars, where

>       the river Istros, also called Danube, runs between them; on the
>       northern, the Pechenegs; on the western the Franks; and on the
>       southern, the Croats.

> Constantine's geography is perfect. Since he uses a solar framework of
> reference, in contrast to our magnetic or astronomic, one should read
> "east-southeast" instead of "east," north-northeast" instead of
> "north," and so on. As he uses the present tense, Moravia is not
> included here because it had been "blotted out" by the Turks, megale
> meaning  not "great" but "old" or "former." In chapter 13 he lists
> megale Moravia (let's stress **megale**) on the south side, but
> immediately adds that it was "occupied" (past tense) by the Turks, and
> only after that continues with, "On the side of the mountains the
> Croats are [present tense] adjacent to the Turks."

Are you aware of any mention of Croat/Moravian conflict as part of the
Frankish/Moravian wars or in any other relations? I am not. In those days
with the high polarization neighboring folks always had some conflicts.


> I hope this answers all your objections concerning the lack of clarity
> and coherence in Constantine's geography.

Its not his geography I have problems with, it is in the placement of the
people. :-).

> Regarding his correspondence with the South Slavic "Archons of
> Moravia," I meant  the **descendents** of those Moravs that fled
> megale Moravia after the Hungarian conquest. I take the blame for the
> misunderstanding. However, add this element to the Kabaroi visit and I
> must accept Constantine was exceptionally well-informed on the
> Moravian history. You asked, why hasn't he offered more details?
> Porphyrogenitus was not recording a history, and therefore, the
> Moravian events were maybe irrelevant for his purpose of writing DAI.
> But then again, no Byzantine chronicler ever refers to the mission of
> Cyril and Methodius. Boba (1991) thinks is a deliberate omission of
> names of "personae non gratae." Simply put, Cyril and Methodius
> "defected" to Rome, and , therefore, no events related to them were
> worth mentioning.

Your interpretation may be corect re Cyril and Methodius, although the
break between the two religions was not as strong then as shortly
thereafter. But the DAI started with the history of the Turks, the Croats
and the Serbs (I think also of the Diocletian transferred Romanoi, but we
can treat that in another story). I think that the theories of Boba are
very interesting but as it is obvious I am not convinced (maybe I should
add yet, because it is definitely a possibility).

> Pribina's expelling (which was not from Nitra) "beyond" the Danube,
> the Nitrava (which is not Nitra) issue, Rastislav's Dowina (which is
> not Devin) and the big  battle of Braslavespurch (which is not
> Bratislava) are problems of relevance for the present discussion, but,
> if you or others are interested, we can deal with them separately.

Well, I have jumped ahead a little with the quote from the Conversio, do
you have another suggested location for Ratbodus in the south also?


Regards,Jeliko.
+ - Re: Anonymus (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Liviu Iordache writes:
> _JELIKO > wrote:

> >>The funeral rite is typical of nomads, but where the
> >>Hungarians of Arpad the only nomads roaming around Ba~lgrad in the
> >>firs half of the 10th century? The isolated position with respect to
> >>the other 500 Hungarian graves speaks for the contrary.

> >No, because the 500 Hungarian graves are also from approximately the
same
> >period.

> There is a lot of uncertainty behind that "approximately," but even if
> all the 501 graves are from exactly the same period, there must be a
> reason for the mounted one, from the burned building, to be isolated
> with respect to the 500 Hungarian graves.

That is a possibility, the other is that in now also populated areas, the
archeologists have not found others. I am a believer that for historical
purposes archeology is only one tool, unless they grid and excavate a whole
country, which would be somewhat difficult.


> >Yes, there were other nomads (but not too many in the same region
> >at that time) who also used similar burial customs. They could have been
> >leftover Avars (of either wave) or cohort Khabars.

> Here you go! Nomadic Turkic tribes, the ones for whom the old Magyars
> used the generic term "Cum" [see again Macartney], were in the region
> in that time, some of them being, together with some Vlachs,  Glad's
> helpers against Arpad's people. Therefore, Anonymus is not guilty of
> any anachronism. Hasty historians, eager to discredit Anonymus, have
> stubbornly identified his "Cum" with the 12 century "Cumans."

I do not know wherefrom Macartney derived his conclusion. At least in the
documentation I am aware of the Hungarians were fairly particular in
distuinghising between the various, even if partly related tribes. There
are even surviving names for the Pechenegs (Bessenyo and possibly Sas) and
fellow travlers (Szekely). I am not aware of Kun being used before the
actual arrival of the Cumans. (I am aware that the Khabars, Uzzes,
Pechenegs and Cumans may have been at one time more closely related at
least linguistically, but the Hungarians maintained the distinct Slavic
tribe designations in spite of the close linguistic similarities.)



> The following is reworked from an article I posted in a somehow
> related thread (hope you don't mind,  but I have time constrains too):

> When analyzed carefully, Anonymus' Gesta proves to be not
> an entirely  fictional story, as many Hungarian historians have
> suggested (Anonymus will always be blamed for his inopportune
> mentioning of a certain Gelou dux Blacorum :-), but rather a
> reasonably accurate and logical historical account.

> The criticism directed against Anonymus credibility  is based
> on the assumption that he did not know the basic facts  of
> early medieval history, or that he wanted and was able to tell
> his readers an "invented story."

> In simple words, the assumption sucks.  Anonymus, who in spite of his
> anonymity must be one of the most famous figures in the annals of
> historiography,  could not have hoped to deceive the reader of his
> Gesta in Western Europe, for whom he dedicated his work, a "literatus"
> well versed in medieval historiography:

> >>>>P, called the master, the notary of the late glorious Bela of
>       good memory,  King of Hungary, sends his greetings to
>       N, his dearest
>       friend....[Prologue]<<<<

> The Gesta, written for a friend in the West, was unknown in
> Hungary. A copy of it was found in Austria only late in the 18th
> century, and until 1928 Anonymus' Gesta was kept in Vienna.
> Moreover, Anonymus could not have intended to mislead with an
> "invented" story the Hungarian nobility or the royal family
> descending from Arpad.

Well, I am afraid you have not convinced me. One problem could be also that
 probably only pat of it survived. It is also presumptious to assume that
all western literati were in fact also aware of the sources of earlier days
(it sure does not appear that Anonymus was aware of the Annales Fulda or
Luitprands writings or the DAI either) or had any incling of the presumed
correctness of Anonymus in relation of Carpathian basin history. Anonymus
is certainly in conflict also with the DAI on the presence of Hungarians in
some of regions (i.e. Galad in Keve, Kovin across from the Morava) very
specifically described in the DAI. I am not picking specifically on
Anonymus, in all of the chronicles some then current events or folk names
are inserted and the part for which they had no references, they just
invented.

In some ways, we today probably have better awareness of sources than the
early writers did. It is however also true, that many of the early writings
are irrepairably lost.

> The information provided by Anonymus is not contradicted by any
> domestic of foreign sources, nor was his Gesta known to the authors of
> such sources

Probably vice versa, although we disagree on whether there is a
contradiction or not.

> Some Hungarian historians [e.g., Gyorffy] claim that he made Gelou out
> of Gyula, conveniently ignoring the fact that Gelou  and Gyula appear
> together in chapter 24 in distinct forms with reference to two
> different persons.Therefore, Anonymus must have been one of the first
> Romanizing agents ;-)  I should have added the smiley the first time.

I understood the smiley the first time, but I do not think there was any
"other intent" by Anonymus. Please note that even in later Hungarian the
term "Gyalui havasok" survived and to my knowledge nobody mixed them up
with Gyula, except perhaps Anonymus again picking place names for supposed
personalities. BTW is there a Romanian word derivation for Gyalu?

> >His work at least by Hungarian historians (that I am familiar with) is
> >treated in a number of different ways.

> How about the treatment he received outside of Hungary (and I don't
> mean necessarily in the equally biased Romania)?

I feel, based on what I read so far, the non-Hungarian interpretation is
also mixed.

Regards,Jeliko
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:40 PM 8/3/96 -0500, "Peter A. Nemenyi" > wrote:

Peter Nemenyi
>>>I might understand why people in any given moment hide their origin.
>>>But after so many years, should it be kept secret still?

Joe Szalai
>>Why worry about it?  Does it enrich your historical knowledge to know that
>>so and so was a Jew?

Peter Nemenyi
>Yes. Just as much as knowing that a great musician or scientist was a
>Jew. Or do we judge some people differently, based upon, what they did?

Joe Szalai
>>Only those who think in terms of conspiracies would worry about such
>>things.

Peter Nemenyi
>So also mentioning that some scientists, like Einstein was a Jew instead
>of just a German, means conspiracy but with the opposite interest? :-)

Joe Szalai
>>Only they would find such information valuable.

Peter Nemenyi
>They who?

Joe Szalai
>>When I read general history, the last thing that interests me is whether
>>or not someone is jewish.  It really doesn't enter my mind.  Nor should it.
>>It's meaningless and irrelevant.

Peter Nemenyi
>Oh, I see. Someone on this list is very interested if Jesus was a Jew or
>not. Is this meaningful or relevant? ;-)

Quote provided by Joe Szalai
>>"I determine who is a Jew." Karl Lueger (1844-1910), Austrian lawyer,
>>politician.
>>The statement has also been attributed to Nazi leader Hermann Goering.

