Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 757
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-08-13
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: The Nemenyi files (mind)  70 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
4 17/M looking for Hungarian/Female... (mind)  5 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: The Nemenyi files (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  87 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Sophistry (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: American Imperialism (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  52 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Ideological babbling from the radical left (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Sophistry (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Hungarian economy (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: The Nemenyi files (mind)  86 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Hungarian economy (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
19 A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: Ideological babbling from the radical left (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind)  11 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: Sophistry (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Sophistry (mind)  87 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: Speaking in many tongues (was Re: American Imperial (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
26 Re: Sophistry (mind)  55 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: American Imperialism (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
28 Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind)  77 sor     (cikkei)
29 Re: Ideological babbling from the radical left (mind)  39 sor     (cikkei)
30 Re: Sophistry (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
31 JFerengi (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
32 Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
33 Re: Sophistry (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
34 Re: Sophistry (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
35 Hungary Report (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
36 Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
37 Re: Ideological babbling from the radical left (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
38 Re: Sophistry (mind)  44 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,  says...

>Okay, here's my opinion of the "English Only" Bill.  It means that English
>is the official langauge of the USA, not that it be the only one ever
>spoken!
>I'm for it--and I'm not narrow-minded (I don't think).  For a country to
>be represented in more than one language divides the country (as in
>Canada).  The majority of people who came here originally had very little
>relation, in blood or culture, to Great Britain (just look at the names in
>any American phonebook).  Yet they all learned English because it was
>simply the language of the country.  (My own relatives came from Hungary
>and Lithuania.)
>I happen to live in the Southwest, and yes, there are a lot of Hispanics
>here, and you can hear Spanish all the time.  Which is fine with me.  But
>I still feel there can only be one official language for a country in
>order for it be unified.  English has always been the language of the
>USA--so by my thinking, it wins.

I agree. Establishing the use of English at an administrative level is
an excellent unifying move (but I thought this was already the case in
the USA...are other languages used in state administration?) Witness many
former colonies of the British Empire, apart from, ahem, large parts of
North America ;-) The Indian civil service used English (and still does,
I believe?) in a sub-continent with very many different languages and
cultures, a most practical solution to a problem that would otherwise be
extremely difficult to administer. Belgium has its problems, but imagine a
country with dozens of widely spoken languages! Years ago, a Ghanaian told
me that in African countries, where national boundaries are defined by
former colonial borders, the problems of large numbers of tribal languages
and cultural rivalries are largely mitigated by use of the language of the
former colonialists (one of the positive points of the colonial legacy).
However, this should not be an excuse for suppressing local languages and
cultures. The Republicans in the USA seem to have presented their case
rather ham-fistedly. A much more positive approach might have been to
address the concerns of minority languages in the USA first as the priority,
with the argument for clarifying English as the language of national
administration as a kind of reasonable unifying factor that hardly anyone
could argue with (as per the above examples). Making it a confrontational
issue, the way they have done, can only have serious reverberations around
the world, not least in Slovakia and Romania. They could have made such a
good example to everyone else, presenting a case for a unifying single
macro language whilst protecting the numerous micro languages, but, so
typically of macho right wingers, they charged in and tackled a delicate
issue rather crassly with negative implications for the rest of the world.
How unsubtle of them; how unfortunate.

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC
+ - Re: The Nemenyi files (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

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

>At 11:05 PM 8/9/96 -0400, JFerengi wrote:
>>Sorry that I did not make clear what I meant by 'source'.
>>
>>I was referring only to your use of the recent Farkas List as a source
to
>>prove that NPA  is anti semitic.
>>
>>I know absolutely nothing about the radio show. And I know nothing about
>>Nemenyi naming people.
>
>
Eva replied with:
       " But if you know so little about the case, why do you feel
compelled
to write so many posts on it."
JFerengi replies:
Eva, I feel compelled because I want to see closure to this illogical
ranting and         raving and because I see unfair tactics being used. My
posts involve only what I do know from what I have seen posted by you and
the Anti Nemenyites and NPA.
Maybe its has to do with my freedom of expression? Maybe its a crazy need
to help Farkas or NPA equally if I saw that either was being pilloried.

Eva said:

" (1) I didn't need "the recent Farkas List as a source." I have been
reading NPA's writings in the original for over two and a half years, and
in
the first month I knew that he was enamored with the idea of an
international Jewish conspiracy. Gabor collected a few samplings for those
on the list who didn't have the "pleasure" of reading them in the original
Hungarian."

JFerengi now says:
Eva, my post was directed only at the fact that you used the Farkas List
as a "source". I merely attacked the validity of that source. Whether you
needed to use it or not, was not the point of my post. The fact that you
did use it was the point. I am not a mindreader who knows all that you
know. I know only what you post. Gabor collected samplings? maybe. But
what did they prove? I'm not so sure. Apparently neither did Farkas since
he admitted that he was guessing at their real meaning.
Would you like to see samples of Farkas saying that he was not sure what
was going on or that he was guessing at antisemitic motives behind certain
posts?

 Eva..the point is that frequently the hearer hears what he is inclined to
hear. Not that anyone is purposely twisting the truth but when we are
sensitive about a topic we may hear footsteps that just 'ain't necessarily
so'.

By the way, is a conspiracy necessarily a bad thing? In my dictionary, the
primary definition involves evil ends. The secondary definition simply
means people working harmoniously toward a single purpose.

HG Wells: "The open conspiracy of all sane men in the world against the
things that break us into wars and futilities."

Farkas may be right. But I am a nitpicker who wants a helluva lot of sound
proof before I ask anyone to wear the most hated label of modern
times.That is why I asked Gabor to give even one or two solid proofs
rather than volumes of leaky ones.

Hopefully, this is my last post on this topic.

                                           Respectfully yours,

JFer
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In my humble opinion the "English-only" move is
uptight, ungenerous, and unworthy of the American
people. It's nothing but xenophobia. English has
always been the "official" language of the United
States, it doesn't have to be so by decree. Also,
English is the most dominant language in the world.
English is not threatened in any way or shape or
form. The argument used in pre-Trianon Hungary was
probably based on similar rhetoric, it's for unity,
etc. Yet Hungarians were called oppressors for making
Hungarian the official language of Hungary. People
should be free everywhere to speak whatever language
they wish to speak, period. There is nothing more
to say about this. Everything else is oppression
disguised as "reason," "unity" and other forms of
mindless, predujicial (excuse "French") bullshit!

