Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 662
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-05-09
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind)  85 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: TENNIS in Hungary? (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
4 szekely? (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: szekely? (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: a request to all (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
8 Magyar Szo!??? (mind)  1 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: szekely? (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Why not Stowewrit (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind)  59 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Magyar Szo!??? (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Objectivity (mind)  123 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
16 Wilson Center Noon Discussion May 9 (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: szekely? (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Magyar Szo!??? (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: szekely? (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
20 896 not 996 (mind)  4 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: szekely? (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: szekely? (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Objectivity (mind)  131 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind)  45 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: Objectivity (mind)  111 sor     (cikkei)
26 Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
28 Re: A request to all (mind)  121 sor     (cikkei)
29 Re: Why not Stowewrit (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
30 Re: WANTED Train Information (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
31 Re: Magyar Szo!??? (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
32 Teleki (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
33 Re: szekely? (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
34 Re: szekely? (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
35 Re: WANTED Train Information (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hali John! (et al)

You said, some days ago (sorry for the delay in response - been crazy around
here)

>Action should not only be taken by those on the HL-list, but by those of you
>reading this as well. Many on these lists are offended by what Szucs & Co. has
>to say, but now is the time to act. I call on Sam Stowe, Jim Doepp, Joe Szalai
,
>Eva Durant, Eva Balogh, Martha Bihari, Celia Fabos-Becker, Aniko Dunford, Gabo
r
>Elek, and others who had plenty to say about our friends from silicon way to
>back me up on this one, for once.
>
I read your note with intrigue.  You called on me, amongst many.  Following
are my thoughts, addressing four seperate but interrelated issues; Szucs'
postings, HL list, your plea for help and Martha's request for civility. (as
usual, short and sweet :-)?

Beginning with a little insight to me, so that you can better understand *my
within* - in a nutshell;  Throughout my life, I have come to the conclusion
that to me, the most precious gift the world has to offer are it's people.
One of my downfalls?  I Love People!  People, who come in all ages, shapes,
kinds, colour, intelligence, knowledge, tastes and beliefs - et al
(including the 'monsters', whom I don't really have to like, but am forced
to accept as being there - with freedom to speak my mind to them).  To me,
they are as much unique as are the same.  Two characteristics that I have
found to be constant are, that they are all fragile, and imperfect - what
makes them unique to me, is their individual abilities of recognition or if
you like acknowledgement/acceptance of the fragility/imperfection which they
either choose to admit to themselves and/or to *their* world at large.
Regardless, I chose to respect these, as being *my* facts when dealing with
people - and make a strong attempt at keeping them foremost in mind.
Because of these beliefs, or what many of you might want to call  fantasies
of mine,  when Szucs, whom I have *met* for the very first time, came strong
with accusations and beligerent words against another which I considered
unjustified and potentially harmful to one's fragility; I simply could not
stand by silently - and had my say.  For the very same reason, when your and
Alan's posts  came to the group at large with what I considered at the time
to be unjustly demeaning and mocking like; my fingers took control likewise.
For the same reason, when Martha's request for civility came along, my
fingers remained calm and idle; for I felt that my views have been
previously stated regarding the issue, by the very contents of my postings.

Which brings me to the point of HL;  *I* find it difficult to understand,
how one can threaten to "unsub" from a free "sub" list such as HL.  I guess
what comes foremost in mind is "would anyone even know? would anyone care?"
HL is a private mandate; with freedom of each participant to react to issues
which are important/worthy to themselves?  - am I correct here, or have I
lost it?   If I have not lost it, then what is the point of threats?

In looking at it deeper, while I agree with both yours and Eva's points, I
also see the other side, with what I hope to believe of some rational level
of clarity. Bela Liptak is doing a great job with his available resources.
(Please also recall, that I highly questioned Szucs' claimed association
with Liptak and his mandates in one of my previous posts). What I have
wittnessed here during the last few days is that there is a tremendous
potential at killing a Liptak style of proven committment, through drowning
him by complaints and threats, over issues and controls which he clearly has
no control over.  This to me, would result in allowing some scum (ie the
ol'doc), to come to forefront through the sheer byproduct of the drowning of
a Liptak approach.  Then, who wins?  The Liptaks of the world, or the scums?

As per your plea for support... there is obviously much, that I don't
understand as of yet.  Including the 'political'  'management' 'logistical'
intricacies of this(ese) list(s), which I stumbled accross.  I am a
Canadian;(with a Hungarian temperment and heart)  the US is truly a
different 'ball game'  as is 'Hungary'.  In this instance, the fragility of
the human I see jeopardized, is that of Liptak - (when considering the
Szucs's of the world claiming association with him and, also, when
considering him being bombarded, as described above).  While you state  that
I had alot to say to Szucs; I did - and still, stand by those words (boy,
where have I seen these words before - not very original ha?)  In closing;
if there is a way of supporting your requested mandate, without jeopardizing
Liptak's "fragility/humanity/mandate" - then, please feel free to put my
name on the line for a signature.  Up to now, I have not been able to figure
out any rational alternative - save one of course -  we *could* collectively
*buy* the HL list.... then, imagine the fun we'd have at directing it, with
all of us being relatively equal shareholders?

Best regards to all
Aniko Dunford

PS:  John:  Have you read Kornai's latest post?  I found it extremely
enlightening!
+ - Re: TENNIS in Hungary? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi Mike

Hungary is a bit large for being able to pinpoint your question.  Specific
areas might help, in guiding you.  For example;  In Budapest, there are
several clubs/facilities.  Expensive and hard to attain court time.
Nagymaros offers similar, cheaper and more readily available access to court
time.  Where exactly do you you have in mind, for lessons, schools, scenes?