Peter Nemenyi
>So, why the cited statement? Are we arguing about Lueger or Goering.
>Or should I say, the German Lueger and German Goering?
>
>NPA.

You just don't get it, do you, Mr. Nemenyi?  You say that your historical
knowledge is enriched by knowing who was Jewish and who wasn't.  You say
that it's the same as knowing that a great musician or scientist was a Jew.
Why?  Why do you want to know?  How is your knowledge enriched?

I can think of only three groups of people who might be interested in
knowing the ethnic or religious background of people; the oppressor, the
oppressed and those who might be interested in the history, psychology,
study, etc., of oppression and repression.  Have you ever, clearly and
unequivocally, stated which group you belong to?

The oppressor digs up 'historical tidbits' in a delusory effort to 'prove'
their point of view.  For them, 'historical research' is a pretext.  On the
other hand, the oppressed, often feared, reviled and killed, look back in
history to show that they too can be great.  They draw on history for strength.

What's your game, Mr. Nemenyi?

Joe Szalai
+ - A letter of King Bela IV (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

The following text was recently published on scr. Can someone confirm its
autenticity ?


<(The original of the below letter, written on a parchment scroll,
 was found some twenty-odd years ago in the secret archives of the
 Vatican )

                                                                   =20
THE
 "MONGOL LETTER"
                                                     =20
ADDRESSED BY B=C9LA
 IV, KING OF HUNGARY,
                                                                   =20
 TO
 POPE INNOCENT IV
 ON=20
11 NOVEMBER 1252


To our Holy Father in Christ, our Lord INNOCENT, by the Grace of God=20
High Pontiff of our Holy Roman Catholic Church - B=E9la by the Grace of=20
God King of Hungary sends his dutiful and cordial respects.=20


In the wake of the Mongol disaster the major part of Hungary has been=20
turned into desert. Pagan tribes surround it, like hedges the sheep-fold.
 Ruthenians and Wallachians in the East; heretic Bulgars and
Bosniacs in the South, with whom we are still at war. In the North and West
there are=20
the Germans of whom, owing to our common faith, we should expect help.=
 However,
instead of the fruit of aid all we get from them are the thorns of war.

 For they keep raiding our country for plunder and=20
rape. For reason of all these woes, but above all on account of the Mongols
who taught
 us, like they did other people they
have trampled underfoot, to fear the experience of war - and having taken
counsel
 with the  Barons and Prelates of our Realm - we address ourselves to the
Vicar of Christ and His=20
Brethren, last refuge of
Christians in extreme peril, in order to prevent from happening to us, and
through
 us to other Christian peoples, that which we fear.=20

News is reaching us, day after day, about the Mongols. They are preparing to
attack not only us, whom=20
they hate most for not having, despite the wounds inflicted on them, bowed
to their yoke, whilst all
 the other peoples against whom they have brought force to bear performed
acts of submission and
became their tributaries - east of our frontier the Russian lands, as well
as that of the Coumanians,
 Wallachians  and Bulgars, who had once been under our rule.
 Those Mongols are henceforward organizing themselves not only against us
but against the entire=20
Christian world and, as borne out by very many trustworthy witnesses, they
will soon deploy their
 immense cohorts against the whole of Europe.=20

We are equally afraid lest should those people appear once more, our men,
knowing the savage cruelty
 of the Tartars, might hesitate or simply not dare to resist them any more,
fear bending them under
 the yoke
of the enemy, as it has the other neighbouring peoples, unless the Holy
Apostolic See, guided by
 wise foresight, effectively strengthen our country with its reinforcement,
thus instilling its=20
inhabitants with new
courage.=20

We are writing this principally for two reasons - so as not to be accused
afterwards of not having
 explored all possibilities or of plain negligence.=20

As regards negligence, we may affirm that we have done everything possible
in our position and based
 on our experience when we had exposed ourselves and all our belongings to
the menace and violence of
the Tartars, still largely unknown at that time. Nor can anyone accuse us of
sins of omission.=20


The Tartars were still cutting throats in our country when al- ready we
addressed ourselves to the three=20
great powers of the Christian world:=20

       - To the Holy See, master and teacher of all Christendom;=20


       - To the Imperial Court to which we have even offered our=20

       submission provided that it lent us timely and decisive aid=20

       against the Mongol pest;=20



       - And also to the Royal House of France, but from nowhere=20
       did we get aid or comfort, only words.=20


And yet we had left no stone unturned; for the sake of Christendom we
humbled our=20
Royal Majesty
 by giving two of our daughters as wives to Ruthenian princes and one to a
Polish prince
 to procure from
them, and other friends living to the east of us, jealously guarded secret
information=20
concerning the Tartars, so as to be able to resist the designs and intrigues
of the latter.=20

We received in our country also the fugitive Coumanians, and it is sad to
say that thus we
 defend our country with the help of pagans; it is with them that we combat
the enemies of the
 Church. Moreover, for the protection of the Christian faith we have wedded
our oldest=20
son to a Coumanian bride,=20
in order to avoid the worst, thus inducing the Coumanians to embrace
Christianity,=20
as we had one before with other
populations.=20

For these and other reasons we wish to furnish proof to his Holiness the
Pope that amidst
 all those misfortunes we have received no aid from any Sovereign, any
European people
 whatsoever, except from the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem who=20
at our request not long ago, have taken up arms against
 the pagans and schismatics for the defense of our country and true
Christian faith.=20

We have already stationed them at places of danger, on the Bulgaro-Coumanian
frontier and the
 Lower Danube, for it had been there that the Tartars made irruption into
our country.=20

But on that territory we have other designs, too. We hope that if God aids
our work and that
 done by our above-mentioned brethren, and if the Holy See should deign to
help us too,
 we may spread the Christian
faith with the assistance of the Knights all along the Danube as far as the
Sea of Constantinople,
 thus providing adequate aid to the Roman Empire and also the Holy Land.=20

On the other hand, we have placed Knights to defend the fortresses we built
 along the Danube, which are as yet novel things to our people.=20

For it is our oft-proven belief that if we reinforce the defense of the=
 Danube
 with fortresses it will be our salvation as well as that of the whole of
Europe.=20

       For the Danube is the river of resistance.=20

Even though unprepared and having suffered a terrible defeat we were able to
 hold out against the Mongols for ten months, at a time when our country had=
=20
almost no fortresses at all, nor strong defenders.=20

If the Mongols should succeed in taking possession of the Danube and then,
 God forbid, occupy our country, the road would lie open to them towards
 other Christian countries; for once because there is no sea
to stand in their way, and on the other hand, because here they could most=
=20
advantageously install their families with which they are abundantly=
 provided.=20

Let us recall Attila who came from the East to conquer the West and=
 installed
 his principal camp in the middle of Hungary or, on the other hand, the=
 Roman=20
Emperors who sallied forth fighting from the West to
subdue the East and who again installed the majority of their troops between
 the frontiers of our country.=20

May Your Holiness meditate all these things carefully so as to take=
 appropriate
 measures and bring remedy to the wound before it begins to fester.=20

It is precisely for that reason that I beg your vigilant Papal Holiness to
 grant us its aid, take salutary measures and apply beneficial remedies lest
the wound
 become envenomed.=20

Many thinking men are astonished at seeing Your Holiness tolerate under the
 present conditions the indifference shown to Europe by the King of France,
that=20
eminent member of the Church.=20

They are also astonished at all the care heaped by Your Holiness on the=
 Empire=20
of Constantinople as well as other lands overseas. Yet if those were to be
 lost-which God forbid-less harm would be done to the
inhabitants of Europe than if our country alone were occupied.=20

We declare before God and all men that our need is so great and our cause so
grave=20
that were it only for the perils of the road we would, instead of merely
sending=20
ambassadors as we do, prostrate ourselves
personally at Your Holiness's feet, in order to make ourselves heard by the
entire
 Church, to submit our apologies and obtain Your approval to coming to an
 understanding with the Mongols, in case Your
Holiness does not grant us the aid re- quested should danger befall us.=20

We implore the Holy Mother Church to take into consideration, if not our
 own merits, those of our saintly royal predecessors who had, full of
 devotion and respect, maintained themselves and their peoples in
the faith of salvation, similarly to other princes of this world, in
the purity of that faith and in obedience to the Church, wherefore the
 Holy Apostolic See had offered them, while all went well for them, and
promised, in the event of danger, even without submitting any special
 request, all kinds of graces and favours.=20

At the present time, however, a grave danger threatens.=20

Let Your Holiness open His paternal heart and send us an armed force
 signifying substantial aid for the protection of the Faith and for=20
the good of the people at this time of great persecutions.=20

For if Your Holiness should - an event we cannot believe - refuse our=20
well-founded request which is of interest to all the faithful of=20
the Church of Rome, we would be compelled, no longer as children=20
but as
outcasts from the fatherly flock, to beg protection elsewhere.=20

Done at S=E1rospatak, this eleventh day of November, feast of the
Bishop and Martyr Saint Martin.=20

       B=C9LA IV=20
       King of Hungary >
+ - Re: and about Hunyad / (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jeliko writes:

>That is also a possible interpretation, placing the unbaptized megale (I
>agree that it has most likely nothing to do with great) Moravia of
>Svatopluk to the east of Sirmium, but at the mountains which start at the
>south shore of the Sava, there are the Croats. How much space is there
>between Sirmium and the mountains?