Steven C. Scheer
+ - 17/M looking for Hungarian/Female... (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi my name is Danny and I am 17 years old. I am 6'2" w/blue eyes and short
brown hair. My hobbies include playing baseball, babysitting, Traveling,
Going to Movies, and trying new things. I am looking for a hungarian
female (or English) aroung my age to meet and have a friendly discussion
with. If you like what you here dial me up at  Thanks
+ - Re: The Nemenyi files (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, S or G Farkas
> writes:

Dear Mr Farkas quoted me correctly by saying:

>>I took the first item from Farkas' LIST. It had to do with the "origins
of
>>Jesus".
>
>
I took the very first item because it was the very first item on his LIST.
The LIST purported to be definitive proof of NPA's motives. He published
the LIST in a public forum where millions of people might see it. Before I
accepted its validity, I did minimal research. Not a very scientific
research. Not a very thorough research. I got to thinking. What would I do
in the same position? Wouldn't I do my damnedest to make sure I was right
before I published something so potentially injurious?  I guarantee you
that the first item on my list would be perfect beyond a hint of a
blemish. When the very first item on the LIST fell far short, what was I
to think about the credibility of this magnum opus?  Actually, what made
me question it originally was the post of a nice lady praising Gabor for
"time well spent". Being a contrary cuss, those words made me wonder,"How
could she tell?"


then Gabor crushed me by quoting me:

>So, I'm back to square one.

and adding this very clever bon mot,
"I don't think you ever moved away from it"

Mr Farkas, may I respectfully suggest that we are more likely to find the
truth by engaging others in meaningful dialogue than by making assumptions
about the motives of others?

                                                  Best Wishes,

JFerengi

Might be refreshing to let sleeping dogs lie
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

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

On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Steven C. Scheer wrote:
> [...] The argument used in pre-Trianon Hungary was
> probably based on similar rhetoric, it's for unity,
> etc. Yet Hungarians were called oppressors for making
> Hungarian the official language of Hungary.
 Notice that even at the height of the national tension in pre-war
Hungary, there were three official languages in Transylvania - to the
point that even banknotes were printed with German and Romanian texts
besides Hungarian.

- --
 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

iQBVAwUBMg8fpMQ/4s87M5ohAQFvMQIA0TudLyyoxsYPmdMMEi7lnWnB8RjPq/Yj
qpTtBZdq14kAFCNRmW6MZRYqnbeA7/WoVtmBfdmMUdsHZUR3ARyk2Q==
=WSwn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Steve Scheer said:
In my humble opinion the "English-only" move is
uptight, ungenerous, and unworthy of the American
people. It's nothing but xenophobia. English has
always been the "official" language of the United
States, it doesn't have to be so by decree.
<<<>>>
Dear Steve:
Apparently you ar the one with the phobias...
1- There is NO "official English" on the books anywhere in the states to
my knowledge.

2- It costs LOTS of MONEY to print and distribute other language documents
in schools, voter registrations, bus/train schedules...etc.

3- NOWHERE does the "official English law" prevent anyone from using any
language in the states. It only says: in offcial communications with the
government....not that you cannot speak it, write it, use it in any way
shape or form!

So why all the phobias??? There are hundreds of "foreign" language used
in the USA (including Hungarian)...yet ALL of have learned English
because we felt it necessary! The "foreigners" entering the USA  came here
by choice...it behooves them to learn English anyhow..please do not ask
for my taxmoney to support those that are too lazy to learn English, so
that I can support their lazyness by publishing stuff in their "foreign"
language. I do not have a problem with having signs (road) in the
majority/minority language [if there are at least 5-10 % of the
population in an area}.

Unlike Canada that FORCES the use of French in places where none is
spoken or used!!!

Wake up and please smell the coffee...perhaps you will see your errors.
Peter Soltesz
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,  says...
>
>In my humble opinion the "English-only" move is
>uptight, ungenerous, and unworthy of the American
>people. It's nothing but xenophobia. English has
>always been the "official" language of the United
>States, it doesn't have to be so by decree. Also,
>English is the most dominant language in the world.
>English is not threatened in any way or shape or
>form. The argument used in pre-Trianon Hungary was
>probably based on similar rhetoric, it's for unity,
>etc. Yet Hungarians were called oppressors for making
>Hungarian the official language of Hungary. People
>should be free everywhere to speak whatever language
>they wish to speak, period. There is nothing more
>to say about this. Everything else is oppression
>disguised as "reason," "unity" and other forms of
>mindless, prejudicial (excuse "French") bullshit!
>
>Steven C. Scheer
>
Well, I stand firm on the above. I also took the liberty
of correcting the typographical error in the last line
(the word is "prejudicial") . . .

On the Opinion page of The Evansville Courier I found
the following this morning:

"Official Language

"The House passed a divisive and unnecessary bill that
would declare English to be the official language of the
United States. Its targets are ethnic and racial
minorities, and it makes no sense.

"Nobody disputes the status of English as the common
language of the United States . . .

"Rather than ban the use of languages other than English
in official federal government business, Congress should
concentrate on promoting greater fluency in English by
funding more English language instruction for adults and
children . . .

"This bill is immigrant bashing.

"In any language, it would be bad law."

A few observations: the third paragraph offers the typical
American way of throwing money at a problem . . . Would
not be a popular move in this case . . . Also, and more
importantly, this editorial (with which I agree, of course)
overlooks the numbers game. Hungarian, for example, has
always been a relatively small minority in America. Yet
Hungarians were free to have their own little ethnic
neighborhoods, with Hungarian taverns, restaurants, butchers,
bakers and green gocers, even with Hungarian newspapers and
radio programs Sunday afternoons . . . I still recall with
fondness the Hungarian neighborhood in Cleveland, Ohio . . .
where for a while I lived on that famous Buckeye Road on the
East Side of town . . .

The problem is probably with much larger minorities, the
Hispanic one in the United States. When a minority is so
large that retaining their own language is a viable option
(as French is for the French Canadians in Quebec) . . . then
the "host" country might feel threatened to enact such bills
as the one under consideration here . . .

It would not behoove us Hungarians to agree with this uptight
and ungenerous move on the part of the House. For one thing,
it would simply fuel Slovak and/or Romanian attempts to further
suppress the use of Hungarian in territories that once belonged
to Hungary . . . In those areas, of course, the Hungarian
minority is large enough in certain areas so that Hungarian
remains a viable language option . . . Their rights should not
be oppressed . . .

Hungarian-Americans who "merely" sympathize with the English
only bill have probably not thought through the issue . . .
Minorities everywhere need to be free to use their own
language. I have, of course, no problem with using the
language of the "host" country for official government
business, but must this be enacted as a law? That could
easily open a can of worms that would be better left closed.