Regards,
Aniko Dunford

At 08:13 PM 5/6/96 GMT, you wrote:
>Does anyone know anything about the tennis scene in Hungary--lessons,
>schools, etc?  Any help here is greatly appreciated.
>
>Mike Bachers
>
     (if you don't mind, please respond via
>e-mail)
>******************************************************************************
*
>"Nevermind all those people who tell you to eat right, exercise often, and pla
y
>it safe--they're all gonna feel really dumb someday when they die of nothing!"
>
>
+ - Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

(Eva Balogh:)

> their own selfish end. And how can anyone compare the Golden Bull,
> expressing narrow class interests to a modern, global economy, especially
> when Hungary needs foreign capital so badly? And yet, propagandists use
> history shamelessly.
>

So present global economy doesn't operate for the ends of narrow
class interests?    It very efficiently channels more wealth
to the wealthy, more poverty to the poor in global and in the
national scale - history's charm is, that it has it's innate
patterns, I have the feeling historians can't see the forest from
the trees...

Eva Durant
+ - szekely? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I always thought, that
"szekely" s were the Hungarians, who lived in Transsylvania.
But now I read in HVG, that they are a different entity
to "erdelyi magyarok" (Transsylvanian hungarians).
As HVG says, they are growing faster, than all the other
bits of Hungarians put together, I'd like to know, who they are?
Eva Durant
+ - Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:05 AM 5/8/96 -0300, Aniko Dunford wrote:

>What I have
>wittnessed here during the last few days is that there is a tremendous
>potential at killing a Liptak style of proven committment, through drowning
>him by complaints and threats, over issues and controls which he clearly has
>no control over.

I didn't see any complaints or threats against Bela Liptak.  People
expressed their concerns about the HL and some stated that they did not feel
comfortable with the existing organization.  If the HL had a mandate, a
constitution, a charter, or anything that clearly stated it's goals and
objectives, then perhaps this debate would not be happening.

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

On Wed, 8 May 1996, Eva Durant wrote:

> I always thought, that
> "szekely" s were the Hungarians, who lived in Transsylvania.
> But now I read in HVG, that they are a different entity
> to "erdelyi magyarok" (Transsylvanian hungarians).
> As HVG says, they are growing faster, than all the other
> bits of Hungarians put together, I'd like to know, who they are?
> Eva Durant
>
Forgive the use of Romanian sources (a professor in Kolozsvar), but I
thought that the Szekelyek were those living on the Eastern End of the
Carpathians, northeast of Brasov. The Hungarian sources in Pecs always
told me that there were no differences between them, but the Romanians
did differentiate between them.

Interesting that HVG points this out, and then seperates them. One of the
best ways for a group to gain power is through demographic explosion (See
Ceaucescu's banning of contraception and abortions), at least that is the
perception.

Hope this helps, and if I am wrong, point this out to me.
Darren Purcell
+ - Re: a request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:

>Wrong. He did not declare socialism the "end of history".
>He said at a point of human development people will conciously
>change not only their natural, but also their social environment.
>That is the philosophical content. His contemporary politics/
>strategies/predictions are a separate topic.
>
>Eva Durant
>
>
Once again -- nice try. But you can't separate Marx's continued and
unrelenting emphasis on the "inevitability" of humanity's march toward
socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat from his strategies,
predictions, et. al. Like every religious fanatic, Marx was tempted time
and time again into tailoring the "evidence" to support his beliefs and
ignoring or suppressing any evidence that argued against them. Like most
religious fanatics, Marx was no empiricist.
Sam Stowe
+ - Magyar Szo!??? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Miert nincs egy magyar nyelvu cikk sem a newsgroup-ban?????????
+ - Re: szekely? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Szekelys were one of the three recognized groups in Transylvania during
it's Hungarian rule and during it's role as a principality and subject to
Vienna.  The other two were the Magyars and the Saxon Germans.  The
Szekelys have always been a little separate.  They were given special
rights to not pay taxes, for which they were to guard Hungary's borders.
There is even a Szekely dialect, which historians think is close to the
early Magyar language.  Legend says that the Szekely people are
descendants from Attila the Hun himself.  This is why many Szekely
children are named Attila.  As to whether this is true can be debated.
Nowadays, there is no real distinction between Szekely and Magyar in
Romania's abusive Transylvanian region.  They have united as one Magyar
voice.  Szeklers are proud of their special history, but never consider
themselves distinct from the Magyar ethnic fold.  According to my
grandmother, who lived in Transylvania for 48 hard years, the Ceascescu
government tried to "prove" that the Szekelys were from Romanian
descent.  This is of course bull.  I myself am half Szekely (other half
Magyar) and have grown up with Szekley grandparents and mother all my
life.  From their stories and me visiting the Szekelyfold several times, I
know a lot about them.  If you need any more information, just ask.  I
hope this helps.

Laszlo Koszeghy III


On Wed, 8 May 1996, Eva Durant wrote:

> I always thought, that
> "szekely" s were the Hungarians, who lived in Transsylvania.
> But now I read in HVG, that they are a different entity
> to "erdelyi magyarok" (Transsylvanian hungarians).
> As HVG says, they are growing faster, than all the other
> bits of Hungarians put together, I'd like to know, who they are?
> Eva Durant
>
+ - Re: Why not Stowewrit (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Hugh Agnew
> writes:

>Maybe Sam Stowe has met people who say "we" call it only "The War
>Between the States" not "The Civil War"?  It's something remotely
>analogous, I think...]

Believe it or not, I've heard a few people down here call it "The War of
Northern Aggression."
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jancsi:
I haven't subscribed to the Hungarian Lobby, so I'm not up to speed with
what you're talking about. But you usually have pretty good judgement in
regard to these things. Give 'em hell, son! It would be a shame for Bela
Liptak's good work to be overwhelmed by the far right.