I mentioned that Constantine keeps switching in time of his description
between past and present. Your objection was already answered. I wrote:

>> In chapter 13 he lists
>> megale Moravia (let's stress **megale**) on the south side, but
>> immediately adds that it was "occupied" (past tense) by the Turks, and
>> only after that continues with, "On the side of the mountains the
>> Croats are [present tense] adjacent to the Turks."

I can only insist that Constantine mentioned the mountains dividing the
Hungarians and the Croats only after describing the Hungarian conquest of
Moravia. Hence these mountains, that in his [i.e., Constantine's] time
separated the Croats from the Turks, are those that **EARLIER** separated
the Moravs from the Croats, and thus somewhere in the Drava-Sava region.
There is no space problem. Constantine is crystal clear that the Hungarians
occupied the Moravs' land,

Chapter 38: "The Pechenegs fell upon the Tourkoi and drove them out with
their archont Arpad. The Tourkoi, in flight and seeking a land to dwell in,
came and in turn expelled the inhabitants of megale Moravia and settled in
their land, in which the Tourkoi now live to this day."

and, therefore, this is how it happened that in his [i.e., Constantine's]
days the Croats and Hungarians shared a common frontier.

>There certainly is a possibility of another Slavic lord having the name
>Svatopluk hanging out in the as stated one or twi city region in the south,
>but I do not think that the Franks would have had to worry much about them
>to require help from either the Hungarians or the Bulgarians to take care
>of them.

Hmmmmmm, so now Porphyrogenitus' Sphendoplokos is not the Zwentibald of the
Latin sources? I though we have a serious discussion ;-)

>Are you aware of any mention of Croat/Moravian conflict as part of the
>Frankish/Moravian wars or in any other relations? I am not. In those days
>with the high polarization neighboring folks always had some conflicts.

The "Prolog Vita Methodi" and  "Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae" relates
the involvement of both Sventopolk and Methodius in the Croatian affairs.
Boba (1971) presented a minute analysis of the Branimir-Zdeslav conflict.
However, one should not disregard the possibility that it might have been
another Slavic lord Sventopolk and another Methodius ;-)

>The Conversio..
>in Chapter X for the ~856 area states that "In cuius spacio temporis quidam
>Priwina exaltus a Moimaro duce Maravorum supra Danubium venit ad Ratbodum."
>Now I do not know if there was another Ratbodus in the southern Danube
>area, but I have never heard of one. [...] do you have another suggested
>location for Ratbodus in the south also?

This is, again, a partial repost:

Based on Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, it was argued
that sometimes after 833 Moimir, the duke of the Moravians,
defeated Pribina, a rival Slavic warlord, whose lordship was
centered in Nitra, north of the Danube. Following his defeat,
Pribina fled across the Danube to the south to Ratpot, the
Frankish perfect of the east, who presented him to King Louis the
German; the latter commanded Pribina instructed in the faith and
baptized. Subsequently, Louis the German granted Pribina lands
near Lake Balaton  to build a fortification (Moosburg or Zalavar)
in the woods and swamps of the Zala river. Interpreted in this
manner, the passage of Conversio has been used to "demonstrate"
that the southern Moravian thesis is untenable. According to
Bowlus (1995, p.105), the conclusion is unwarranted:

>>>The author of the Conversio simply wrote that "Priwina
exulatus a Moimaro
duce Maravorum supra Danubium venit ad  Ratbodum." The place
*from which* he had been expelled is unspecified in this text.
The assertion that he came from Nitra north of the Danube is
based on a separate passage in the Conversio. It states that
Archbishop Adalram of Salzburg (821-836) had consecrated a church
on the allodial lands of Pribina *in Nitrava ultra Danubium*[...]
the passage concerning the church in Nitrava is suspect. A glance
at the Conversio makes it apparent that is it is completely out
of place and disrupts the continuity of the text. After
recounting Pribina's construction of a fortification in the
swamps and forests on the Zala (after 838), the text erratically
jumps backward in time to the consecration of the church in
Nitrava (presumably before 833), then it continues to discuss the
completion of the fortress of Zalavar and the consecration of a
church dedicated to the virgin there (c.850)<<<

Bingo! Since the church in Nitrava was consecrated before
Pribina's expulsion, he must have overseen the consecration of a
church on his property before he had been baptized (which
happened after his expulsion). Kind of weird, isn't it?  Bowlus
emphasized that the passage concerning Nitrava was not part of
the original version of Conversio and, therefore, no hypothesis
should be based on it. In any case, although it is impossible to
say where precisely Pribina's original residence was located,
strong evidence indicate that the place from which he was
expelled by Moimir was not Nitra.

In a letter of June 880, Pope John VIII named Methodius
"archiepiscopus ecclesiae Marabensis" and made reference to
another bishop in the principality of Sventoplok, Wiching,
"episcopus sanctae ecclesiae Nitrensis." Boba (1971) is certainly
correct in arguing that the formal titles of Methodius and
Wiching imply that the forms "Marabensis" and "Nitrensis" can
refer to cities only. Therefore, the name Maraba refers to a city
and not to a region. Moreover, civitas Nitrensis refers most
probably to Nitra in modern Slovakia. A letter written by
Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg (c.900) states that the Bavarian
episcopy did not object to Wiching's appointment as bishop of the
civitas Nitrensis, because the people residing there had
previously been pagans, whom Zwentibald [i.e., Sventoplok, not
Moimir!] had conquered (c.871). This letter (see Bowlus, 1995,
p.194 and Appendix 2) is clear evidence that in 833 Pribina was
not expelled by Moimir from Nitra, and this city that was added
to the "Great" Moravia  only in 871, when Sventoplok expanded his
realm from south to northwest. In the same letter, the Bavarian
bishops strongly objected to the reestablishment of ecclesial
sees in Pannonia, that is to the reestablishment of Methodius'
"sanctae ecclesiae Marabensis"  As those who are versed in Roman
administrative history know, Moravia was never part of Pannonia
and, moreover, it would have been impossible to *reestablish* an
ecclesial see in Moravia because no see was previously
established there to start with.
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 09:00 PM 8/3/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:

>> >Some of Petofi's poems are shame on the Hungarian people.
>> >Some others are glory.
                                               Sz. Zoli
ESB:

        >Yeah, and what does this mean in this context.

>To be exited by a revolution can be a Hungarian thing, but
>to kill the king: never. Petofi was too eager to play the
>role of a Camille Demouliens, but 1848 in Hungary was not
>the same as 1789 in France.
>                                                  Sz. Zoli
>

        I still don't understand. We were talking about the fact that Sandor
Petrovics Magyarized his name to Peto"fi, but we normally don't put his
original name into parentheses as Nemenyi does with people of Jewish origin.

        So, you think that because Petofi's political ideas were of the
radical kind he brought shame to the Hungarian people. Again, I don't quite
understand why you think that just because X. or Y. think in a certain way
or say certain things it is a reflection on the whole nation. Petofi was on
the radical left of the political spectrum in 1848, and when he tried to run
for parliament he lost very badly. Surely, the Hungarian people were not
ready to follow a fireband poet and his political ideas.

        Well, the Hungarians didn't kill their king, but I don't think that
they were inherently incapable of doing so. Their history simply didn't
include regicide. But other nations did behead their kings and today we
don't think of them less just becauce of it.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: The nym issue (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 12:52 PM 8/4/96 -0300, Johanne (Janka) wrote:

>Nope, you've got me wrong there. I am not trying to impute dark motives to
>everyone who uses a pseudonym, but I am a little bit suspicious and
>sceptical at the outset at least. And, if you will pardon me saying this, I
>think the percentage of people who are really *out there* in their opinions,
>or just plain wacko, seems to be higher among those who are using such aliases
.

        I am more on side of Johanne than that of Zoli's on this one. It has
never occurred to me to use an alias. But still, some people were certain
that Eva Balogh doesn't exist or if she does it is not the same Eva S.
Balogh wrote a few articles on Hungarian history. This "Eva Balogh" on the
Internet simply taking over the persona of the real Eva S. Balogh. (The only
thing I couldn't figure: what would the "real Eva S. Balogh" say once she
found out that there is an impostor out there in cyberspace!) As for aliases
there are variations on the same theme: (1) Some people try to hide their
sex. Mostly women. They are afraid that they will not be taken seriously if
they reveal that they belong to the "weaker sex." (2) Some people have
sensitive jobs, involving military or diplomatic spheres, and therefore they
don't want to reveal their real names. (3) Some people, especially from
Hungary or Romania, are simply still afraid. They are certain that these
lists are being read by the "authorities," and that it is not safe to reveal
one's real identity. My feeling on that is that if "the authorities" really
want to know badly enough the real identity of a person they will find out
in no time. Therefore if one is afraid for political reasons one shouldn't
write a word under any name on any of these lists. (I know several people in
their fifties in Hungary who read the HIX forums but they wouldn't write a
word under any name for that very reason.) And (4) those wackos Johanne was
talking about.