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

At 08:08 PM 8/11/96 -0300, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:

>No other minority group
>anywhere - I would venture to say - has endured such almost continuous
>persecution over the centuries as the Jews have.

What about homosexuals?  The oppression and persecution of homosexuals was
so total that until 30 years ago there was no homosexual minority,
community, or identity.  When the church was/is all powerful, homosexuality
was/is a sin.  When medicine is/was all powerful, homosexuality is/was a
sickness.  When the state is/was all powerful, homosexuality is/was a
criminal activity.

Joe Szalai

"If Michelangelo would have been straight, he would have painted the ceiling
of the Sistine Chapel with a paint roller, and in basic white."
+ - Re: American Imperialism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:16 AM 8/9/96 -0400, Jeliko wrote:

>I would like to also add, that I see more chauvinism in Canadian politics
>than in the US politics in relation to culture, language, etc. While Canada
>seems to be going from a melting pot into the pressure cooker stage in
>several location. (e.g Toronto, Vancouver), the US is more accomodating in
>tolerance of individual cultures and customs.

This is an unfair and misleading comment.  For someone from the United
States to say that Toronto and Vancouver are in the "pressure cooker" stage
when it comes to language and culture is to give the impression that those
cities are on the brink of the kind of race/culture riots that the US is
famous for.  Nothing could be furthur from the truth.  To say that "the US
is more accomodating in tolerance of individual cultures and customs", is to
make me laugh.

Clearly, Jeliko is more familiar with ancient Hungarian history than he is
with modern Canadian reality.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:09 PM 8/11/96 -0400, Burian wrote:

>Okay, here's my opinion of the "English Only" Bill.  It means that English
>is the official langauge of the USA, not that it be the only one ever
>spoken!
>
>I'm for it--and I'm not narrow-minded (I don't think).  For a country to
>be represented in more than one language divides the country (as in
>Canada).

        In spite of the fact that the population of the United States is
extremely varied the dominant culture is based on English. Those who don't
speak the language are at great disadvantage. Therefore, I am not
considering the so-called bilingual education any great favor to the
children of immigrants. In my experience at least, those children who
received bilingual education (English and Spanish) ended up not knowing
either language. I had Hispanic students from Texas whose English wasn't
really adequate for college-level studies and at the same time their Spanish
was not good enough to get a better grade than C in an intermediate Spanish
course (second year of Spanish).

        Also, in border areas the predominance of Spanish may, with good
reason, frighten, some Americans. And Hungarians ought to understand that
better than most people. The most obvious comparison in the Hungarian
context is the Serbian population of the Voevoda region (Banat).
Approximately 200,000 Serb refugees, headed by their metropolitan, were
escaping harsh Ottoman rule at the end of the seventeenth-century. Hungary
settled them within the Hungarian borders away from Turkish harm. Two
hundred years later, the larger part of that area was awarded the Kingdom of
Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes!

>relation, in blood or culture, to Great Britain (just look at the names in
>any American phonebook).  Yet they all learned English because it was
>simply the language of the country.  (My own relatives came from Hungary
>and Lithuania.)

        When someone emigrates, one ought to realize that that move includes
learning most likely a new language. As Jeliko rightly pointed out in the
case of the United States, people move not borders.

>I happen to live in the Southwest, and yes, there are a lot of Hispanics
>here, and you can hear Spanish all the time.  Which is fine with me.  But
>I still feel there can only be one official language for a country in
>order for it be unified.  English has always been the language of the
>USA--so by my thinking, it wins.

        English is the glue which holds the people of the United States
together, and therefore I was flabberghasted when I applied for my green
card and it turned out that out of the hundreds of people waiting for the
card, I was the only one who could speak English--in Hartford, Connecticut.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Ideological babbling from the radical left (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:54 PM 8/11/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:
>ESB wrote:
>> But that wasn't enough. There had to
>> be a man who was willing to try to reform the whole rotten structure. And
>> came Gorbachev. The system, however, was such that it couldn't be
>> "reformed." Once you opened the flood gates you were in trouble.
>Especially if you allow your Military Hawks to murder free
>all along the country...
>
>Have you ever heard of the Tbilisi Massacre? It was made by
>General Rodionoff (Defence Minister now) and his undereducated,
>bestialistic military hordes. They even used chemical weapons
>(poisonoing battle gases) against the civil inhabitants. And
>Gorbachev did not do anything about telling the truth in this
>(that's about 'Glasnosty' and the other lies). On the contrary,
>he made a perfect cover-up to the killers, and he did not even
>dare to touch the responsibility of Rodionoff, and his ilks.

        In what way does this negate what I said above?

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:36 PM 8/11/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:

>Some people like to compare Martin Heidegger and George Lukacs
>on the basis that both of them related to some totaliarian
>regime during their carriers as philosophers.
>
>We could discover a nice piece of sophistry in this comparison.

        I would like you to come up with names of people who equate
Heidegger and Lukacs "on the basis that both of them related to some
totalitarian regime during their careers." I just read two articles in the
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one on Heidegger and one on Lukacs, and
believe me, they don't equate the extent of the two men's involvement in the
nazi and/or the communist parties.

        In any case, in my humble opinion, Georg Lukacs's importance in
twentieth-century philosophy in no way can be compared to that of Heidegger.
Quite independently from their political orientations.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Hungarian economy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Aug 11,  5:46pm, Amos J. Danube wrote:
> Subject: Re: Hungarian economy
> On Aug 11,  4:39pm, Zoltan Szekely wrote:
> > Subject: Hungarian economy
> > An interesting opinion about the Hungarian economy was published
> > in the Demokrata, a Hungarian periodical. It was written by Mr.
> > Janos Latorczai, an expert of the KDNP, an oppostion party in
> >                  --------------------- ?
> > Hungary. I put here same excerpts from his article titled as
> > "The Inventors of the 'Unhealthy Growth".
> >
> > It can be viewd as an addition to my discussion with Gyuri Antony.
> > (Sorry guys, it's in Hungarian).
> >                                                          Sz. Zoli
> >
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Az "egeszsegtelen novekedes" fogalmanak feltalaloi
> > LATORCZAI JANOS
> > [Demokrata (31)]
> > ----------------------------
>     This has nothing to do with economics, it is party propaganda.
>     Pure and simple.
>                      Amos
>-- End of excerpt from Amos J. Danube

    And here is Szekely's selective quote -
                                              Amos