I note from Liptak's reply to Eva Balogh that he has no intention of
booting Sili.Valley from his list. Maybe Dr. Liptak, like Martha Bihari,
places aesthetic considerations above all else when evaluating public
speech. In that case, as long as Pellionisz doesn't resort to poo-poo,
ca-ca references in his posts, he'll be able to post any kind of obnoxious
garbage he wants without much organized opposition. The list's readers
will be able to learn from him, exchange information, argue thoughtfully
and without uncouth passion, roast marshmallows, link arms and sing
"Kumbaya."
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- But will the zeitgeist be mellow enough to tempt Joe Szalai into
joining?
+ - Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

You wrote:
>
>You wrote:
>>
>>>>Eva Balogh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Dan Rako:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Would that France had provided Rakoczi II with the support they
>had
>>>>>>promised...
>>>>>
>>>>>        Would you be a little more specific?
>>>>>
>>>>>        Eva Balogh
>>>>>
>>>>Nope.  I've been around long enough to avoid a long, drawn-out
>debate.
>>>>I'll just say...
>>>>
>>>>                PRO LIBERTATE!
>>>>
>>>        That's interesting. A discussion group where someone drops a
>line a
>>>refuses to elaborate or to discuss. However, I gather that you think
>that if
>>>Hungary had won in 1711 everything would have been peachy pie. I
very
>much
>>>doubt it.
>>>
>>>        Eva Balogh
>>
>>Maybe he just does not want to take the History-213. I am not the
only
>one
>>who hates reading background material. :-)
>>
>>Janos
>>
>I, for one, would have enjoyed Eva's and possibly others' discussion
>and may have learned something from it.  I agree with Eva.  If Dan
Rako
>did not want to start a discussion, why did he start one? I find that
>annoying.
>
>
>best regards
>
>
>
>Charlie Vamossy
>
Goodness, what a commotion!  You were all clearly able to discern my
thoughts on the matter.  Why spend two hours composing a post to say
the same thing?  Brevity eliminates boredom.

No, I don't think everything would be "peachy pie".  But self-rule is
precious.
+ - Re: Magyar Szo!??? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 8 May 1996  wrote:

> Miert nincs egy magyar nyelvu cikk sem a newsgroup-ban?????????
>
Sajnosan, magyar nem a anjanyelve minden tarsasagnak :-) (Which should be
obvious with the bad attempt at Magyar).

Darren Purcell
A foldrajzi Tanszek
Florida Allami Tudomanyegyetem
+ - Re: Objectivity (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Janos Zsargo, quoting me:

>>        I find Janos's total willigness to look at a different
>>interpretation of Hungarian history disheartening.

        First, I would like to correct a mistake. What I meant to say was
not "willingness"  but "unwillingness."

>However I do not know what willigness means, somehow I feel you are saying
>that I look the Hungarian history through pink glasses.

        No. What I mean that you have a very decided point of view when it
comes to the interpretation of the last few hundred years of Hungarian
history. It seems to me that you ideal is a totally independent Hungary. Dan
Rako, in his brief comment, also seems to suggest that everything would have
been just wonderful if Hungary after the expulsion of the Turks would have
been totally independent. I, on the other hand, say that this point of view
is unrealistic because in case of total independence, let's say at the time
of the Rakoczi Rebellion, the country most likely would have fallen apart
much earlier than it did. By staying within the Habsburg Monarchy this
disintegration was postponed. Moreover, I maintain that if Austria-Hungary
didn't get itself involved in the First World War (or the First World war
simply didn't happen due to Austro-Hungarian restraints) that disintegration
would have been further postponed. What I find so incongruous is the
following: those people who are the most nationalistic (and therefore
anti-Habsburg and pro-independence in their historical evaluation) are
exactly those who feel most strongly about Trianon. I find that difficult to
understand.

>You know as well as those who read Forum what is my opinion about the
>'kalandozasok'. Of course my contributions to that debate might not be
>big shots so one can easily forget about (or even did not read) them,
>but they can be retrieved from the previous Forum issues.

        First of all, let's explain to the readers of this list what this
whole debate was all about. Some of our nationalists on the Forum felt that
Western, specifically American, general textbooks on European history
distort the history of Hungary and Hungarians. For example, said one fellow,
here is the case of the "Raids," in Hungarian "kalandozasok" (adventures,
roaming, wandering). The Hungarian name indicates almost playfulness but
there was nothing playful about these Hungarian raids on Western Europe in
the tenth century. They were raids for booty, pure and simple. This is the
opinion of today's historical scholarship eminating from Hungary as well.
However, our nationalist amateur historian on the Forum suggested some very
fanciful explanation for these raids: high diplomacy, preventive raids for
securing Hungary's borders, and similar explanations. Needless to say that
there is absolutely nothing to prove any of these interpretation. At that
time there was no central authority in Hungary and different tribal leaders
were most likely acting on their own. As for security, there were no threats
to Hungary from any of the very weak neighbors. However, some of us don't
like the idea that our ancestors were undertaking raids for booty only.
Well, whether we like it or not, as far as we know today (and it is unlikely
that some new 10th century document will be discovered in the future) these
raids were what we always thought they were.

        We all learned about these "kalandozasok" in elementary and in high
schools. And we all learned that they had the sole aim of getting booty. Not
being an expert on this period and therefore not being familiar with all the
literature, I didn't even know that there had been a historical debate on
this question. However, obviously it was, according to Pal Engel's latest
book on the period. Pal Engel, by the way, comes out squarely on the "booty"
theory.

>Also, as I remember, you told on this NG that I wrote some nice contribution
>about the wartime history of Hungary on the Forum. According you those were
>based on facts and balanced.

        Yes, Janos didn't think that the international Jewry caused Hungary
to remain on the side of Germany.

>Now as it turns to 1848 and our viewpoint is different, I become an 'idiot'
>who reads history books (or don't even read :-)) and is not able to be
>objective.

        No! Who said you were an idiot. I am simply saying that you side
with those who think that it wasn't Hungary who provoked Vienna into a civil
war. I think it was Hungary who provoked the conflict.


>Something is really wrong with the high school history books in Hungary.
>They are fine about the 'kalandozasok' and the wartime history of Hungary,
>but they become blind patriots in the case of 1848.

        Well, high school books, on the whole, are not known for their
objectivity and excellence. Also, you mustn't forget that each period is
written by a different person. Most likely the man who wrote the book on the
period between, let's say, 1790 and 1849, was a man who was convinced that
Hungary was right and Vienna was utterly wrong. I could think of several
respectable historians who think that: Gyorgy Szabad--earlier mentioned in
another context--is one of them.