>>> Johanne (I'm listed in the phone book) Tournier
>
>> Not in mine ;-). In any event, please note that being listed proves
>>precious little unless someone calls and talks to you - which could
>>happen with anyone with pseudonymous email address just the same!
>>
>>- -- Zoli "I'm listed too - but what if someone else answers" Fekete

        I discovered www.switchboard.com which is a fantastic site for
listed telephones in the United States. (Sorry not in Canada, though.) It is
not a sure way to find out whether the name is a pseudonym or not (because
of possible unlisted telephone numbers) but it comes close to it. And it
also gives you addresses, so, for example, when I wanted to send some
material to one of our fellow contributors to HUNGARY, I simply typed the
last name in and received the address as well.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: and about Hunyad / (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:09 AM 8/4/96 -0500, Liviu wrote:

>Due to changes in the provinces' organization, frontiers shifted over time,
>but, overall, Moesia II, Dalmatia, and Pannonia I bordered on each other and
>had a triple-junction point that, between the 2nd and 6th century, was
>roughly within a 200 km SE of Belgrade.

        I took out my handy-dandy *Grosser Historischer Weltatlas," vol. 1
in order to refresh my memory of all the above. I found several maps which
depict these regions. The first one is from 395 A.D. when, it seems to me
that Pannonia I doesn't border on Dalmatia. Pannonia I is more or less
today's Transdanubia, except it doesn't extend all the way to the Danube on
the East. East of Pannonia I, along the Danube's west bank is Valeria. South
of Pannonia I is Savia and South of Valeria is Pannonia II, which does
border on Dalmatia. Dalmatia extends as far as the Drina River, east of
which is Moesia I (seems to me south of Belgrade). But between Moesia I and
Moesia II there is Dacia, just south of the Danube river.

        Is it possible that you meant Pannonia II and Moesia I when you
mention that they border on Dalmatia?

        My next map which is relevant is from 565. By that time both
Pannonias are gone, there is no more Valeria or Savia. Otherwise, Dalmatia,
Moesia I, Dacia, and Moesia II are still there. It is indicated that the
former Pannonia I, Pannonia II, Savia and Valeria have been occupied by the
Longobards.

>Toponimy offers some hints, but not too powerful. Oldest preserved,
>uncontested, North Romanian toponyms are in Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro,
>dated as "older than the 9th century," which doesn't help too much with
>establishing when the Vlach shepherds arrived in that area.

        North Romanian? Is this a linguistic term?

        Thank you so much for the interesting description of possible
Romanian movements.

        Eva B.
+ - On early East-European history (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I have been following Jeliko's and Liviu's exchange of early
historical sources with some fascination and every time I read the word
"Moravia," I have to think of the American-Hungarian-Polish scholar (Imre
Boba?) at the University of Washington who wrote a fascinating book about
Moravia sometime in the 1970s. If I recall his thesis was that the Moravia
Cyril and Method reached wasn't the Moravia of today but the area around the
river Morava. What I would like to know is whether his thesis stands up to
historical scrutiny or not.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: The nym issue (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 03:22 PM 8/4/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        I discovered www.switchboard.com which is a fantastic site for
>listed telephones in the United States. (Sorry not in Canada, though.) It is
>not a sure way to find out whether the name is a pseudonym or not (because
>of possible unlisted telephone numbers) but it comes close to it. And it
>also gives you addresses, so, for example, when I wanted to send some
>material to one of our fellow contributors to HUNGARY, I simply typed the
>last name in and received the address as well.

This afternoon, while working I was listening to Kossuth Radio. They had
some jokes on, one of them about America:

   A man calls home and when a child answers, he says:
Johnny, I want to talk to mom.
  The little boy answers:
That's not possible because she is in the bedroom with the mailman and they
are breathing hard.
Johnny, go to my shirt drawer, get my 38 from under the shirts and shoot
them both.
But..
Just do it, I want to hear it!
Boom, boom.
I shot them, they are both dead.
OK Johnny, now put the gun back under the shirts and go play in the backyard.
But we don't have a backyard..
Isn't this the Smith residence?!

In addition to the image of America in Hungary, this joke shows the dangers
of relying on the phone(book)...

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Andras Peter Nemenyi wrote:

> Gabor Farkas wrote:
> >When Nemenyi and his ilk write Rakosi (Rosenfeld)  or Trotsky (Bronstein),
> >the topic usually is communism and the names in parentheses are included to
> >show  they were Jewish.
>
> Why? Is there any reason, why an origin should be kept secret?
> And by the way. I can cite you famous books, where origin is spelled out.
> And somehow those writers are not my ilk, but well known American historians.
> Perhaps some examples? :-)
>
> >But I think Hugh explained this much better in the start of this thread.
>
> So he did. One explanation is just as good as many.

Or so you say and might even believe it.

If you wish to see whom the readers of this list believe, a poll can
probably be organized.

George Antony
+ - Smoking in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Good news: the Hungarian Parliament is going to discuss during its fall
session the regulation of smoking in public places (see article in Monday's
Magyar Hirlap). The restaurant industry and the tobacco industry sound
exactly like their New York equivalents during the similar debates here.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Farkas & Co. vs NPA (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In a message dated 96-08-01 18:40:48 EDT, Zoli Fekete  wrote:

>
>On Thu, 1 Aug 1996  wrote:
>> I am surprised that you should be talking about "dark hints" "to smear
>anyone
>> on the wrong side of NPA".
> Why are you surprised, and what's wrong with me talking (besides the
>obvious pun on Fekete ;-))?!
>
>> This is newspeak, straight out of "1984".
> How so?
>
>> The smear is on the other side, if I may be permitted a bad pun.
> I don't get the pun either (may that be our biggest problem here ;-().
>
>> What I suggested was: Can't we deal with topics, however controversial,
>> within the confines of open and honest debate?  To search for truth no
>matter
>> where it leads us?  Without engaging in character assassination and name
>> calling?
>
> Yes we can. Are you willing to ;-<?!
>
>
Of course.  Why do you need to ask?

Ferenc
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Balogh wrote  Sat Aug  3 14:26:11 EDT 1996 HUNGARY #748:
>
>        Can you imagine the following: "The famous poem written by  Sandor
>Petofi (Petrovics) `Rise Hungarians! The fatherland calls! Here it the time,
>no or never.'" (Poor, poor translation by Eva Balogh). That will be the day.
>
>        ESB

Eva may recall that every second grader in Hungary is taught that Petofi's
father was of Serbian extraction and his mother was Slovak.  So no need for
the Petofi (Petrovics) designation.  But nobody was ever taught the original
name of Rakosi, Farkas (no relation, hopefully ;-) to our Gabor), and some of
the others mentioned in this context.  So identifying their original names
may provide additional information, not commonly available to the average
layman.

The fact that they happened to be Jewish names need not worry the Jews on
this list.  I don't think anyone here is going to be blamed for the crimes of
Rakosi and his ilk.

I guess the fear is that someone, by compiling the list of evildoers and
showing that a certain number of them were Jewish will, somehow, come up with
a theory of some Jewish conspiracy.  And these good people think that the
best defense against such a thing happening is to silence, at whatever cost,
those who would advance such ideas.  But this is dead wrong.  Precisely by
not confronting ideas they think erroneous or harmful, they lend credence to
some of the craziest theories.  Let those who will advance theories of
conspiracy of any kind speak their mind, then offer counterarguments to
demolish those theories in a fair debate.  That is what I mean by "search for
the truth wherever it may lead".  The truth will triumph in rational debate.
 Irrational theories will be laughed out of the arena.

That is why I object to the views Eva Balogh professes:

>        What I object to is Nemenyi's half-baked, pseudo-scientific ideas on
>history: world as well as Hungarian. He manages to influence a goodly number
>of people on the Internet who take his ideas as gospel truths. This is what
>I object to. This is the last thing the Hungarian public needs. What the
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hungarian public needs is at last a balanced view of history: not the kind
>the Kadar regime taught in the schools and not the kind of far-right is
>propagating.
>
>        Eva Balogh

This view, mirroring that of the Kadar regime (i.e. "we" know what the people
ought to know and therefore will not permit them access to any other point of
view) runs counter to that of true liberal thinking.  And Eva Balogh thinks
she is a liberal.

Ferenc
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

ESB cited me about Petofi:
> >To be exited by a revolution can be a Hungarian thing, but
> >to kill the king: never. Petofi was too eager to play the
> >role of a Camille Demouliens, but 1848 in Hungary was not
> >the same as 1789 in France.
> >                                                  Sz. Zoli

ESB:
>         I still don't understand. We were talking about the fact that Sandor
> Petrovics Magyarized his name to Peto"fi, but we normally don't put his
> original name into parentheses
Well, it may be your silly game, I don't care too much with.
I was talking about the role of Petofi, and his sometimes
extreme political views.
>         So, you think that because Petofi's political ideas were of the
> radical kind he brought shame to the Hungarian people.
Kinda. And also glory. Petofi is not one-sided.