Amos:
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Az "egeszsegtelen novekedes" fogalmanak feltalaloi
> > LATORCZAI JANOS
> > [Demokrata (31)]
> > ----------------------------
>     This has nothing to do with economics, it is party propaganda.
>     Pure and simple.
>                      Amos

It can not be party propaganda. There is not even a party
mentioned here... :-)
                                                 Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Aug 12,  8:31am, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
> Subject: Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperialism)
> At 01:09 PM 8/11/96 -0400, Burian wrote:
>
> >Okay, here's my opinion of the "English Only" Bill.  It means that English
> >is the official langauge of the USA, not that it be the only one ever
> >spoken!
> >
> >I'm for it--and I'm not narrow-minded (I don't think).  For a country to
> >be represented in more than one language divides the country (as in
> >Canada).
>
>         When someone emigrates, one ought to realize that that move includes
> learning most likely a new language. As Jeliko rightly pointed out in the
> case of the United States, people move not borders.
----------------------
      I agree with both of these views. It is true that the Republicans
   didn't start this bill in an inoffensive way  (but then when do they
   do anything in a sensible way?).  This doesn't mean that the idea is
   wrong.
      What I resent is that I have to pay for the preservation of some-
   body else's culture.As long as there is no prohibition on "minority"
   culture, and there is none here in the States,  it should be the re-
   sponsibility of the members of that culture to preserve it.  This is
   most certainly not my duty.It has become fashionable to blame every-
   body else for one's lack of effort. And the opposition to the law is
   based on this premise.
      Some people have taken  the test and the oath  for citizenship in
   Spanish just recently in Texas. I don't care who says what,  this is
   wrong. The law on American-English is needed.
                                                  Amos
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:09 PM 8/11/96 -0400, Burian wrote:

>For a country to be represented in more than one language divides the
>country (as in Canada).

Canada is not divided because of language.  The Quebec question is about
history and culture, as well as language.  As a matter of fact, there is
only one officially bilingual province in Canada.  And that province has no
intention of leaving the confederation and dividing the country.  That
province is New Brunswick.  Never heard of the place?  That might be because
the official use of English and French (Acadian) has not been a problem.

Language is not divisive.  Intolerance is.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: The Nemenyi files (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 08:19 PM 8/11/96 -0400, JFerengi wrote:

>Eva replied with:
>       " But if you know so little about the case, why do you feel
>compelled
>to write so many posts on it."
>JFerengi replies:
>Eva, I feel compelled because I want to see closure to this illogical
>ranting and         raving and because I see unfair tactics being used.

        Well, first of all, I am happy to announce that Mr. Nemenyi as of
today retired from HIX, as he mentioned it in today's Forum. Therefore, the
discussion will also be closed as of today. As for your calling this
discussion an "illogical ranting and raving," using "unfair tactics," I must
disagree with you.

>JFerengi now says:
>Gabor collected samplings? maybe. But
>what did they prove? I'm not so sure. Apparently neither did Farkas since
>he admitted that he was guessing at their real meaning.
>Would you like to see samples of Farkas saying that he was not sure what
>was going on or that he was guessing at antisemitic motives behind certain
>posts?
>
> Eva..the point is that frequently the hearer hears what he is inclined to
>hear. Not that anyone is purposely twisting the truth but when we are
>sensitive about a topic we may hear footsteps that just 'ain't necessarily
>so'.

        I'm not sure what kind of proof you want in order to call someone an
antisemite. If you think that the person will stand on the village square
and shout to the whole world on the top of his lungs that he is an
antisemite you can wait till doomsday. These guys are more clever than that:
they are slippery like eels and they are hard to catch. But you know what,
I'm going to give you an example from the writings of a Hungarian journalist
called Andras Bencsik who has the reputation of being an antisemite. I'm
going to quote here both in Hungarian and in English a few lines from
Bencsik which eventually cost him his membership in the Magyar Demokrata
Forum. I am quoting from a very interesting book entitled "Restauracio," by
Jozsef Debreczeni, a former MDF member of parliament--that is, he is not
exactly a left-liberal. And here are the notorious lines:

        "Mi lenne, ha vegre csinalnank valamit? Olyan tisztan s elszantan,
mint 1956 oktobereben tettuk, de olyan bekes magabiztonsaggal, mint 1848
marciusaban.... Mi lenne, ha betiltanank az SZDSZ-t, majd egy egeszseges
lendulettel vegervenyesen kitakaritanank oket a kozeletbol, a mediabol, a
penzvilagbol, a fold alol es a fold folul, a szuloszobakbol es az
iskolakbol, es mindenhonnan, ahol emberek elnek.... Eljatszottak minden
jogukat a politikai letezesre. Az SZDSZ a neobolsevizmus fellegvara lett, az
pedig eppen olyan veszedelmes a demokratikus tarsadalmakra, mint szellemi
elodje, a neonacizmus."

        "What would happen if at last we did something? With so much purity
and with so much determination as in October 1956, but with such peaceful
self-confidence as in March 1848.... What would happen if we banned the
SZDSZ, after which with healthy gusto we would clean them out from public
life, from the media, from the financial world, from below and from above
ground, from the delivery rooms, from the schools, from everywhere where
people live. The SZDSZ [Szabad Demokratak Szovetsege; Free Democratic
Alliance] is the citadel of neobolshevism, which is just as dangerous for
democratic societies as its spiritual precursor, neonazism."

        JFerengi might have noticed that the word "Jewish" did not appear in
this quotation and yet Jozsef Debreczeni can hardly contain himself: "I can
hardly find words," he says. And after a two-paragraph analysis of the text
he says:

        "Aki ilyesmit leir, kimond vagy gondol, az gazember. Auschwitz utan
es Auschwitz elott. Minden idoben."

        "Someone who writes, says, thinks such things is a scoundrel. After
Auschwitz, before Auschwitz. Any time."

        You call yourself a nitpicker but what you are doing is not just
nitpicking. It is trying to defend the indefensible.

        >By the way, is a conspiracy necessarily a bad thing? In my
dictionary, the
>primary definition involves evil ends. The secondary definition simply
>means people working harmoniously toward a single purpose.