>Also it is not possible that the politicians of a nation made only mistakes
>and wrong things.

        I dont' understand this. You have to explain it to me further.

>I do not remember any single case when you supported
>a decission made by Hungarian leaders or Hungary. Of course this does not
>mean that there is not such a case, but I still find it strainge. Isn't it
>possible that rather your glasses are too grey?

        And in another letter:

>Oups! I made a mistake in my last post. I wrote that E.Balogh never supports
>decissions made by Hungarian politicians. I forgot her sympathy toward the
>recent economical program. Ok, but that is only one.

        Now this whole thing confused me mightily. You really dislike the
current government on ideological basis. Then, why are you upset that I
allegedly never praise them for any decision they make. First of all, this
is not even true, as you yourself admitted. There are many decisions I
actually approve of even if the topic doesn't come up in our discussions.
Your nationalism is even greater than your ideological commitments? Just
because the Horn government is a *Hungarian* government we must like it?
What about being critical of the different Kadar governments? What about
being critical of Gyula Gombos's government?

        As for real approval: well, Ferenc Deak, for one. But you know what
in modern Hungarian history there isn't a heck of lot one can praise. Maybe
because of our geopolitical situation the choices are such that no
government can be really successful.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 12:09 PM 5/8/96 +0100, Eva Durant wrote:
>(Eva Balogh:)
>
>> their own selfish end. And how can anyone compare the Golden Bull,
>> expressing narrow class interests to a modern, global economy, especially
>> when Hungary needs foreign capital so badly? And yet, propagandists use
>> history shamelessly.
>>
>
>So present global economy doesn't operate for the ends of narrow
>class interests?    It very efficiently channels more wealth
>to the wealthy, more poverty to the poor in global and in the
>national scale - history's charm is, that it has it's innate
>patterns, I have the feeling historians can't see the forest from
>the trees...

        Your problem is that you simply refuse to see that your description
of "more wealth to the wealthy, more poverty to the poor in global and in
the national scale" is simply untrue. Yes, this is what your friend Karl
Marx thought but he turned out to be wrong. The poverty-stricken working
class became better and better off instead of his predictions of increasing
poverty and exploitation. You just read a bit about the "horrible
conditions" of the German workers--with their free spa vacations, six or
eight weeks of paid holidays, and so on and so forth and it is pretty hard
to argue that the German workers are poverty stricken. Or the Swedish ones,
or the French ones. Come on, looking around in the world instead burying
your head into some kind of marxist ideology.

        Surely, you don't want to claim that the situation of nobles versus
serfs is exactly the same as that of a large publicly owned corporation and
a unionized worker.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Wilson Center Noon Discussion May 9 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear fellow-listmembers,

Anyone in the Metro DC area may be interested in the Woodrow Wilson
Center Noon Discussion tomorrow, on May 9.  It's from 12:00 to 1:30,
at the Smithsonian Institution Building, 1000 Jefferson Drive, SW,
3rd floor.

The topic is "Hungarian Politics Halfway to the Next Elections"

The speaker is Andra1s Kova1cs, ELTE Professor of Sociology.

Unfortunately I won't be able to be there, or I would undertake to
provide a synopsis of Prof. Kova1cs's remarks.

So it goes...

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

+ - Re: szekely? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Darren Purcell:

>The Hungarian sources in Pecs always
>told me that there were no differences between them, but the Romanians
>did differentiate between them.

        I am not surprised that the Romanians differentiate between them. It
is to their adventage; that is, to split up the Hungarian-speaking minority.

        The question of the szekelys (Szeklers in English) is rather
complicated when we go back to the time of the 11th-12th centuries.
According to a fairly well accepted theory, originally they lived in
Transdanubia and they might have been already living in the Danubian basin
before 996, that is, before the official date of the Hungarian arrival
there. Some historians think that they are the descendents of the Avars, but
there is problem with this hypothesis because the Szeklers were Hungarian
speaking by the time of their settling down in Transylvania. Nowadays the
debate centers around whether perhaps the Szeklers were Hungarians who had
settled in today's Hungary 100-200 years earlier than 996. Thus, there were
two "honfoglala's" (taking of the motherland). That would explain that the
Szeklers' mother tongue was Hungarian. Unfortunately, I don't think that we
will ever know this for certain.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Magyar Szo!??? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 12:56 PM 5/8/96 GMT, you wrote:
>Miert nincs egy magyar nyelvu cikk sem a newsgroup-ban?????????

        Because this is an English-language list. If you want to exchange
ideas in Hungarian, subscribe to the Forum or the Szalon ,
).

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

About the 'honfoglalas' (taking the motherland):

>Transdanubia and they might have been already living in the Danubian basin
>before 996, that is, before the official date of the Hungarian arrival
        ^^^
>there.

Isn't it rather 896 ?!?

J.Zsargo
+ - 896 not 996 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I don't know where my head was when I wrote down twice as 996
instead of 896 as the date of Hungarian arrival in the Danubian basin.

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

Drat, and I was getting ready to celebrate the Millenium, why is it that my
grandfather should be the only one in the familiy to participate in that
event?

Regards,Jeliko


> About the 'honfoglalas' (taking the motherland):

> >Transdanubia and they might have been already living in the Danubian
basin
> >before 996, that is, before the official date of the Hungarian arrival
>         ^^^
> >there.

> Isn't it rather 896 ?!?