> Petofi was on the radical left of the political spectrum in 1848,
> and when he tried to run for parliament he lost very badly.
I would not talk about political left or right in Hungary
around this time.
> Surely, the Hungarian people were not
> ready to follow a fireband poet and his political ideas.
That's one thing. Then they (last century Hungarian sentiments)
identified him with the spirit of 1848, which was not exactly
correct to do.

>         Well, the Hungarians didn't kill their king, but I don't think that
> they were inherently incapable of doing so.
Hungarian people respect the rulers of their own.
> Their history simply didn't include regicide.
I would say our history, Eva, our history. Did you say any-
thing new by your last sentence, anyway? Or is it a kind of
explanation? (See also at 'tautology' in your dictionary...:-)

> But other nations did behead their kings and today we
> don't think of them less just becauce of it.
But we may have some ideas about the murderers themselves,
may not we? (Think of Robespierre and the 'Jacobins' in France
or Ulyanoff and the Bolsheviks in Russia.)
                                                     Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 08:34 PM 8/4/96 -0400, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>[...] nobody was ever taught the original
>name of Rakosi, Farkas (no relation, hopefully ;-) to our Gabor), and some of
>the others mentioned in this context.  So identifying their original names
>may provide additional information, not commonly available to the average
>layman.

I don't know if there is a relation. But you yourself said: hopefully not.
Why? If this Farkas were related to me, would I be in any way responsible
for his deeds, whatever they are? Also, please tell me, what is the value of
the additional information so obtained?

>The fact that they happened to be Jewish names need not worry the Jews on
>this list.  I don't think anyone here is going to be blamed for the crimes of
>Rakosi and his ilk.

I hope not. However, here is my (in your opinion paranoid) view: when
someone writes Rakosi (Rosenfeld), he is planting and promoting the idea
that the whole communist plague was brought upon us by Jews. And why are the
Jews paranoid about this? There is a good Romanian saying about this: once
you burn your mouth with the soup, you blow even the yoghurt.

>I guess the fear is that someone, by compiling the list of evildoers and
>showing that a certain number of them were Jewish will, somehow, come up with
>a theory of some Jewish conspiracy.

This is not fear. This is happening. Because those who compile these lists
don't stop there.

>  And these good people think that the
>best defense against such a thing happening is to silence, at whatever cost,
>those who would advance such ideas.  But this is dead wrong.  Precisely by
>not confronting ideas they think erroneous or harmful, they lend credence to
>some of the craziest theories.

One thing I cannot be accused of is that I did not confront these ideas.

>  Let those who will advance theories of
>conspiracy of any kind speak their mind, then offer counterarguments to
>demolish those theories in a fair debate.  That is what I mean by "search for
>the truth wherever it may lead".  The truth will triumph in rational debate.
> Irrational theories will be laughed out of the arena.

We are saturated with quotes from The Protocols of The Elders of Zion and
other "scholarly" works. They have been laughed out already.  But they just
won't stop.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: and about Hunyad / (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva writes:

>        I took out my handy-dandy *Grosser Historischer Weltatlas," vol. 1
>in order to refresh my memory of all the above. I found several maps which
>depict these regions.

Let's go back to my original statement:

>>IMHO, the best candidates are Moesia Superior, Dalmatia, and Pannonia
>>Inferior.

The "Grosser Historischer Weltatlas" maps should have clarified by now that
your characterization as "These are quite disperate [dispersed !?] regions"
doesn't quite fit the reality.

Unfortunately, trying to be more specific, and I apologize for the sloppy
formulations, I added:

>>Due to changes in the provinces' organization, frontiers shifted over time,
>>but, overall, Moesia II, Dalmatia, and Pannonia I bordered on each other

It is obvious that by Moesia II and Pannonia I I meant Moesia Superior and
Pannonia Inferior, respectively. However, my abbreviations probably didn't
follow the common historical terminology. Pannonia Superior was divided into
Pannonia Prima and Pannonia Ripariensis (or Savia). Therefore, my guess is
that your maps are using Pannonia I for Pannonia Prima, not for my Pannonia
Inferior. Now, Pannonia Inferior was divided into Valeria and Pannonia
Secunda (for which your maps probably use Pannonia II).

>        Is it possible that you meant Pannonia II and Moesia I when you
>mention that they border on Dalmatia?

Actually, and I hope I made it clear this time, I meant Pannonia Inferior
and Moesia Superior all the time.

>        North Romanian? Is this a linguistic term?

Romanian language (s.l.) has two branches: North Romanian and South
Romanian. North Romanian branch includes two dialects: Istro-Romanian and
Daco-Romanian. For the latter, that is the dialect spoken in Romania, many
prefer to call it North Danubian or Romanian (s.s.) for avoiding any genetic
implications. The South Romanian branch also includes two dialects;
Arumanian and Megleno-Romanian.

>
>        Thank you so much for the interesting description of possible
>Romanian movements.
>

Sure. If you find the Daco-Romanian continuity more convincing, I would be
interested to know why.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache
+ - Re: And now something entirely different: technical lis (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,
 says...
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Apropos a couple of complaints I've seen recently about trouble with
>reading the HUNGARY list: let me re-iterate that the only reliable way of
>receiving the list traffic is via email (from , or
>via HIX if one wishes to use the secondary source instead). Unfortunately
>there are some persistent problems with the Usenet side of the gatewayed
>bit.listserv.hungary, that often cause prolonged delays lasting days (as
>opposed to the near-instantenous delivery to email subscribers) and not
>infrequently total loss of some articles.

FYI, I always access this list via bit.listserv.hungary and have
no problems whatsoever. When I post a message here, it seems to
get posted immediately. Am I just lucky? Or are there servers that
are more reliable than others?

Steven C. Scheer
+ - Re: Anonymus (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

_JELIKO > wrote:

>>The funeral rite is typical of nomads, but where the
>>Hungarians of Arpad the only nomads roaming around Ba~lgrad in the
>>firs half of the 10th century? The isolated position with respect to
>>the other 500 Hungarian graves speaks for the contrary.

>No, because the 500 Hungarian graves are also from approximately the same
>period.

There is a lot of uncertainty behind that "approximately," but even if
all the 501 graves are from exactly the same period, there must be a
reason for the mounted one, from the burned building, to be isolated
with respect to the 500 Hungarian graves.

>Yes, there were other nomads (but not too many in the same region
>at that time) who also used similar burial customs. They could have been
>leftover Avars (of either wave) or cohort Khabars.

Here you go! Nomadic Turkic tribes, the ones for whom the old Magyars
used the generic term "Cum" [see again Macartney], were in the region
in that time, some of them being, together with some Vlachs,  Glad's
helpers against Arpad's people. Therefore, Anonymus is not guilty of
any anachronism. Hasty historians, eager to discredit Anonymus, have
stubbornly identified his "Cum" with the 12 century "Cumans."

> Anyway, the Anonymus story, in
>whole contains useful material, but he was apparently dead set to account
>for all of the folks who were in the region in his time. He was also
>influenced by the branch of the Arpads he served who were not keen on
>discussing some of internecine Arpad house mistreatment of each other. The
>manuscript itself is suspiciously jumping around and some of the same
>events are discussed twice, but slightly differently. He also probably used
>a now lost older chronicle, because fragments of his are also similar
>(although at times with different nuances) to other Hungarian related
>chronicles (Annales Posonienses, Zagreb Chronicle, etc.) At the same time
>it is obvious that he did not use most of the then extant western annales
>(with a possible exception of Regino and some later French works) as
>sources. Please rememeber that it reads like a gesta of the nobles on its
>main sections.

The following is reworked from an article I posted in a somehow
related thread (hope you don't mind,  but I have time constrains too):

When analyzed carefully, Anonymus' Gesta proves to be not
an entirely  fictional story, as many Hungarian historians have
suggested (Anonymus will always be blamed for his inopportune
mentioning of a certain Gelou dux Blacorum :-), but rather a
reasonably accurate and logical historical account.

The criticism directed against Anonymus credibility  is based
on the assumption that he did not know the basic facts  of
early medieval history, or that he wanted and was able to tell
his readers an "invented story."

In simple words, the assumption sucks.  Anonymus, who in spite of his
anonymity must be one of the most famous figures in the annals of
historiography,  could not have hoped to deceive the reader of his
Gesta in Western Europe, for whom he dedicated his work, a "literatus"
well versed in medieval historiography:

>>>>P, called the master, the notary of the late glorious Bela of
        good memory,  King of Hungary, sends his greetings to
        N, his dearest
        friend....[Prologue]<<<<

The Gesta, written for a friend in the West, was unknown in
Hungary. A copy of it was found in Austria only late in the 18th
century, and until 1928 Anonymus' Gesta was kept in Vienna.
Moreover, Anonymus could not have intended to mislead with an
"invented" story the Hungarian nobility or the royal family
descending from Arpad.

The information provided by Anonymus is not contradicted by any
domestic of foreign sources, nor was his Gesta known to the authors of
such sources

> I have difficulty with your (as I read it) remark that he
>was involved in "magyarization"  or "romanization" one way or an other.