        Conspiracy normally is perceived as involving evil ends, and I would
say that an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world would fall
into this category.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Hungarian economy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Amos:
> > >  ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Az "egeszsegtelen novekedes" fogalmanak feltalaloi
> > > LATORCZAI JANOS
> > > [Demokrata (31)]
> > > ----------------------------
> >     This has nothing to do with economics, it is party propaganda.
> >     Pure and simple.
> >                      Amos
> >-- End of excerpt from Amos J. Danube
>
>     And here is Szekely's selective quote -
>                                               Amos
>
> Amos:
> > >  ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Az "egeszsegtelen novekedes" fogalmanak feltalaloi
> > > LATORCZAI JANOS
> > > [Demokrata (31)]
> > > ----------------------------
> >     This has nothing to do with economics, it is party propaganda.
> >     Pure and simple.
> >                      Amos
>
> It can not be party propaganda. There is not even a party
> mentioned here... :-)
>                                                  Sz. Zoli

No party is mentioned in the article of Mr Latorczai.
Or could you find one? Yes or not??
                                            Sz. Zoli
+ - A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Unfortunately, I sent off the note about Andras Bencsik and his
antisemitic remarks before I could add the following:

        Mr. Bencsik is the editor-in-chief of *Demokrata," the weekly from
which Zoli Szekely quoted the words about "unhealthy economic growth." Put
it that way: the *Demokrata* has a certain ideological slant which also
includes virulent attacks on the stabilization program of the former
minister of finance, Lajos Bokros, on the IMF, on the Worldbank, on
privatization, and one could go on and on. It is not exactly an
ideologically neutral publication.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Ideological babbling from the radical left (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> At 05:54 PM 8/11/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:
> >ESB wrote:
> >> But that wasn't enough. There had to
> >> be a man who was willing to try to reform the whole rotten structure. And
> >> came Gorbachev. The system, however, was such that it couldn't be
> >> "reformed." Once you opened the flood gates you were in trouble.
> >Especially if you allow your Military Hawks to murder free
> >all along the country...
> >Have you ever heard of the Tbilisi Massacre? It was made by
> >General Rodionoff (Defence Minister now) and his undereducated,
> >bestialistic military hordes. They even used chemical weapons
> >(poisonoing battle gases) against the civil inhabitants. And
> >Gorbachev did not do anything about telling the truth in this
> >(that's about 'Glasnosty' and the other lies). On the contrary,
> >he made a perfect cover-up to the killers, and he did not even
> >dare to touch the responsibility of Rodionoff, and his ilks.
>
>         In what way does this negate what I said above?
>
>         Eva Balogh

No negation. Discussion is not always just negation. The Tbilisi
Massacre happened in 1987, during the propagandistic years of
the 'Glasnosty' of Gorbachev. After this happenings was that a
German newspaper compared Gorbachev to Goebbels in regards of
successful but untrue political propaganda. That's about
Gorbachev. (The stupid Gorbie-mania in the USA just forgot to
emphasize this dark side of the Soviet First Secretary.)

Also, Rodionoff this bloody guy is back in full power again. Just
the hell knows the consequences of this fact, which is partly due
to the sloppy handling of the Tbilisi Massacre by Gorbachev in 87.

                                                         Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

ESB:
> Put it that way: the *Demokrata* has a certain ideological slant which
> also includes virulent attacks on the stabilization program of the former
> minister of finance, Lajos Bokros, on the IMF, on the Worldbank, on
> privatization, and one could go on and on. It is not exactly an
> ideologically neutral publication.
Demokrata has a couple awful publications in it, and some better.
Is the Nepszabadsag or the Magyar Hirlap different in this regard?
Are they 'exactly ideologically neutral publications'?
I do not think so!
                                                         Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>         I would like you to come up with names of people who equate
> Heidegger and Lukacs "on the basis that both of them related to some
> totalitarian regime during their careers."
Just go to your nearest library and look at the selection of books
published about Heidegger in the USA. You will find an awful lot
of overly biased books against him.

> I just read two articles in the
> The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one on Heidegger and one on Lukacs, and
> believe me, they don't equate the extent of the two men's involvement in the
> nazi and/or the communist parties.
That's fine! I wish all the philosophical evaluations of the two
guys would be the same in this regard.

>         In any case, in my humble opinion, Georg Lukacs's importance in
> twentieth-century philosophy in no way can be compared to that of Heidegger.
> Quite independently from their political orientations.
I agree completely with you! This opinion is very reasonable and
should not be humbled. Unfortunately, some guys following the
main lines of the so-called 'Frankfurter School', especially the
philosophers practicing the socially radical critizism of the
late sixties and seventies, can not make a difference between
these two personalities of the 20'th Century philosophy.
                                                        Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Johanne!

> >> And, unlike most other ethnicities, after a long history of pogroms
> >       ------ ---- ----- -----------
> >> culminating in the Holocaust, Jews can be excused for being twitchy
> >> about references to Jewishness where the context does not require that.
> >
> >Should we take this now as a 'historical justification' of
> >an asymmetric view of the history?
> >
> >(By assymmetry I mean that according to this view the Jewish
> >ethnicity acquires a different, 'asymmetric' position among
> >all the ethnic, religious, etc.  minorities in a country/in
> >the world/etc.)
> >                                                   Sz. Zoli
>
> George Antony made this comment first, but I have been thinking this for
> quite a while. I do not believe that anything merits an *asymmetrical*
> analysis of history and don't believe that most Jews ask for favorable or
> special treatment of their history.
In the history of the Second World War a lot of emphasis is put
on the suffering of Jews. And it is right, because they suffered
the most. (Historical evidences show that almost 6 million Jewish
people was killed during the War.) Not questioning this facts,
sometime we may have the feeling, that no similar emphasis is put
on the suffering of other nations, even if their loss is
comparable to that of the Jews.

I see, that it is not favorable of special treatment of history.
It is just an attitude, which can be understood. Also, we have
Holocaust Memorials and Museums all over the world, which are fair
treatments for memento. They focus on the artifacts of the perse-
cution of Jews, because most of the persecuted were Jews. That's
very true. Asymmetry in this would mean only, that we don't know
as many details about the persecution of other ethnic, religious,
etc. groups, as we know about the Holocaust.

> However, it can explain a certain
> sensitivity of Jews - and of non-Jews who are sympathetic to Jewish concerns
> - that, in fact, many of the ridiculous charges which have been leveled
> against Jews in the past centuries have been used as *pretexts* to
> persecute, torture, conduct pogroms, etc.
This kind of sensitivity is very natural. No question about it.
My question is different: Should we regard these hard facts of the
suffering of a nation as a legitimate basis, a historical justi-
fication of an asymmetrical view of the history?