> J.Zsargo
+ - Re: szekely? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 8 May 1996, koszeghy laszlo iii wrote:

> Szekelys were one of the three recognized groups in Transylvania during
> it's Hungarian rule and during it's role as a principality and subject to
> Vienna.  The other two were the Magyars and the Saxon Germans.  The
> Szekelys have always been a little separate.  They were given special
> rights to not pay taxes, for which they were to guard Hungary's borders.
> There is even a Szekely dialect, which historians think is close to the
> early Magyar language.  Legend says that the Szekely people are
> descendants from Attila the Hun himself.  This is why many Szekely
> children are named Attila.  As to whether this is true can be debated.
> Nowadays, there is no real distinction between Szekely and Magyar in
> Romania's abusive Transylvanian region.  They have united as one Magyar
> voice.  Szeklers are proud of their special history, but never consider
> themselves distinct from the Magyar ethnic fold.  According to my
> grandmother, who lived in Transylvania for 48 hard years, the Ceascescu
> government tried to "prove" that the Szekelys were from Romanian
> descent.  This is of course bull.  I myself am half Szekely (other half
> Magyar) and have grown up with Szekley grandparents and mother all my
> life.  From their stories and me visiting the Szekelyfold several times, I
> know a lot about them.  If you need any more information, just ask.  I
> hope this helps.
>
> Laszlo Koszeghy III
>
All essentially correct, except that the attempt to prove, through the
use of blood typing, that Szekelys are Magyarized Romanians, goes back to
the times of Antonescu and Hitler, when that sort of 'science' formed a
basis of politics.

Louis Elteto
Portland State U.
+ - Re: Objectivity (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Balogh writes in response to Zsargo


>         No. What I mean that you have a very decided point of view when
it
> comes to the interpretation of the last few hundred years of Hungarian
> history. It seems to me that you ideal is a totally independent Hungary.
Dan
> Rako, in his brief comment, also seems to suggest that everything would
have
> been just wonderful if Hungary after the expulsion of the Turks would
have
> been totally independent. I, on the other hand, say that this point of
view
> is unrealistic because in case of total independence, let's say at the
time
> of the Rakoczi Rebellion, the country most likely would have fallen apart
> much earlier than it did. By staying within the Habsburg Monarchy this
> disintegration was postponed. Moreover, I maintain that if
Austria-Hungary
> didn't get itself involved in the First World War (or the First World war
> simply didn't happen due to Austro-Hungarian restraints) that
disintegration
> would have been further postponed. What I find so incongruous is the
> following: those people who are the most nationalistic (and therefore
> anti-Habsburg and pro-independence in their historical evaluation) are
> exactly those who feel most strongly about Trianon. I find that difficult
to
> understand.

This may be true from a current viewpoint looking back. But the past was
different than the way we analyze it now. As an example, if the independent
Hungary after a potential win by Rakoczi changed the educational language
to Hungarian it could have been looked at less odiously than when the
Hungarian governments attempted it in the late IX century. Many actions
that were considered in the IX century "nationalistic" and did not succeed,
did succeed at an earlier time. France could be given as an example where
the "unification" (meaning Francification) was accomplished in an earlier
time frame with nearly as many different language groups as geographic
old Humgary. A lot depends on the time period when the various actions take
place.

Part II

>         First of all, let's explain to the readers of this list what this
> whole debate was all about. Some of our nationalists on the Forum felt
that
> Western, specifically American, general textbooks on European history
> distort the history of Hungary and Hungarians. For example, said one
fellow,
> here is the case of the "Raids," in Hungarian "kalandozasok" (adventures,
> roaming, wandering). The Hungarian name indicates almost playfulness but
> there was nothing playful about these Hungarian raids on Western Europe
in
> the tenth century. They were raids for booty, pure and simple. This is
the
> opinion of today's historical scholarship eminating from Hungary as well.
> However, our nationalist amateur historian on the Forum suggested some
very
> fanciful explanation for these raids: high diplomacy, preventive raids
for
> securing Hungary's borders, and similar explanations. Needless to say
that
> there is absolutely nothing to prove any of these interpretation. At that
> time there was no central authority in Hungary and different tribal
leaders
> were most likely acting on their own. As for security, there were no
threats
> to Hungary from any of the very weak neighbors. However, some of us don't
> like the idea that our ancestors were undertaking raids for booty only.
> Well, whether we like it or not, as far as we know today (and it is
unlikely
> that some new 10th century document will be discovered in the future)
these
> raids were what we always thought they were.

>         We all learned about these "kalandozasok" in elementary and in
high
> schools. And we all learned that they had the sole aim of getting booty.
Not
> being an expert on this period and therefore not being familiar with all
the
> literature, I didn't even know that there had been a historical debate on
> this question. However, obviously it was, according to Pal Engel's latest
> book on the period. Pal Engel, by the way, comes out squarely on the
"booty"
> theory.

I appreciate your opinions, but please remember that there were also strong
neighbors in the early days, while individually only the Pechenegs were
strong enough to be a significant threat, the various alliances e.g the
Byzantine/Bulgarian was also a threat. Lets not fall on the other side of
the horse either. Numerous actions of the Hungarians in the eraly days were
"by invitation only" thus the intervention took place because in an
existing dispute one or the other side invited the Hungarians for
assistance. This certainly was not a unique Hungarian behavior, it was
frequent and routine policy of most powers ( just look at the Persians,
Greeks, Romans, etc) until recently (British/French warfare in America vis
a vis the Indian tribes, the growth of the British Empire, the Czech
Legion in Russia after WW I, etc.) (and in some areas even now just look
at the pictures of loaded trucks leaving from Bosnia to Serbia). For many
nations the sequence was invitation to assist, voluntary interference, and
in many cases migration to new territories.

Nobody can convince me that as an example the 100 year or even the 30 year
wars in western Europe were conducted for noble purposes, most troops did
not get paid and they were in it for personal gain. They tended to rob
their allies population as well as their enemies, maybe this was an early
example of non-discrimination. At least the early Hungarian "raids" did not
devastate each others regions that came to fore in Stephen I time. (But by
than they were becoming "westernized" (:- )

The major problem I have with many of the historical opinions expressed
that they seem to come from a different analysis of the Hungarian actions
than that of the other nations or countries actions. I can't see much
difference in the history and behavior in the various individul nations
in their corresponding times. Often later, percieved "greatness" came from
incredible early butchery that is frequently glossed over in the more
popularized and more broadly disseminated history books. When one goes back
to the original sources, while still reading slanted information, there are
fewer multiderived opinions inserted.