Some Hungarian historians [e.g., Gyorffy] claim that he made Gelou out
of Gyula, conveniently ignoring the fact that Gelou  and Gyula appear
together in chapter 24 in distinct forms with reference to two
different persons.Therefore, Anonymus must have been one of the first
Romanizing agents ;-)  I should have added the smiley the first time.

>His work at least by Hungarian historians (that I am familiar with) is
>treated in a number of different ways.

How about the treatment he received outside of Hungary (and I don't
mean necessarily in the equally biased Romania)?

Regards,

Liviu Iordache
+ - Re: and about Hunyad / (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jeliko writes:

>Liviu, we are talking at times of interpretations of what was written and
>what Porphyrogentus meant when he wrote something. It is difficult to come to
>complete agreement on those issues, without talking to him

You are correct, but we should pay more attention to the factual
inaccuracies in our own formulations. Let's take a close look at
several examples:

>I am sorry but from the Byzantine direction, "beyond" to me means that it is
>north of the area which was previously described...  in Chapter 40 Moravia is
>"beyond" (i.e. north) of the Hungarians while in Chapter 13 it is south.

1.Nowhere, and I really mean nowhere, is Constantine saying that
megale Moravia is "beyond Turkey."  It is important to follow him
closely and understand the logic of his geographical picture. In
chapter 40 Porphyrogenitus, describing  first the southern border of
Turkey, starts with the landmarks along the Ister (i.e., lower Danube
and Sava).The text reads (Boba's 1971 translation differs slightly
from Jenkins', so read it carefully]:

        In this place are various landmarks of the olden days: there is the

        bridge of the Emperor Trajan where Turkey [i.e., Hungary] begins;
        then, a three-days' journey from this same bridge there is Belgrade,
        in which is the tower of the holy and great Constantine, the Emperor;
        then, again, at the running back of the river [Ister], is the
        renowned Sirmium by name, a journey of two days from Belgrade; and
        beyond lies megale Moravia, the unbaptized, which the Turks have
        blotted out, but over which in former days Sphendoplokos used to
        rule. Such are the landmarks and names along the Ister river.

1a. megale Moravia is not beyond Turkey, but beyond Belgrade and
        Sirmium;

1b. all of these [bridge of Trajan, Belgrade, Sirmium, megale Moravia]

        are **landmarks** along the southern boundary of Turkey, meaning that

        megale Moravia is rather a city [a landmark, something similar to a
        bridge or the other two towns] than a country. All the other forms
        recorded  in contemporary sources, Latin  [Sclavi Margenses, Sclavi
        Marahenses] or Slavonic [Moravskaia oblast, Moravskaia zemlia], agree

        with this definition of a dominial territory of a prince by the burg
        or urban center from which the principality emanated. "megale
        Moravia" is, therefore,  the old burg of Sventopolk. A city of
        Moravia is attested by Johannes Skylitzes when describing the
        Byzantine-Hungarian frontier as of 1040 as running along Morava and
        Belgrade fortresses of Pannonia.

1c. a critical part of the original text, in Greek, reads "kai apo ton

        ekeise he megale Morabia, he abaptisos." Puspoki-Nagy (1982) and Boba

        (1991), both stressed that the correct translation, word for word, is

        "and from thence [thither, to that place] lies old Moravia, the
        unbaptized." Jenkins used incorrectly a less specific "beyond,"
        probably under the influence of the traditional interpretation on
        Moravia's location; in Jenkins' reasoning "beyond" seemed correct
        even if megale Moravia had lain 300 miles to the north, away from
        Sirmium. It is a typical example of a translation "adjusted to fit
        the translator's prejudice.

2.Constantine goes from drawing the southern boundary to the actual
territory controlled by Hungarians:

        but the regions above these [i.e., above the landmarks and names--
        the bridge, Belgrade, Sirmium, and megale Moravia] which comprehend
        the whole settlement of Turkey..

...and continues with the rivers Timisis, Toutis, Morisis and Titza.
The "regions" and enumerated rivers are north of the Danube and above
[i.e, north] of the landmarks that include megale Moravia. Therefore,
megale Moravia is below [i.e., south] of the enumerated rivers and
"regions."

3.Constantine follows with the Turks' neighbors:

        Neighbors of the Turks are: on the eastern side the Bulgars, where
        the river Istros, also called Danube, runs between them; on the
        northern, the Pechenegs; on the western the Franks; and on the
        southern, the Croats.

Constantine's geography is perfect. Since he uses a solar framework of
reference, in contrast to our magnetic or astronomic, one should read
"east-southeast" instead of "east," north-northeast" instead of
"north," and so on. As he uses the present tense, Moravia is not
included here because it had been "blotted out" by the Turks, megale
meaning  not "great" but "old" or "former." In chapter 13 he lists
megale Moravia (let's stress **megale**) on the south side, but
immediately adds that it was "occupied" (past tense) by the Turks, and
only after that continues with, "On the side of the mountains the
Croats are [present tense] adjacent to the Turks."

I hope this answers all your objections concerning the lack of clarity
and coherence in Constantine's geography.

Regarding his correspondence with the South Slavic "Archons of
Moravia," I meant  the **descendents** of those Moravs that fled
megale Moravia after the Hungarian conquest. I take the blame for the
misunderstanding. However, add this element to the Kabaroi visit and I
must accept Constantine was exceptionally well-informed on the
Moravian history. You asked, why hasn't he offered more details?
Porphyrogenitus was not recording a history, and therefore, the
Moravian events were maybe irrelevant for his purpose of writing DAI.
But then again, no Byzantine chronicler ever refers to the mission of
Cyril and Methodius. Boba (1991) thinks is a deliberate omission of
names of "personae non gratae." Simply put, Cyril and Methodius
"defected" to Rome, and , therefore, no events related to them were
worth mentioning.

Pribina's expelling (which was not from Nitra) "beyond" the Danube,
the Nitrava (which is not Nitra) issue, Rastislav's Dowina (which is
not Devin) and the big  battle of Braslavespurch (which is not
Bratislava) are problems of relevance for the present discussion, but,
if you or others are interested, we can deal with them separately.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache
+ - Re: NPA, NFerenc (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Andy Kozma
> writes:

>Lucky for us we have CBC wich is
>less nationalistic as most of us are in Canada.

This statement may or may not be true. Given your anti-American statements
on here in the recent past, I'm led to believe that in your particular
case, it isn't true. Luckily for Canadians and those of us mean,
imperialistic Americans who like Canada, Canadians and things Canadian in
general, the CBC is able to rise above your level of petty hatred. We're
still going to water down your beer and make you eat real bacon when we
take over, Andy.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Please stop apologizing for your spelling and grammar. It doesn't
offend me or make me think any less of you. I usually agree with what you
have to offer. But this anti-Americanism of yours is pathetic.
+ - Re: The Nemenyi files (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva,
Its seems rather naive to expect NPA to reveal his game plan, or the
specifics of his lawsuit to people who are singlemindedly bent on his
destruction.

Hugh's letter made some sense to me and gave me food for thought. It was
well thought out and clear headed.

Eva, you wrote

>The issue is not freedom of speech as long as we don't know whether
>you were forced resign on the account of your antisemitic remarks on the
>Internet or not. If we get hard evidence that Argonne National Laboratory
>made you resign just because you made antisemitic remarks on the forums
of
>HIX, then the issue is going to be freedom of speech. But not until then!

I found this to be very unfair and not the quality I've grown to expect
from you.
You have neatly sidestepped the the possibility that NPA never did
anything wrong and that he was forced to resign because of pressure put
upon Argonne. Under the cover of seeming fair and impartial you call him
guilty twice.
 I dont think he has ever admitted to being antisemitic. Much as I've
observed, impartially I hope, there has been no hard evidence presented by
anyone. Agnew came the closest with his Bronstein observation.

You are absolutely right, it is not desirable to have your mind made up in
advance when doing research. People who have an agenda can find all kinds
of interpretations to support even half baked theories. Please bear in
mind that, that dictum cuts both ways. If you start with the premise that
a person is guilty, you can always dig around and find supporting
"evidence".