> No other minority group
> anywhere - I would venture to say - has endured such almost continuous
> persecution over the centuries as the Jews have.
Now, at the end of this blood-written Century, we may ask ourselves:
Should we carry on the asymmetrical worldview into a new Century?
Should we act on the same reflexes in this coming next Century as
we did in the bloodiest Century of the history of manking, in this
most hated 20th Century? Should we build up these same reflexes
in the coming generations? Or should we avoid being stuck in the
logic of this bloody history and should we try to build up a new
kind of logic for a new Century?

> This is one reason that Hungary has been so admirable in the past, from my
> point of view - the fact of comparative toleration for many different
> ethnicities, including Jews, who found shelter within her borders. And
> Hungary has benefitted greatly from the contributions made by members of
> these ethnic groups to her culture - it has been pointed out by many people
> - sometimes with the intent to denigrate the Hungarians - that many of her
> most famous citizens are of Jewish, Slavic, German, Romanian, Croat,
> Serbian, etc. etc. origin.
Thanks. That's very true. I accept this as a compliment.

> It distresses me now to hear *some*
> Hungarians spreading slanderous lies about the Jewish people.
In this regard Hungary is not different from other nations. I heard
slanderous lies about Jews, blacks, Indians, etc. in the USA as well.
Also, the extra sensitiveness you mentioned, could sometimes
transform the perception in a way, that you feel insult even when
no insult happened at all. (I could write here about myself, too:
I felt insulted by the coverage of the Olympic Games a'la NBC.
Now, after a couple of days I am not so sure. Maybe they just were
not as sensitive toward my country as I was.) I no not intend to
discuss this in more details now. I am more interested in the topic
of asymmetical views of the history.

> Yours sincerely,
>
> Johanne

Take care,                                              Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:16 PM 8/12/96 -0400, "Amos J. Danube" > wrote:

>      What I resent is that I have to pay for the preservation of some-
>   body else's culture.As long as there is no prohibition on "minority"
>   culture, and there is none here in the States,  it should be the re-
>   sponsibility of the members of that culture to preserve it.  This is
>   most certainly not my duty.It has become fashionable to blame every-
>   body else for one's lack of effort. And the opposition to the law is
>   based on this premise.

What premise?  Where do you get this "fashionable to blame everybody else
for one's lack of effort", nonsense from?  You're probably reading too many
right wing opinion makers who upchuck that stuff non stop.  And what is the
cause of their ranting?  One or two isolated incidents that show just how
far society has decayed?  C'mon now!  Get real!

>      Some people have taken  the test and the oath  for citizenship in
>   Spanish just recently in Texas. I don't care who says what,  this is
>   wrong. The law on American-English is needed.

Why is it wrong?  And you will demand that the hearing-impaired take the
oath for citizenship in American Sign Language, right?

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: Speaking in many tongues (was Re: American Imperial (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 06:46 PM 8/11/96 -0400, Sam Stowe wrote:

>I don't think the drive to make English the official language of the
>United States is going to make much of a practical difference in people's
>lives even if it is successfully legislated on a national level.

That's true, today.  However, once a language becomes "official", then that
status can be used by less generous people and governments to justify
limitations on non-English usage.  And if that happens then your cheerful,
anarchically polyglot will become less desirable than it is today.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:10 12/08/96 -0400, Joe (Homoerotic) Szalai wrote:
>At 08:08 PM 8/11/96 -0300, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
>
>>No other minority group
>>anywhere - I would venture to say - has endured such almost continuous
>>persecution over the centuries as the Jews have.
>
>What about homosexuals?  The oppression and persecution of homosexuals was
>so total that until 30 years ago there was no homosexual minority,
>community, or identity.  When the church was/is all powerful, homosexuality
>was/is a sin.  When medicine is/was all powerful, homosexuality is/was a
>sickness.  When the state is/was all powerful, homosexuality is/was a
>criminal activity.
>
>Joe Szalai

Yo ho ho, Joe!

Well, I am certainly not an expert on the persecution or toleration of
homosexuals throughout history, but I remember that in ancient Greece,
homosexuality was considered ideal love - remember Achilles and Patroclus
from Homer? In ancient Rome, till the Christians took over at least, I think
homosexuality was at least tolerated - seems to me that at least half of the
Roman emperors were homosexuals (and who knows what else!) Then in the
Moslem countries, wasn't pederasty quite a common phenomenon in the old
days? Seems to me I recall some stuff about Lawrence of Arabia while he was
in the mid-East . . . His problems seem to have arisen on his return to
England.

>"If Michelangelo would have been straight, he would have painted the ceiling
>of the Sistine Chapel with a paint roller, and in basic white."

So, if Michelangelo had been Jewish he wouldn't have been allowed in the
Vatican, let alone hired to paint the ceiling. And they say that Leonardo
was gay, too, and then I just heard a British commentator on Gzowski the
other morning saying that Sir Francis Bacon and King James were gay (when
you're in love the whole world is gay! :-)) according to that guy - who had
been an MP in Britain and is now a journalist - that was why King James
pardoned Bacon when he had been clapped in the Tower. (You could say he
saved his Bacon! :-)))))

Soooooo. . .  I would have to say that homosexuals have been persecuted here
and there, now and then, from time to time, but not necessarily all the time
everywhere, but there are very few times and places throughout the last two
thousand years where Jews have been tolerated for any length of time.

TTFN,

Johanne/Janka




Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - Re: American Imperialism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:10 12/08/96 -0400, Joe (the Voice of Wisdom) Szalai  wrote:

>At 10:16 AM 8/9/96 -0400, Jeliko wrote:
>
>>I would like to also add, that I see more chauvinism in Canadian politics
>>than in the US politics in relation to culture, language, etc. While Canada
>>seems to be going from a melting pot into the pressure cooker stage in
>>several location. (e.g Toronto, Vancouver), the US is more accomodating in
>>tolerance of individual cultures and customs.
>
>This is an unfair and misleading comment.  For someone from the United
>States to say that Toronto and Vancouver are in the "pressure cooker" stage
>when it comes to language and culture is to give the impression that those
>cities are on the brink of the kind of race/culture riots that the US is
>famous for.  Nothing could be furthur from the truth.  To say that "the US
>is more accomodating in tolerance of individual cultures and customs", is to
>make me laugh.
>
>Clearly, Jeliko is more familiar with ancient Hungarian history than he is
>with modern Canadian reality.
>
>Joe Szalai

Well, Joe, you know how often you and I agree on the issues . . . (see
previous post, for example)  But, in this case you have stolen the words
right off my keyboard! Much as I respect Mr. Jeliko's opinions, being as
he's from Columbus, Ohio, and all, in this case I must say "Here, here!"
(However, if he had mentioned Quebec City, I might admit that he might have
something there :-))

So long for now,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:31 PM 8/12/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:
>ESB:
>> Put it that way: the *Demokrata* has a certain ideological slant which
>> also includes virulent attacks on the stabilization program of the former
>> minister of finance, Lajos Bokros, on the IMF, on the Worldbank, on
>> privatization, and one could go on and on. It is not exactly an
>> ideologically neutral publication.
>Demokrata has a couple awful publications in it, and some better.
>Is the Nepszabadsag or the Magyar Hirlap different in this regard?
>Are they 'exactly ideologically neutral publications'?
>I do not think so!