And yes, there is a current tendency even in some Hungarian historians (not
to speak about publicists) to flagellate the nation by using different
standards for Hungary than for other nations. Sometimes it is good to step
back and view things happened in the past in their appropriate contemporary
context. Just another example, look at the "heroic" Viking raids with their
sagas being thaught even in US language and history classes and the
"terrible robber raids" of Hungary.

Regards,Jeliko
+ - Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi Joe:
>
>I didn't see any complaints or threats against Bela Liptak.  People
>expressed their concerns about the HL and some stated that they did not feel
>comfortable with the existing organization.  If the HL had a mandate, a
>constitution, a charter, or anything that clearly stated it's goals and
>objectives, then perhaps this debate would not be happening.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
Forgive my stupidity, but when I hear/see an ultimatum, I interpret it as a
threat.  So far, I have seen two; along with a third which was a definitive
statement relaying an already made decision.  Regarding the concerns, I
cannot emphasize enough, that I have always been and am wholeheartedly in
agreement with them all - my original thoughts were even deeper reinforced
after having read Kornai's repost.  I was simply stating that, I have not
been able to come up with an viable alternate option, (save outright buying
the list:)?  And, that the options proposed could prove highly
counterproductive to those, already expending effort in the hopes of
succeeding, or upholding HL's mandate,  while keeping within the given
structure of HL..

As for HL's mandate; to me, it's been crystal clear from the start.
Establishing a constitution, with a charter of rights I see as an
impossibility from the point of view of enforcement.  It's hard enough to
find volunteers; let alone expecting them to be bogged down with the legal
responsibilies of enforcing such, especially when given the vast scope of
the Internet - which, according to them, has proved to be an effective tool
in carrying our their mandate.  Like I said; if anyone has the ability to
dream up that viable solution, I will gladly back it. But not, at the
expense of jeopardizing the ongoing efforts put forth by what I now see as a
group of hardworking volunteers.

Above all; perception, being  9/10ths of the law?  If I were given the
responsibility of HL's mandate, I would try better than my best at making
sure that all are clearly aware of my personal feelings regarding the doc's
mentality and my lists' association with same - along with my clearly
outlining the restrictions preventing  me from stopping/banning  their efforts

Aniko Dunford




.
+ - Re: Objectivity (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jeliko is back as an active participants and I am glad, although I don't
quite agree with him this time:

        Jeliko says in response to my observations about the connection
between independence and the nationality problems, specifically about the
possibility of independence as a result of the Rakoczi Rebellion:


>This may be true from a current viewpoint looking back. But the past was
>different than the way we analyze it now. As an example, if the independent
>Hungary after a potential win by Rakoczi changed the educational language
>to Hungarian it could have been looked at less odiously than when the
>Hungarian governments attempted it in the late IX century. Many actions
>that were considered in the IX century "nationalistic" and did not succeed,
>did succeed at an earlier time. France could be given as an example where
>the "unification" (meaning Francification) was accomplished in an earlier
>time frame with nearly as many different language groups as geographic
>old Humgary. A lot depends on the time period when the various actions take
>place.

        Of course, I know what you are getting at but, I am afraid, you are
also looking at the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries from "a
current viewpoint." Do you have any idea how backward Hungary was at the end
of the seventeenth century, early eighteenth? It was no France, believe me.
I don't have hard data but I know that even at the end of the eighteenth
century, most of Joseph II's high-minded ideas about universal education was
nothing else but wishful thinking on his part. Schools in every village?
Hungarian-language teachers in every village? That wasn't even possible at
the end of the nineteenth century. How many people did we have who could
read and write in any language? I am afraid, Hungary already missed the boat
long before that.

>I appreciate your opinions, but please remember that there were also strong
>neighbors in the early days, while individually only the Pechenegs were
>strong enough to be a significant threat, the various alliances e.g the
>Byzantine/Bulgarian was also a threat.

        Are you sure that you are talking about the same age I am. As far as
I know the Pechenegs were no threat to Hungary in the tenth century and even
if they were, they were a threat from the east and not the west. And most of
the "kalandozasok" took place in the west. Again, the raids I am talking
about were not conducted in the Balkans against Byzantium or the Bulgarians
for the most part but against Italy and western Europe.

        There are a few of these "kalandozasok," which were put in quotation
marks by Pal Engel in his newly published book on the Hungarian Middle Ages.

        In 899, even before the complete conquest of Transdanubia was
finished there was a raid on northern Italy. From 900 they made several raid
on the Germanies. From 911 on they moved beyond the Rhein, and into the
eastern provinces of France. In the next few years these three countries
were the favorites of the Hungarian raiders, but occasionally they managed
to get even beyond. For example in 924 they reached the Pyrenees and by 942
Spain itself. We have no data on how often they raided the Balkans and the
northern Slavic peoples but Byzantine authors do speak of some larger
offensives against Constantinople and environs.

        These raid took place every year and there were years when one group
went one way and the another some other way. For the most part there was no
resistance from the weakened Carolingian successor states. The only
offensive of the Germans (on the territory of today's Austria) in 907 ended
in a debacle. The princes of these states if they could paid ransom in order
to avoid the Hungarians' raid. In 934 even the Byzantine emperor had to
resort to pay in order to avoid an attack. However, it is true that some of
the weak Italian princes asked the Hungarians to come as their allies
against their enemies.

        This brief history of the raids is based on Pal Engel's new book.
This description of the raids doesn't square with Jeliko's description of
tenth-century affairs.

>Lets not fall on the other side of
>the horse either. Numerous actions of the Hungarians in the eraly days were
>"by invitation only" thus the intervention took place because in an
>existing dispute one or the other side invited the Hungarians for
>assistance.

        As I mentioned, yes, there were here and there such invitations
mostly in northern Italy but it was not the rule, rather the exception.

>Nobody can convince me that as an example the 100 year or even the 30 year
>wars in western Europe were conducted for noble purposes, most troops did
>not get paid and they were in it for personal gain. They tended to rob
>their allies population as well as their enemies, maybe this was an early
>example of non-discrimination. At least the early Hungarian "raids" did not
>devastate each others regions that came to fore in Stephen I time. (But by
>than they were becoming "westernized" (:- )

        No one says that other nations were any better. Of course not. But
the Hungarians were no angels either. That's all. And let's not pretend.

>And yes, there is a current tendency even in some Hungarian historians (not
>to speak about publicists) to flagellate the nation by using different
>standards for Hungary than for other nations. Sometimes it is good to step
>back and view things happened in the past in their appropriate contemporary
>context.

       Of course, but that doesn't mean that we can come up with some
fanciful explanation for the raids or "kalandozasok."

>Just another example, look at the "heroic" Viking raids with their
>sagas being thaught even in US language and history classes and the
>"terrible robber raids" of Hungary.

        Who teaches about "heroic" Viking raids and "terrible robber raids"
of Hungary. I haven't seen any of such description. There was no difference
between these raids whatsoever. And whatever I read about early English
history, I don't remember any happy remembrance of Viking raids on English soil
.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Ban Nemzet @ siliconvalley.com, now!!!!! (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Sam wrote:

>I note from Liptak's reply to Eva Balogh that he has no intention of
>booting Sili.Valley from his list.

        Maybe Bela Liptak should read Akos Ronai-Tas's piece on what
happened to the Forum!

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dan Rako:

>No, I don't think everything would be "peachy pie".  But self-rule is
>precious.

        And there was no self-rule in 1848 or in 1867? And was the Rakoczi
Rebellion for only self-rule?

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: A request to all (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker wrote;

> Eva Balogh wrote:
> >        I don't quite
> >know what one ought to call a lawyer who allegedly practiced law in
> >Australia and became so famous that he was named a royal councilor (or
> >something similar) and who with all this legal knowledge wanted to sue the
> >World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in a class-action suit at
> >the, and now listen carefully, Supreme Court of the United States!!! I think
> >actually that I was quite nice to the old gentleman. I could have called him
> >an ignorant idiot.
> >
> >[...]  I thought that such a class-action suit, if
> >it ever launched, would be thrown out of court (and not the Supreme Court!)
> >for lack of standing. But in the meantime, Hungary, on whose behalf this
> >suit was initiated, would have been made ridiculous in the eyes of the world
.

>  Uh, sorry, folks, but according to a couple of attorneys I know, one of
> whom is a very experienced and well-known human and civil rights attorney,
> besides tax and criminal attorney, technically the Australian gentleman
> could indeed do just what he wants to do, and the case might not be thrown
> out.  We recently did have a case (and it was reported in quite a number of
> national newspapers) in which a U.S. entity was sued by foreigners in the
> U.S. on behalf of foreigners--and there was even a Supreme Court ruling
> saying that it could be done, and the loser did indeed have to pay.  The key
> is simply that a U.S. entity has done wrong to some one--under U.S. laws.
> We Americans are expected to abide by the best of our ideals and laws, even
> in other countries.  This is also why some of the suits about the Bhopal
> incident are also taking place in the U.S.--not all in India.

The slight problem is that neither the World Bank nor the International
Monetary Fund are US entities.  They are international organizations that
happen to have their headquarters in the US, just like the United Nations.
However surprising this may be to some USAians, neither this, nor the fact
that the US is the biggest single contributor to all three, actually makes
them 'American'.  Just as UN officials can flaunt parking regulations at will
in New York, I am sure that the WB and IMF also enjoy some exemptions from the
US legal system/processes.

Which, of course, would not prevent the determined enough to launch a lawsuit
anyway.  People outside of the US often consider the US propensity to litigate
astonishing, and the propensity of the US legal system to come up with
strange rulings (e.g., compensation by the homeowners to a burglar who drank
the booze in the house and smashed his face jumping into the empty swimming
pool) outright queer.

So, it is not inconceivable that a US judge may actually award multi-billion
dollar damages to Hungary against the WB and/or IMF.  The problem is that the
matter would not stop here, and the sue-them brigade is too narrow-minded to
think of further consequences.

There is little chance that Hungary would see any actual compensation money,
given what the WB and IMF are: institutions that distribute member governments'
funds to other governments.  The member governments would be unlikely to accept
the judgement of a US judge, however high up, to make them pay up.  On the
other hand, they would certainly get rather ratty with Hungary, compromising
any goodwill that may have developed bilaterally.

In addition, given that cornerstone role that the WB and IMF play in
international finance, every credit-rating agency would quickly mark Hungary
down to the level of Upper Volta, with an immediate effect of freezing private
commercial contacts.  Just ask the Peruvians how their economy fared after
Alan Garcia decided to take on the WB and IMF, and remember that Peru was
much less of an open economy than Hungary is.

> As for embarrassing Hungary to sue the International Monetary Fund and World
> Bank, actually many Hungarian Americans (please notice I'm not even saying
> most, since I haven't taken any polls), and even some educated
> non-Hungarians (Mexican Americans can particularly identify with this
> situation) find it odd that the Hungarian government has not taken advantage
> of the French World War I documents, and the precedent of the U.S. and
> Mexico (the 1846 war we declared and annexed half of Mexico with, etc.) and
> the U.S. and the Native American nations, and sued both the U.S. and Triple
> Entente nations for illegal expropriations, war damages, etc..

A variation of the above theme, just as hare-brained.  The US was out of the
game when the post-WWI treaties were signed, so suing the US would be simply
illogical (to non-lawyers, that is).  And if Hungary were to obtain big
damages against France and Britain, what effect would that have, I pray,
on her relations with those countries ?  Might it be just possible that after
such a tiff the French and Brits decide to shaft Hungary when it comes, e.g.,
to joining the European Union ?  But, of course, this would be no skin off the
nose of the 'famous' (hardly) Hungarian-Australian QC or his fellow mentals in
the US, drunken with the success of taking on the baddies and won.

> How do Hungarians think the Mexicans got the millions they did in the Gadsen
> Purchase (1853)?  Why do they think the Clinton Administration (and a few
> before it) bend over backward today to prevent discrimination, grant huge
> subsidies to the Mexican American community, not to mention bail-outs of
> Mexico itself, etc.  It's all guilt payments.  And the Mexicans didn't just
> quietly go away and take anything the U.S. dished out that wasn't nice, or
> usorious interest rates, etc.,  without cooking up something to return the
> "favor."  The U.S. has been forced, yes forced, to lower its rates to
> Mexico, and forgive billions in loans--all on the threat of default of the
> entire.  And yet, it still encourages everybody to invest, doesn't it?  We
> have to do something to keep the country from going commie, or sending the
> rest of its population sans resources to us.  Hungary could play much of the
> same games--and win.

Reality check: Hungary has no land border with the US, neither are they anywher
e
near, neither is Hungary a big country.  The threat of flooding the US with
illegal migrants (the only trump card that Mexico has if one looks at things
with a cool head) is thus not available.  So, it's back to the drawing board
for other novel ways of Hungary holding a gun to the collective US head.

>The Hungarian government can't be much more
> embarrassed by the overseas Hungarians than what it has already done, and is
> still doing, to itself.  It it wants respect, in this world it has to demand
> it. Unfortunately, we still respect more those who can give us hell than
> those who can give us heaven...

Refer to Greece on how many friends it gets you to demand respect every
time YOU decide you are right on an issue.  If she weren't already in the
EU, Western Europe would avoid Greece like the plague.  And, in case it were
not obvious, I consider the extremes of Hungarian self-righteousness over
past injustices very similar to the constant Greek whine about Macedonia,
Turkey, etc.

George Antony
+ - Re: Why not Stowewrit (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 8 May 1996, Stowewrite wrote:

> In article >, Hugh Agnew
> > writes:
>
> >Maybe Sam Stowe has met people who say "we" call it only "The War
> >Between the States" not "The Civil War"?  It's something remotely
> >analogous, I think...]
>
> Believe it or not, I've heard a few people down here call it "The War of
> Northern Aggression."
> Sam Stowe
>
Sam, as a good southerner, even if I hail froma  border state like
Kentucky, you must understand if the Damn Yankees had allowed us to treat
people like dirt, allowed us to develop like we wanted to, and actually
let the states have rights, there would never have been a war. (To be
properly read, all the words must be pronounced with at least one extra
syllable) :-)

(Please take the above as highly tongue in cheek and highly sarcastic)

The sad truth of the matter, look on Netscape or the WWW and search for
the Southern League. they actually believe in a Southern ethnicity and
claim discrimination in many ways. I believe in southerness, but not
their God-forsaken ramblings of thinly veiled hatred.

Darren Purcell
Department of Geography
Florida State University
+ - Re: WANTED Train Information (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:41 PM 5/8/96 MET-1, you wrote:
>Mark asked:
>
>> Can anyone send me (email) the list of train going from BUDAPEST to
>> KOLOSZVAR (Cluj) with their time table/schedual of departures and
>> arrivals.
>

There is (or atleast used to be) another daily train, leaves Keleti
Palyaudvar aroud noon and arrives to Kolozsvar around 8PM.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Magyar Szo!??? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

You wrote:
>
>Miert nincs egy magyar nyelvu cikk sem a newsgroup-ban?????????
>
Because this is an english language group, for those around the world
who are interested in Hungary, Hungarians and Hungarian culture and do
not speak Hungarian.

There are a number of Hungarian language goups on the Internet.  Look
for http://www.hungary.com  and click on the HIX group.

Charles Vamossy
+ - Teleki (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

The question  was raised  recently about  whether Teleki has
    committed suicide, which would be contrary  to a practicing and
    believing Catholic. I believe Eva Balogh  has mentioned this in
    connection of some historical question.
       I have just rediscovered a letter published in the "Magyarok
    Vilaglapja" late last year.  The letter was  in the "Postalada"
    (mailbox, like letters to the editor). The writer has worked in
    the Teleki  house as  an electrician.  He was an  employee of a
    firm installing a security (alarm) system.  They have completed
    all the wiring and they only  needed to install and connect the
    bells. When the  workmen returned for  their last  day of work,
    the porter (more than a doorman)  told them  what has happened.
    Two Gestapo officers showed up the evening before and they have
    left shortly after midnight. Shortly after that the porter went
    to Teleki's office and has found him dead.
       The writer has installed  a switch under  Teleki's desk that
    he could activate the system with his knee.He is having problem
    figuring out why would a person be  getting such a system if he
    is ready to commit suicide.Short,he is asking what others think
    about the suicide in light of this story.
       I have no idea how  reliable this story is.  I have  no idea
    whether the Horthy regime had any reason to falsify evidence or
    whether the Communists had any reason to go along with it. I do
    not know what the evidence  is pro or con a suicide.  Does any-
    body know more about the case?
       I am posting this story for those who may have missed it and
    for those who speak only English and couldn't have read it.
                                                               Amos
+ - Re: szekely? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Durant asks who the Szekely are.

Unfortunately, nobody knows for sure, at least as regards their origins.
But no doubt many on the list will have fulsome opinions on the matter.

Udv.,
Be'la
+ - Re: szekely? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Louis Elteto derisively dismisses blood typing as a way a getting at an
ethnic groups origins, because of its bad associations with Hitlerite
policy.  My understanding is that blook group typing {frequency of, say
A+ or O- types) is a perfectly acceptable way of getting at broad ethnic
group relationships.  But I also gather that studies of mytocondrial DNA
distributions as well as dentochronology are perhaps more reliable, as
well as free of the taint of Nazi "science".  I have no idea whether ei-
ther of these methods has been used to identify the ethnic origin of the
Szekely, or their genetic relationship with any other ethnic groups or
grouplets.

Udv.,
Be'la
+ - Re: WANTED Train Information (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Mark asked:

> Can anyone send me (email) the list of train going from BUDAPEST to
> KOLOSZVAR (Cluj) with their time table/schedual of departures and
> arrivals.

Dear Mark,

    there's one wich leaves at 5:05 pm from Budapest Nyugati Pu. to
Brasso (Brasov) and it also stops in Kolozsvar (Corona international
express).
    Have a good journey! Attila.

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