As an after thought, I recall that someone made a statement that NPA's
right to free speech had not been violated because he is able to continue
to post messages.
I forgot who it was, but it struck me as being ridiculously unfair. The
mere fact that someone is able to raise their bloodied head after a
battering does not mean that they were not victimized by the self
appointed PC Secret Police.
People can be made to suffer for:
                              1) what they said
                              2) what you thought they said
                              3) your interpretation of what they said or
what you think their
                                  motivation is
                              4) political reasons having nothing to do
with what they said



By the way, when I said "you" or "your", it was not intended to be
personal but general. Maybe I should have used "ont". ;-)
                                                                   Your
usual admirer
+ - Re: Anonymity on the Net (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, The
Right Rev. "Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq" > --
Accept No Cheap Imitations, did bring down from the mountain this,
inscribed on tablets of stone:

> I have accidentally dropped into a thought-scrambler an esteemed
>contributor's post that attempted to come up with some fundamental
>difference between pseudonyms on and off the net. The incident
>cross-transformed references to the two domains and changed some minor
>details, but the resulting food for tought still looks intriguing, so let
>me share:
>
> The evil cousin of Zsolt Feher has this to say in his introduction to
>"The collected works of JFerengi" (Limbo Virtual Press, 1996, in
pre-print):
>
>_ "Readers of the HUNGARY list were not surprised to find the essays
signed
>_ `JFerengi'. Using classical pseudonyms was a familiar feature of
political
>_ life and debate on late nineteenth century Internet. Writers sought to
>_ cloak themselves with the authority of various virtues identified with
>_ the miscellaneous heroes of all walks of life..."
>_
>_ The point is that with such a restricted readership and a relatively
small
>_ number of people engaged in the debate, the instrumental value of using
a
>_ pseudonym in order to mask one's identity as the author of a "JFerengi
>_ post" was little or none. And it's not clear to me (or to Kramnick
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^
>_ apparently) that keeping one's identity hidden was the main
instrumental
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>_ value that the authors of the Internet articles were seeking in using a
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>_ pseudonym.
>_[examples of above-ground off-Internet nyms]
>_[...] But that shouldn't obscure the
>_ fact that plenty of people do choose pseudonyms off the net for far
less
>_ than admirable reasons. How many race-baiting or gay-baiting pamphlets
>_ spammed out to off-Usenet outlets use their authors' real names?
>_
>_[...] entirely
>_ above-ground reasons for using pseudonyms off the net do exist. But
when
>_ one publishes controversial works -- particular messages aimed at
attacking
>_ a particular race or group -- using a pseudonym, I think there is
>_ instrumental value in asking why. Obvious pseudonyms have some obvious
>_ instrumental purpose. They tell us something about the poster's
>_ ideological or intellectual orientation.
> Well, as a matter of fact they don't.
>
>- --
> Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
>*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
>*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
>*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!
>
>
>
And yet, it does. Your refusal to acknowledge this does not prevent a
significant portion of the rest of the human race from using such clues
when assessing what someone is saying. You impoverish yourself at your own
risk. Those Girl Scouts are gonna clean you like a fish. Think of it --
all of the Fekete millions spent overnight on Thin Mints and Samoas.
Sam Stowe
+ - Help! I need a shrink.... (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

With reference to OUR consensual and irate commentary about NBC's
coverage of the Olympics:

They have done to me! I have been brainwashed by NBC. I was watching
the gold-medal ladies' volleyball game between Cuba and China, and I
realized that I couldn't care LESS who won. I suppose, since neither
one was an American team.

Can anyone recommend a good shrink who specializes in de-programming
provencialism?

Bandi
> =============================================================
      Andrew J. Rozsa - Birmingham, Alabama, USA
      <OR>  
> -------------------------------------------------------------
          Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
> =============================================================
+ - Looking for a Hotel in Budapest (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi,

I am looking for a good hotel in Budapest next weekend. Can anyone help
me to find such a hotel (Telephon- and/or FAX-number).

Thank you!

Hannes Sallmutter (from Austria)
+ - Re: Rare Delicacies (Was disgusting food/A growing list (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

_JELIKO wrote:
>
> Eva Balogh writes:
>
>  killed, cleaned chickens in appropriate packages, just like here. And
> those
> > chickens don't have their feet on anymore.
>
> And a sad place is a chicken farm now, with feetless and boneless chickens
> on the wiremesh floors.
>
> Regards,Jeliko

What about headless?? My brother and I used fight over the brain!! Well, not
here, the chickens here don't
have heads? Kakas tare'j (chicken's comb??) wasn't bad either!
Jozsi

+ - Re: And now something entirely different: technical lis (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Steven C. Scheer wrote:
> FYI, I always access this list via bit.listserv.hungary and have
> no problems whatsoever. When I post a message here, it seems to
> get posted immediately. Am I just lucky? Or are there servers that
> are more reliable than others?

 The answer is a bit involved, and mostly boils down to this: on the
one hand your site may be better than most, on the other hand you may not
notice any problems the way you're looking at it! Your own posts are
shown locally right away, but the email subscribers will only receive them
when it finds it way thru this chain of news-servers:

Path: auvm!paladin.american.edu!news-relay.us.dell.com!swrinde!
 cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!
 news.cais.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!
        info.evansville.net!usen

 to the AUVM gatewaying machine which passes it to the LISTSERV; and those
others who read it via b.l.h may only see them whenever they percolate
thru the other intermediate routes to their machine (which is probably
most of the troubles occur). You probably have a very good connection
going straight to the Sprintlink backbone - this however can't help you
see timely such posts that are submitted via slow links which may take
days to reach the major hubs via the news distribution system, as opposed
to having it delivered via email typically within minutes.

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgVqH8Q/4s87M5ohAQHM+gIAsQAytAczMRZuX+z9ceB3ShCdEkzrDs4J
CDb6ydaV78pf3ulRswB5z2PkQRachpJJnOdz+sG1RlM6kJsLbvIFxg==
=BsdS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+ - Re: The nym issue (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
[much snippetry...]
> > More to the point, I can't see how this would effect what I write and
> >what others should think about the content (as opposed to the person).
>
> Here, I basically agree with you as far as the messages that people post and
> the question of whether or not those can be taken seriously. It shouldn't
> matter whether I am male or female as to whether what I write should be
> taken seriously or not. And, the use of a pseudonym is not of much concern
> if, for instance, the person does develop a history of posts from which
> their sensibility can be judged. For example, there appears to be a definite
> persona behind the *Jeliko* signature, and people generally deal with him -
> and we assume Jeliko is a *he* don't we - do we actually know that? Does it
> matter? No, because his sex is irrelevant to the question of the value of
> the information he posts.

 Here our POVs seem to be converging (although you are diverging your
self that has just said how uncomfortable it felt even about Jeliko)
:-)... In point of fact JFerengi has a history from at least since
January, so Sam's comments were particularly misplaced in this respect.

>[...] I am not trying to impute dark motives to
> everyone who uses a pseudonym, but I am a little bit suspicious and
> sceptical at the outset at least. And, if you will pardon me saying this, I
> think the percentage of people who are really *out there* in their opinions,
> or just plain wacko, seems to be higher among those who are using such
 aliases.

 Clearly, you're not reading much of Usenet, particularly the crowd
featured on alt.usenet.kooks ;-(... What I am saying is that one should
maintain due diligence, sceptical suspicion if you will, toward anything
on the Net - whether or not pseudonymous or appear to be real.

> Perhaps this may be simplistic to you, but I live outside a very small town,
> where pretty well everyone knows everyone else. Therefore I want to accept
> people at face value, and that includes the people I encounter on the Net. I
> think this is Sam's reaction, as well. After all, we both live in regions
> which are bastions of small town and rural life in North America.

 But, you see, things that worked in that milieu break down even in a
fair-sized city, not to mention across big countries like Canada or USA.
This is more like a problem with globalized communication than with
anonymity per se. You may trust that the guy going to the same church and
grocery store wouldn't swindle you - keep this blind faith with random
acquaintances from Ipperpaal, Northern Finland and you'll be sorry sooner
rather than later even if you happen to actually know their real
identity...

>[...]
> It occurs to me, by the way, that although you are defending the use of the
> aliases as in many cases legitimate, (and in that sense more *liberal* than
> suspicious Sam and me) you are also the one using the PGP signatures, which
> suggests that you are the more suspicious of actual tampering with your
> messages. Are you more paranoid, or just more realistic than we are?

 I don't think they need my defense (or that it would be much use if I
offered one) ;-(. My motto is: expect the best but prepare for the worst
(and put your suspicion where it belongs). Just because I'm paranoid
doesn't mean they are not out to get me ;-) - besides, naturally my
documents (as well as ones forged in my name) have been tampered with in
more ways than one ;-<...

>[...]
> Do you mean being gullible in the sense of being *taken in* by such a
> campaign of harassment -  that is,believing that such a campaign is
> justified, or do you mean that I am more likely to be *victimized* by such a
> campaign, in other words to be the target of such a campaign? Why, in either
> case?
 What I meant is that the uncritical attitude with respect to net.persona
"supported" by linkage to a real person is what makes attacks by
net.loonies a real danger rather than mere annoyance.

[much lazy snippetry ;-)...]
> > There should not be repercussions, but there may well be - and often not
> >even for beliefs but just because the speaker rubbed someone in a wrong
> >way, or simply encountered someone having a combination of loose screws
> >with power to harm.
>
> Let's see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that harm may come
> in one of two ways. One would be by means of some nefarious character
> assuming *your* persona and forging a message which *purports* to be from
> you but isn't and then sending it out to damage your reputation. Am I right?
> It seems to me, in that case, that everyone on this List would be surprised
> if I suddenly announced that I *believed* those blood libel charges after
> all. When I found out about such a message being posted, I would simply
> disavow it, that is all. And I am sure there must be a mechanism in place
> for launching an invetigation to determine who might have originated such a
> forgery. The main thing of course for me would be to implement some sort of
> security system, such as you have with PGP, so that it couldn't happen again.

 Yup, this has happened to most everyone active in some of the more
heated Usenet arenas. Note that it is not enough for you to disavow it -
you'd also need people to believe you rather than those who keep saying
that it must have been you. And if they are real people (as I said in the
more acute cases they are), then you would need to convince the audience
that being real by no means imply veracity, wouldn't you?!