        You are right. No, they are not better. Especially *Nepszabadsag.* I
assume you also read the last electronic issue of *Magyar Narancs,* in which
it is reported that the *Budapest Business Journal* did a bit a *real*
investigative journalism. (Unlike the kind Hungarian journalists practice,
which is usually a joke!) The BBJ conducted a survey of close to a dozen
important daily papers. They approached each paper's advertising department
with a proposition (without telling them, of course, that they worked for
BBJ): Here is a company which would like to place an ad in the paper but
they would like to have a format which would not look like an ad, but a
genuine article. All the daily papers, with the exception of *Magyar Hirlap*
was willing, for about $1,000, to write a favorible article about the
company (nonexistent, of course) if the company paid the money!! Moreover,
when the journalists of BBJ revealed that it was a hoax: there is no such
company and they just wanted to find out Hungarian newspapers' attitude
toward such shady practices, the Hungarian journalists didn't consider it a
serious transgression of ethics. "Well, they don't have enough money; so, it
is a financial necessity." Or, some of them thought that there was
absolutely nothing wrong with the practice and laughed the whole thing off.
So, there are serious, serious problems with the Hungarian media.

        Lately especially I saw many, many articles by more responsible
journalists (I can name two right here: Flora Fencsik and Ferenc Pallagi)
who wrote disparagingly about the media's attitude toward the current
Hungarian government. You most likely know that some time ago, but
definitely after the Horn government's inauguration the Freedom House (New
York) published the evaluation of the freedom of the press all over the
world. Hungary, which earlier was categorized as "free," was no categorized
as "semi-free." The censorship, I believe, doesn't come from above; it comes
from within. A return to the self-censorship of the Kadar regime! The
Nepszabadsag (unfortunately the most widely read national paper) is the
worst offender but I don't think that this should surprise anyone. After
all, Nepszabadsag was the Hungarian Pravda. (By the way, did you read that
Pravda died. Finis. Kaput!) I, for one, could never understand how it could
have been possible to have a real political transformation in 1989/90 and
still have Nepszabadsag intact, name, and all. In 1956 when Szabad Nep's
headquarters was practically destroyed, when all the machines which produced
that piece of rag were destroyed and the building occupied by the
revolutionaries, the Kadar regime came up with a "revolutionary new" name,
well a bit of a change, not Szabad Nep but Nepszabadsag. And that other
piece of rag survived all these years and not just survived, but it is the
most read paper in the country!

        In any case, unfortunately Zoli Szekely is right. There are either
pro-government or anti-government papers and the journalistic practices are
truly questionable. On the other hand, some of the articles which appear in
the anti-government papers are often beyond what is acceptable. Just like
Bencsik's article quoted by me. Or, let's take another example, which
shouldn't appear in a responsible paper, yet it appeared in *Magyar Nemzet,*
one of the better right-of-center daily. And let me quote:

"vajon elegendonek tartja-e, ha az eltakaritando szemelyeket megfosztjak a
nyilvanossagtol ... avagy a tarsadalombol is ki kell vetni, netan fizikailag
is meg kell semmisiteni oket," writes a certain Zoltan Szokolay. [In
English: "does he [Jozsef Debreczeni who was upset over Andras Bencsik's
writing] find it sufficient to deprive these persons from access to the
public ... or perhaps he would like to make these persons public outcasts,
or by any chance would he like to annihilate them physically."

        No responsible editor would allow this kind of language, that kind
of insinuation to appear in print, especially when it is entirely unwarranted.

        As for the *Demokrata,* yes, I know that it is available on the
Internet but I rarely read it. Maybe I should. Just out of morbid curiosity.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Ideological babbling from the radical left (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:23 PM 8/12/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:

>>         In what way does this negate what I said above?
>>
>>         Eva Balogh
>
>No negation. Discussion is not always just negation.

        That's good to hear. Maybe it is my fault but every time you say
something to me it is usually "negation." So, this is what I expect but I am
glad that lately you agree with certain things I said: like Heidegger's
importance versus Lukacs's importance.

>(The stupid Gorbie-mania in the USA just forgot to
>emphasize this dark side of the Soviet First Secretary.)

        Sure, Gorbachev was in many ways an old apparatchik (so is Yeltsin)
but at that time it looked as if he were the best hope for a more democratic
future in the Soviet Union. The intelligence service of any country,
including that of the United States, is not exactly perfect even today (and
we better not talk about it in 1919!). Some of the information which arrives
in the State Department or in the Oval Office is outright bogus, but even it
is the right information there are people who must evaluate this information
and make decisions. And since none of us can look into the future we don't
always make the right decisions. Perhaps the United States didn't make the
right decision when it stood behind Gorbachev. But at that time the majority
of the advisors to the president thought that this was the best course of
action.


>Also, Rodionoff this bloody guy is back in full power again. Just
>the hell knows the consequences of this fact, which is partly due
>to the sloppy handling of the Tbilisi Massacre by Gorbachev in 87.

        Now, really, I don't understand why you think that it is Gorbachev's
fault that Lebed likes Rodionov (I am not sure of the spelling but Zoli's
spelling of Russian names with two f's at the end is really out of fashion.)

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 03:47 PM 8/12/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:

>In the history of the Second World War a lot of emphasis is put
>on the suffering of Jews. And it is right, because they suffered
>the most. (Historical evidences show that almost 6 million Jewish
>people was killed during the War.) Not questioning this facts,
>sometime we may have the feeling, that no similar emphasis is put
>on the suffering of other nations, even if their loss is
>comparable to that of the Jews.

        All right. Let's stop right here. Yes, it is true. There are all
sorts of memorials and museums to the Jewish holocaust. Much fewer of, let's
say, Stalin's victims. Well, let's do something about it instead of whining
or complaining. Let's erect memorials to the victims of non-Jewish members
of nazism, to the victims of Stalin, Rakosi, and other little Stalins.
Nobody prevents us from doing so. Let's do it. Let the Ukrainians erect
memorials to the victims of the collectivization. (I am bringing up this
particular example because it was discussed on the Forum lately.) Let's
Russian erect memorials to the victims of the Gulag. One could go on and on.
I am all for it.

        Eva Balogh
+ - JFerengi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Next time I send in anything into this list I will make sure to check with
JFerengi how to do it.

Or even better, I will enclose instructions for reading it.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:31 PM 8/12/96 -0400, Sz. Zoli wrote:

>Demokrata has a couple awful publications in it, and some better.

A couple? This reminds me the joke about the driver who gets onto the
Autobahn the wrong way and hears the announcement on the radio: on the
segment he is driving on there is a ghost-driver (that's how they seem to
call those who drive the wrong way). He looks around and says: One? Thousands!!
!

>Is the Nepszabadsag or the Magyar Hirlap different in this regard?

Definitely!

>Are they 'exactly ideologically neutral publications'?
>I do not think so!

Neither do I, but comparing them to the Demokrata, another "koltoi tulzas"

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

At 11:10 AM 8/12/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>"If Michelangelo would have been straight, he would have painted the ceiling
>of the Sistine Chapel with a paint roller, and in basic white."

        This is very funny. Where did you get this from?

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:39 PM 8/12/96 -0300, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:

>At 11:10 12/08/96 -0400, Joe (Homoerotic) Szalai wrote:

>>"If Michelangelo would have been straight, he would have painted the
>>ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with a paint roller, and in basic white."

>So, if Michelangelo had been Jewish he wouldn't have been allowed in the
>Vatican, let alone hired to paint the ceiling.

I think you missed something insidious about the oppression of homosexuals.
Michelangelo was not homosexual.  He only became that recently.  No?  There
was no such thing as a homosexual identity in the early part of the
sixteenth century.

Jews were oppressed.  Homosexuals didn't exist.

Joe Szalai

"You know, it's not the world that was my oppressor, because what the world
does to you, if the world does it to you long enough and effectively enough,
you begin to do to yourself."
     James Baldwin
+ - Hungary Report (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Maybe I'm just repeating something which have been said here before
and all readers of HUNGARY know, but as I was reading this week's *Hungary
Report* I thought that perhaps it might not be a bad idea to warn everybody
that a weekly English-language news summary from Hungary is available on the
Internet. It is brief but it is quite comprehensive and those of you whose
Hungarian is not perfect might benefit from reading the weekly
English-language news. Apparently there is a daily edition but I don't know
whether one has to pay for it or not.
         In any case, here is how you subscribe. Write to

         and

        in the body of the letter write: subscribe hungary-report

        Another source of English-language news is OMRI's news service from
Prague. The Hungarian-related items from OMRI are picked up by subscribing
to . Just follow the hix format of subcription by addressing
your letter to 

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

It is one of the cases when I agree with Eva Balogh:

> So, there are serious, serious problems with the Hungarian media.
And it has always been so since the first steps of the
'liberation' of the Hungarian media at about 1987-1988.

> Hungary, which earlier was categorized as "free," was no categorized
> as "semi-free." The censorship, I believe, doesn't come from above; it comes
> from within. A return to the self-censorship of the Kadar regime!
It is simply regrettable!

> The Nepszabadsag (unfortunately the most widely read national paper) is the
> worst offender but I don't think that this should surprise anyone. After
> all, Nepszabadsag was the Hungarian Pravda.
Very true!

>         In any case, unfortunately Zoli Szekely is right. There are either
> pro-government or anti-government papers and the journalistic practices are
> truly questionable.
Let me ask this: is there any chance that this would
change in the near future? If not, we may already begin
to worry about the coming elections in 98.
                                               Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: Ideological babbling from the radical left (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva answered my observations like this:
> >Also, Rodionoff this bloody guy is back in full power again. Just
> >the hell knows the consequences of this fact, which is partly due
> >to the sloppy handling of the Tbilisi Massacre by Gorbachev in 87.
>         Now, really, I don't understand why you think that it is Gorbachev's
> fault that Lebed likes Rodionov
Killers, as Rodionov should have been apprehended and
forced out of the ranks of the Russian Army by Gorbachev
after the Tbilisi events 9 years ago. He did not dare to
do so, that's why Rodionov could survive as a high ranked
General until Lebed chose him recently to be the Defence
Minister.

(It reminds me to the Hungarian case in 1956, when the
military successes of Russian generals against the
Hungarian freedom fighters was highly honored by the
Russian Communist Party. See also the career of Yurii
Andropov.)

> (I am not sure of the spelling but Zoli's
> spelling of Russian names with two f's at the end is really out of fashion.)
It may be true. Sorry about my spelling. :-(
                                                Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>Heidegger's philosophy is not a political philosophy. He
>created the basis for the modern philosophical thinking by
>introducing existentialism, a radical ontology of the 20th
>Century. Lukacs never claimed to be more, than a Marxist
>philosopher. And he was not. His writings were 'the extended
>arms' of his Party. He was proud to be biased in favor of 'The
>Party'. And that was his whole life.
>
>Now, how can we match this 2 thinkers? One with a 1-year-long
>involvement in 1933 in the burocracy of a first-stage (still
>unknown at the time) political regime. And the other with a
>whole lifetime involvement in different kind of oppressing
>political systems of the (already well-known at the time)
>communists.
>
>This matching has always been an amazing kind of sophistry
>for me.
>                                                     Sz. Zoli
>
>

Zoltan, I speak as someone with a deep respect for Heidegger's philosophy
(even if it is maddeningly difficult to understand). Heidegger paid a
heavy price for his year-long fling with the Nazis. By the end of the
Second World War, he had been impressed into one of those scratch
collections of old men and little boys (Volkssturm? I'm not a scholar of
late Nazi Germany) sent out to serve as cannon fodder against Russian
tanks. Then, surviving that ordeal, he spent the rest of his life keeping
his mouth shut about why he fell in with the Nazis in the first place.
Perhaps by suffering himself at the hands of the Nazis and refusing to
defend himself after the war, when it would have been much easier to
redeem himself in the eyes of his countrymen and the former Allies, he
made amends of a sort. I haven't seen the same submission to the scrutiny
of a later generation in Lukacs' case, although I'm not as familiar with
his work and life. I'm just not sure your analogy between the two
philosophers holds up very well. But it is an interesting one to ponder.
Sam Stowe

"Amiguito, amiguito
soy yo de diablos juradores..."
-- Cervantes

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