> The second method of launching an attack on me would be for *nefarious*
> characters (for such they would have to be to denounce me :-)) to denounce
> me to my superiors. But, why would anyone bother? And, unless, they are
> referring to forged material to support their denunciation, where would they
> get material from me which would justify my being disciplined for material I
> have posted? So, I really cannot see that I have anything to fear from
> revealing my *true* identity - maybe I don't feel it is really all that
> interesting, anyway.

 First of all, your "unless" is a rather big one - they could conceivably
forge things that only the most net-savvy bosses would see thru; some
people may not be in a position to subject themselves to such tests as the
entrance fee into public discussion. Even without forgery, outright lies
have already cost some people their jobs - there are communities, you
know, where even clearly make-believe charges of pedophilia and the like
may irreparably damage one's reputation and cause being placed in the
'don't call us - we'll call you' box.

>[...]
>  Moreover the nature of the online communications is
> >such that things can come haunting you without a chance for effectively
> >standing up on the virtual stage.
>
> Wouldn't one *always* have the opportunity to stand up for oneself? When
> would one not?

 When you would have to be working 48 hours a day on just answering the
barrage of crap spewed out about you. Or when your words, possibly
slighted, are copied outside that limited scope of the vast Internet which
you could possibly watch. Or when it's taken from an archive years after
you wrote something, and is used while you are incommunicado on a tour to
study polar bears. Or when you are threatened in your visa status and/or
employment (both of which has happened in a country that shall remain
nameless, but is located somewhere between Canada and Mexico) if you post
anything whatsoever in your defense. Or in countless other ways I can
think of but would rather not (which doesn't make them impossible,
unfortunately).

>[...]
PS PPS
> (1) Did you mean *gracious* or *gratuitous* in {2}?
 I like hybrid words yet to be discovered.
> (But, I picture you as being about mid-20's
 don't I wish ;-(.
> probably be about the age those kids of mine would be if I had them!
 You sound to be just the right age for me - the more mature the better :_)!
- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgVrt8Q/4s87M5ohAQEr4AH9Hv7ydUlZgJvcYrQ34jAz4YBsFtynw3xw
vf6GPiSJYeEE8bV9cooF4rXT/6lgmpJAviW0t7bEKBf3xWeViVEukg==
=ymem
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+ - Re: The nym issue (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Stowewrite wrote:
>[snip]
> >> This totally overlooks the fact that many of us, yourself
> >> included, post our real names in the body of our messages.
> > First of all, this is a non sequitor with respect to your main lemma
> >that using a pen name is ab ovo irresponsible. Second of all, how do we
> >know that what looks like real is indeed real? Would repeating it inside
> >make it doubly sure? And, back to the original question, why "Sam Stowe"
> >is a better real name than "JFerengi" or "Jeliko" (which I always
> >considered a pen name, although I might be wrong about this - either way,
> >his writings are as impeccable as they come).
>
> "Ab ovo"? Sure you don't mean "a priori"?
 No - if I meant that I would've said "chicken or egg" ;-)...

> As far as real being real goes,
> were you not the same person who posted a demand on this very same
> newsgroup less than two weeks or so ago demanding that we not refer to
> Zoltan Szekely as "Zoli" since you use "Zoli" and you didn't want people
> to confuse you with him?
 That was a joke, son. It was also my mistake - for I though he was
signing with Zoltan as his name-field says. Regardless, this is all
irrelevant to our point here.

> Okay, let me get this straight: real isn't real,
> or at least doesn't matter, when dealing with one's chosen name for net
> postings
 No, what I am trying to get accross is this: what you think is real is
not necesseraly any more real than what you think is not.

> -- unless the chosen name happens to somehow conflict with that
> of Zoli Fekete, in which case it matters a hell of a lot.
 The serious point in that matter was that people started using mere
"Zoli" without family names for either of us...

>[...]
> Argue your own case, bubba. I don't need you to put words in my mouth. Use
> of a pseudonym in conjunction with controversial statements does offer
> some important clues to the poster's intellectual orientation and
> motivation.
 The JFerengi persona has been around for several months, so your
claiming that it was merely thrown in as a shield for what you call
controversial statements is one-upping off the wall conspiracy theories -
haven't we got enough of those already ;-(?!

> If you don't want to use that information to assess the
> validity or veracity of what someone has posted, that's your business. But
> I think you're willfully ignoring important data by doing so. And if
> someone receives challenges to their posts, that's part and parcel of free
> speech. It has real world effects. It is not an abstract process.
> Unwillingness to become subject to challenges to what one has said
> publicly is, indeed, a basis for evaluating both one's postings and
> character. You and I have both undergone such challenges in the past.
> Doesn't seem to have hurt either one of us either, has it?

 First of all, as far as I could see (or you could tell) there was
nothing in the way of information in the post that caused you fly off the
handle. It was an opinion by JFerengi - a totally wrongheaded one in my
view, but one that would not be worth any different if I saw her/his/it
driving licence and birth certificate either.
 Second of all, the challenge is supposed to go against what is said, not
what the name of the speaker is. So far, JFerengi has shown more
willingness to deal with the issue at hand than you have.
 Third, this is not the real world, just the Internet. Really.
 Fourth, yeah we let ourselves be subjected to personal attacks, good for
us thick-skinned ones. I also burnt off my eyebrows in my slightly
younger age in the quest for truth (that particular incident was due to
studying the oxidation process when matches are watched up close ;-)). Do
you think it's reasonable to expect everyone else to do whatever we do?

> >[...]
> > So let's say I'm assured that you are "Sam Stowe" - what impact does
> >that have on your motivations and our opinion on it, and how does it
> >place you under public scrutiny?
>
> Because I exist under that name. I have a life and a real-world reputation
> under that name.
 With all due respect, I could care less about this when reading HUNGARY;
were I to study you, or JFerengi, then I may be inclined to dig into
respective personal tidbits from the real world. But here if I see a
statement backed by the individual's person that leaves me colder than if
it wasn't backed at all.

> All of those are accessible to you, if you spend a minor
> amount of time looking for them. I have made no secret about where I live
> and work.
 But to make the connection with the off-line entity I'd have to talk to
you personally - just like with JFerengi to establish his identity.

>[...] I pay serious attention to
> Jeliko, even though he uses a pseudonym, because he doesn't post
> controversial stuff attacking other religious or ethnic groups or backing
> up those who do.
 This only shows how you absolutize your own evaluation of things ;-(.
Self-styled spokesmen for other ethnic groups have accused Jeliko of doing
just that (as Liviu or Roman may testify about soc.culture.romanian or
SLOVAK-L). To some people anything diagreeing with them is
"controversial" (and if one agrees no evidence is needed then).

> (Jeliko, I'm not trying to draw you into this.
 Actually, I would be interested in what if anything Jeliko has to say...

> >[...] So how was that
> >connection between veracity and real names again ;-<?
>
> I get crap like that in the mail every day. And I know it's crap because
> there are all kinds of signs (I wish I had a better grasp of semiotics,
> but Peirce absolutely puts me to sleep. It would come in handy here.) in
> it that it isn't true. The point is that I pay attention to the totality
> of the evidence.
 But then you insist on including things that aren't evidence at all, too.

> Using your criteria, if the stuff is simply logical and
> footnoted, then it's true.
 Of course not. My "criteria" is merely that the person stating the stuff
is not relevant to its truth value (unless there's some relation between
the thing in question and the speaker - which is not the case what we're
discussing here).

> If you really have that much
> trouble going beyond the surface of what's said to you, I'd stay away from
> insurance salesmen and Girl Scouts bearing cookie order forms if I were
> you.
 Why, both use their very real names, don't they ;-)?! What you are doing
is scrutinizing the wrapping paper covering the surface: the name and life
of who's talking; to me this look like mere obstraction in getting to the
surface let alone beyond that...

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgVr28Q/4s87M5ohAQHJuwH7ByXEYr3+hbeO8nOnEBckQ561RPldGBVM
vkvBGsTKNw/U+aMg1J2wcZaSVwEF1L0EB/cUsdI4EZfnwmStJUxHAA==
=HLqO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+ - Re: The nym issue (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>         I discovered www.switchboard.com which is a fantastic site for
> listed telephones in the United States. (Sorry not in Canada, though.) It is
> not a sure way to find out whether the name is a pseudonym or not (because
> of possible unlisted telephone numbers) but it comes close to it. And it
> also gives you addresses, so, for example, when I wanted to send some
> material to one of our fellow contributors to HUNGARY, I simply typed the
> last name in and received the address as well.

 Which is one very good reason why some netizens may not want to give out
their names. Imagine, for example, your phone number publicized to a
couple of millions horny geeks looking for steamy dirty lines - stranger
things have happened to people finding themselves on the wrong side of
weirdos.
 And, back to the main point, seeing the name in the phonebook still
should not give you the confidence you seem to attribute to real names.
Someone seeking to assume a false identity could check those databases
just as well, you know!

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgVsCMQ/4s87M5ohAQE3zgIAzG1ZkOVRbjtiYDMLxCFS4/j6YvQhtEe2
ReTKVPpvRJtSc2zvaNXfBuwtIm5uCW0mR1uhr3c8ALV3ojq6EchLOw==
=FwG1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS