Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 647
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-04-24
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: The truth (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  39 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Finish (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Kuncze (mind)  38 sor     (cikkei)
7 BBC Omnibus (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
9 Free Speech in Hungary (mind)  88 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
11 Andras Szucs needs help (was:Eva Balogh owes several ap (mind)  65 sor     (cikkei)
12 Andras Szuch (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
16 Free speech of Hungarians (mind)  72 sor     (cikkei)
17 the forint (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: The truth (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: the forint (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
20 Weores S (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (Szucs) (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  46 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination - reszucs' [1/1] (mind)  61 sor     (cikkei)
26 Free speech on Hungary and 'Szucs' (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: the forint (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
28 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (Szucs) (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
29 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind)  100 sor     (cikkei)
30 Here you go, again! (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
31 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
32 A. Szucs the plagiarist [was:Re: It is a duty to speak (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
33 Reality check! (used to be Szucs/Toxic/Freedom of spee (mind)  78 sor     (cikkei)
34 Re: A. Szucs the plagiarist [was:Re: It is a duty to sp (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:30 PM 4/22/96 GMT,George Szaszvari  wrote:

>This is a heroically noble and aloof attitude, but ignoring comments you
>consider mis-guided or wicked, is the same as allowing their dissemination
>unchallenged. Should one not like what is being posted by AS on this world-
>wide public medium, should one stick one's head in the sand? Adolf Hitler
>just loved such people that disagreed with him (and might have prevented
>him from taking absolute power in Germany had they spoken up and acted in
>time) to behave like that. Wrong-doing, when it is being openly perpetrated,
>must be openly challenged, otherwise the silent dissenters are going along
>with it.
>

I agree.

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

In article >, "Amos J. Danube"
> writes:

>My conclusion is that  arguing with him  will serve "only"
>    his purposes.
>                   Amos
>
So we're supposed to let him post his crap without challenge? No freaking
way. You may not mind his anti-Semitism, but I do.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,  (George
Szaszvari) writes:

>This is a heroically noble and aloof attitude, but ignoring comments you
>consider mis-guided or wicked, is the same as allowing their
dissemination
>unchallenged. Should one not like what is being posted by AS on this
world-
>wide public medium, should one stick one's head in the sand? Adolf Hitler

>just loved such people that disagreed with him (and might have prevented
>him from taking absolute power in Germany had they spoken up and acted in

>time) to behave like that. Wrong-doing, when it is being openly
perpetrated,
>must be openly challenged, otherwise the silent dissenters are going
along
>with it.
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
Precisely my point. For nutcases like Szucs, silence equals agreement. Is
there something cultural going on here, a reluctance to speak out that is
typical of Hungarians? I never expected such a brave people to avoid
putting a hate-monger like Szucs in his place. Szabolcs's plea for us to
drop this discussion and Elteto's request that we ignore Szucs are typical
reactions in this regard. What, do you think fascist jerks like Szucs or
Csurka just give up after awhile and go away? If anyone ought to know
better, it's Hungarians. Like I said in an earlier post, you want to make
the cockroaches scurry, you have to turn on the lights. For those of you
who aren't familiar with that saying from a former judge on the U.S.
Supreme Court, it has to do with speaking out against the Szucses of this
world.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- The son of a gun still won't tell us where he was during the
events of 1956.
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, George Szaszvari wrote:

> In article >, Bob Hosh
> > says:
> >
> >> Yes. Don't reply to him. Don't comment his postings. Ignore him.
> >> L. J. Elteto
> >
> >I agree with prof. Elteto.  Best to ignore.
>
> This is a heroically noble and aloof attitude, but ignoring comments you
> consider mis-guided or wicked, is the same as allowing their dissemination
> unchallenged. Should one not like what is being posted by AS on this world-
> wide public medium, should one stick one's head in the sand? Adolf Hitler
> just loved such people that disagreed with him (and might have prevented
> him from taking absolute power in Germany had they spoken up and acted in
> time) to behave like that. Wrong-doing, when it is being openly perpetrated,
> must be openly challenged, otherwise the silent dissenters are going along
> with it.
>
> Regards,
>
> George
>

Dear George,

I don't quite see what Hitler has to do with it, but I dare say if no one
had paid any attention to him, things might have turned out differently.
The point is: it is not Mr Szucs that keeps this thread going, but those
who spar with him. Maybe they enjoy it: I do not, and it seems neither
does the ever greater silent majority of this list.

Cordially,

L. J. Elteto
+ - Re: Finish (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Aniko Dunford
> writes:

>Dear Szabolcs:
>Employing a proactive approach, could well result in realizing your wish.
>Raise a topic that is of interest to *you* - we might all enjoy it!!
>Regards,
>Aniko

Aniko's advice is excellent. You want to change the debate, you throw out
a topic, Szabolcs. Just don't use so many exclamation marks at the end of
every sentence.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Kuncze (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Andras Kornai writes about something other than the Pelliovalley Follies
(and high time, too):

> ... recently there was some criticism of the police minister, Ga1bor
> Kuncze, who didn't endorse setting up a new crime-fighting organization.
> Interestingly, and in spite of his SZDSZ background, Kuncze turned out
> to be a real law-and-order minister, definitely not the bleeding heart
> liberal people expected him to be.

Andras, usually quite meticulous in his choice of words, translates
"belugyminiszter" as "police minister".  The official translation is
Minister of the Interior, admittedly a rather misleading combination of
words, at least to an American ear.  The Secretary of the Interior here
is in charge of the national forests, Indian reservations, and the like.
It is basically a patronage position, usually filled by a political
lightweight who is not yet ready for prime time.  A Hungarian Minister
of the Interior is a very different animal, closer in role to a British
Home Secretary.  It is a far more senior position with wide-ranging
responsibilities in public administration, supervision of local governments,
and legislative support of parliament.  In parliamentary democracies with
no strict separation of powers, the executive is much more deeply involved
with the legislative process than in a country like the U.S.  Much of the
legislative groundwork done in the U.S. by congressional staffs is carried
out within the executive branch: mostly the Ministry of the Interior in
Hungary, and the Home Office in Britain.  Local government supervision
is another area where the Ministry of the Interior plays a major role.

Police Ministry would have been a fitting name during the Communist era,
but with a return to more normal government structures the relative weight
of police matters is declining.  The place is becoming more of a department
of domestic affairs, with police matters playing a less prominent role.
Home Secretary would sound nice, but that one is taken.  Minister of the
Interior is a good second choice.  But "police minister" just does not
cut it, I'm afraid.

------
Gabor Fencsik

+ - BBC Omnibus (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

There was a decent programme on Hungary for
a change yesterday night (cca 11pm):
a BBC Omnibus. Centered on Budapest, it's buildings
and spas/waters, but affectionately listing history
and notions on culture/survival.  Also managed to be
objective and fair. I wonder if anyone had seen it,
would agree with me.  I would definitely go and see
this fascinating and beautiful place...
Eva Durant
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Stowewrite wrote:

> For nutcases like Szucs, silence equals agreement. Is
> there something cultural going on here, a reluctance to speak out that is
> typical of Hungarians? I never expected such a brave people to avoid
> putting a hate-monger like Szucs in his place. Szabolcs's plea for us to
> drop this discussion and Elteto's request that we ignore Szucs are typical
> reactions in this regard. What, do you think fascist jerks like Szucs or
> Csurka just give up after awhile and go away? If anyone ought to know
> better, it's Hungarians. Like I said in an earlier post, you want to make
> the cockroaches scurry, you have to turn on the lights. For those of you
> who aren't familiar with that saying from a former judge on the U.S.
> Supreme Court, it has to do with speaking out against the Szucses of this
> world.
> Sam Stowe
>
> P.S. -- The son of a gun still won't tell us where he was during the
> events of 1956.
>

Mr. Stowe: We are not talking about fascists in general, nor  about
Csurka, but specifically about postings to a list of some 140 addresses
by a person with whom, it seems, no-one agrees, whose opinions are a
source of outrage, and who for some time now has been publishing
statements, primarily about Eva Balogh, which  would at law constitute
libel.

I do not care about putting the author "in his place", which has, as you
can see for yourself, no salutary effect whatever; on the other hand, the
fact that Mr Szucs can safely count on eliciting lots of reflex reactions
every time he pushes the  button to ring the bell,  must make him feel very
successful. I am merely suggesting that we deprive him of his reward.

Of course some people need a Szucs to feel brave and upright, and to
reassure the world - and maybe themselves - that they are not
anti-semites. I do not have such a need.

Sincerely,

Louis J. Elteto
+ - Free Speech in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Andras Kornai's comment about the current Interior Minister's views
on law-and-order brings up another important controversy raging in the
Hungarian press that deserves at least some mention on this list.
A new constitution being written by a multi-party commission as we speak.
There is wide consensus on the need for a new constitution.  The current
constitution is a mishmash created in a hurry in 1989, essentially by
redlining the old Communist document, chopping here and adding there.
The idea is to write a new constitution from scratch, and clean up the
gaps and inconsistencies of the current one.

A major debate has erupted about the proposed new constitution's free
speech provisions.  So far, both sides in the debate are sympathizers
and/or members of SZDSZ, the junior partner in the governing coalition.
This is fairly typical of most Hungarian political discourse.  All
political parties tend to define their position relative to the SZDSZ,
while the SZDSZ itself is split on just about every issue.  This is one
of those little peculiarities that make the Hungarian political scene
difficult to follow.

This is how the debate is shaping up so far.  One side is pushing for
unrestricted free speech along the lines of the First Amendment, with
only the standard exceptions for libel, slander, incitement to riot,
fighting words, fraud, obscenity, etc.  This is essentially the
"American" model, with no legal restrictions whatever on any form of
hate speech, including Nazi propaganda sheets, Nazi symbols, or Nazi
Internet sites.  This is the position advocated by J. Kis and G. M.
Tamas -- both founding members of SZDSZ, long retired from day-to-day
politicking to concentrate on teaching and research.

The other side would like to have a category of political speech remain
unprotected under the constitution, along the lines of German and
Austrian law.  The prohibited types of speech would include racist
and/or totalitarian propaganda, including publications, symbols, and
the like.  The reasons advanced for this view are similar to the German
and Austrian case: the memories of totalitarian regimes are too fresh,
and the dangers of totalitarian revival too great to allow racist hate
speech to flourish.  To the proponents of this view, totalitarian
propaganda represents a clear and present danger, like shouting fire in
a crowded theater.  This seems to be the more popular position, judging
by the number of articles published in the Hungarian papers attacking
Kis and Tamas.  In the hallowed tradition of Hungarian political
arguments, some of the attacks were quite vicious and personal: a fact
that is unlikely to surprise readers of this list.

It stands to reason that the side arguing for restrictions on free speech
has a heavier burden of proof to meet.  So far, the articles I have read
failed to make the case for limiting personal freedoms in such a radical
way.  Lots of rhetorical appeals to emotion, but too little in the way
of convincing arguments.

It seems that the debate turns on one's views about the danger of an
extremist takeover in Hungary.  The opponents of Kis and Tamas say that
US-style free speech is fine for Americans, living as they do in a
country with a 200-odd year old tradition of free speech, and no
history of totalitarian takeovers.  (The idea that there might be a
causal relationship between these two facts of American life does not
seem to enter the argument.)  Hungary is different, they say: closer to
Germany in this respect than to the U.S.  They say the state cannot
remain neutral when the constitutional order is threatened.  With the
mass media magnifying every demonstration by every tiny extremist
group, they feel the danger of sudden destabilization is real.

I think the idea of any kind of extremist takeover in Hungary is absurd.
Right-wing and left-wing extremists ran in the 1994 elections, but got
nowhere near the minimum number of votes needed to get into Parliament.
Since then, they have not built up any kind of mass following.  Because
the parliamentary opposition is so hopelessly divided, there is a
tendency among opposition politicians to try to stand out from the
crowd by sounding more radical than the next guy.  But the polls show
that as soon as a politician starts mouthing extremist slogans, his
popularity instantly declines.  This has now happened often enough to
conclude that there is not much of a market in Hungary for political
extremism of any stripe.

Thus, arguing for a restriction of free speech by postulating an
extremist danger is at best disingenuous.  Saying that Hungarians are
any less ready than 18th century Virginians to sort out what they read
and hear is saying, in essence, that Hungarians must be protected from
bad influences, like a bunch of toddlers.  I think the chance of
right-wing or left-wing extremists coming to power in Hungary is about
the same as the likelihood of David Duke or Ted Kaczynski becoming
President of the United States.  Such a miniscule danger does not justify
crippling the constitution with free speech restrictions.  But this kind
of free speech absolutism is clearly not fashionable in Hungary at present.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Inciting racial hatred is against the law in the
UK, (another country of seemingly democratic
traditions...) though convictions are rare.
This bit is surely more provable in court,
than  totalitarian intentions/hidden agendas.

Eva Durant
+ - Andras Szucs needs help (was:Eva Balogh owes several ap (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Andras, here is a partial copy of my note I posted to SCM on 4/10/96. It
was in repply to your posting
                     ======
about the same subject! I believe, you are doing this again, this time on
the Hungarian
list because you have not been able stir up enough trouble on SCM.

I am beginning to worry about your mental health, after noticing the
number of postings
you have sent in the last few days, hammering away on the same subject,
often repeating yourself. Are you all right? Please seek professional
help, before it is too late!

Wishing you a quick and painless recovery - for your sake as much as for
ours!
me
> ===========================================
4/10/96       my repply to Andras Szucs:

 Andras Szucs said:
>>.... she harbors hatred agains Hungarians.
THAT IS OUTRIGHT SLANDER!

>>(1) Although she claims to be a "historian" went consistently public
with the
>>outrageous anti-Hungarian defamation that the 1956 Revolution and
Freedom-
>>Fight is NOT (I repeat, she stated NOT) called in Hungarian "Freedom
Fight"!
SZAVAKON LOVAGOL - - REVOLUTION/FORRADALOM IS ANOTHER WORD FOR
OVERTHROW (OF GOVERNMENT) AND IS AN ARMED APPRISING WHICH ALSO IS KNOWN
AS A FREEDOM FIGHT.
SO WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE PROBLEM?

>>I took the time to specifically document at least 41 cases to dispell
her
>>flabbergasting lie that the entire Free World holds to be untrue.
SO, HOW DID YOU "DISPELL" HER "FLABBERGASTING LIE" IN THE FRONT OF THE
ENTIRE FREE WORLD....MUST HAVE BEEN QUITE AN UNDERTAKING!

>>(2) She repeatedly claims on various lists of Internet that she is of
fully
>>mixed
>>heritage, and never claims specific Hungarian identity, and appears to
be proud
>>of excluding ANY Jewish ancestry on her part.  Thus, her judgement
and.....
YOU TALK ABOUT PEOPLE AS IF THEY WERE, SAY FOR EXAMPLE DOGS
LISTING THEIR PEDIGREES (LINEAGE, DERIVATION, MIXED HERITAGE ETC.,).
YOU COULD NOT BE SURE OF YOUR OWN LINEAGE GOING BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS
HUNGARIANS ARE NOT "PURE" ANYTHING!

>>of Jews joining her zealous anti-Hungarian hate-mongering, as moderate
Jews
>>to Hungary know full well that her excesses would be highly decrimental
to
>>their own interest
DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH............ I AM DYING TO KNOW , WHAT EXACTLY IS A
"MODERATE JEW".  IS THERE ALSO A
MODERATE LUTHERAN, MODERATE CATHOLIC, MODERATE BUDDHIST ETC.,?

>>Jews themselves consider her a mindless, stupid provocator (at least one
AGAIN, THIS IS A FABRICATION. MY GOOD MAN, I THINK YOU ARE THE REAL
HATE-HAWKER AND PROVOCATOR!!!!!
(snip,snip)
+ - Andras Szuch (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

(Mr.) Szucs:I heard enoguh from you.I realise,that this will not shut your
mouth.
On the otherhand,I wonder how you would feel,if your experience in living in
Hungary would consist of the following.
Born there from Jewish parents.Brought up more as a Hungarian then as a Jew.
Reminding me what I am of wearing the Yellow star,in scool,hated by some
teachers.
Being sendt to force labour camp,my Brother to Bor,anf my parents,to camp.
We were lucky and we all survive thank's to our Swedish pasport.
Came Rakosi(what ever his name was before)The new regime confiscated our
small factory again.Deported my Parents to a Kulak,and forbide them to go to
Budapest.
Myself I found it enjoyable to be in another forced labor camp,but now I had
to share it with criminals and arrow cross members also.
I survived this after a year,and worked hard in building the NepStadion as a
truck driver.
When the 1956 uprising 9Call it as you wish) occured,I shortlu tooke my good by
to Hungary.
I live now in Canada,and I do not enjoy your and your colleuges writing
neither in this forum,or in the hungarian language Forum.
But it makes me feel wafully good to live here,and think about my nice
memorys of my birth Country.What has changed realy?I aske myself.
I would appreciate if you could enlighten me about it.
Andy Kozma.
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Mr. Stowe: We are not talking about fascists in general, nor  about
>Csurka, but specifically about postings to a list of some 140 addresses
>by a person with whom, it seems, no-one agrees, whose opinions are a
>source of outrage, and who for some time now has been publishing
>statements, primarily about Eva Balogh, which  would at law constitute
>libel.
>
>I do not care about putting the author "in his place", which has, as you
>can see for yourself, no salutary effect whatever; on the other hand, the
>fact that Mr Szucs can safely count on eliciting lots of reflex reactions
>every time he pushes the  button to ring the bell,  must make him feel very
>successful. I am merely suggesting that we deprive him of his reward.
>
>Of course some people need a Szucs to feel brave and upright, and to
>reassure the world - and maybe themselves - that they are not
>anti-semites. I do not have such a need.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Louis J. Elteto
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Elteto,

I beg to differ with your opinion.(Once I held the same opinion as you,
but I have changed my mind.) If "Andras Szucs" only wrote about his
view of the world, I would not debate him. No amount of words could
persuade him to see things in a different light. Only a real life trauma
could (possibly) bring him to a change of heart and mind. My only reason
to respond to his postings is the lies he is spreading about Eva Balogh.

As far as feeling "brave and upright" or "reassuring" the world and
myself that I am not an anti-semite -- I have no such need. I have been
to hell and back for being who I am. (Mar fizettem a multert es a
jovendoert...)

I feel very comfortable
with myself and what I believe in.

Sincerely,
M>E>P>
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,  (George
Szaszvari) says:
>
>In article >, Bob Hosh
> says:
>>
>>> Yes. Don't reply to him. Don't comment his postings. Ignore him.
>>> L. J. Elteto
>>
>>I agree with prof. Elteto.  Best to ignore.
>
>This is a heroically noble and aloof attitude, but ignoring comments you
>consider mis-guided or wicked, is the same as allowing their dissemination
>unchallenged. Should one not like what is being posted by AS on this world-
>wide public medium, should one stick one's head in the sand? Adolf Hitler
>just loved such people that disagreed with him (and might have prevented
>him from taking absolute power in Germany had they spoken up and acted in
>time) to behave like that. Wrong-doing, when it is being openly perpetrated,
>must be openly challenged, otherwise the silent dissenters are going along
>with it.
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
>--
> George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
> Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * Cybernautic address: 
> Acorn..RISC OS * IBM PeeCee..PCDOS..Win-OS/2 * NW London Computer Club
> ICPUG..Commodore=64 ** Interested in s/h chess books? Ask for my list!
>
> =====================================================================
 George,

 I completely agree. Thank you.

   MEP
+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

First, I would like to thank Gabor Fencsik for his excellent article on free
speech and the description of the current Hungarian discussion of it.
Although I am somewhat behind with my reading of Hungarian papers, I read
Tamas's rather controversial article in Magyar Narancs. This article is
making huge waves in Hungary and if I were faster at translating from
Hungarian into English I would very much like to make it available to the
only-English-speaking readers this interesting text. I think that it would
constitute a basis for a very good discussion on HUNGARY. (Hint, hint, Gabor!)

In conclusion Gabor wrote:

>I think the idea of any kind of extremist takeover in Hungary is absurd.
>Right-wing and left-wing extremists ran in the 1994 elections, but got
>nowhere near the minimum number of votes needed to get into Parliament.
>Since then, they have not built up any kind of mass following.  Because
>the parliamentary opposition is so hopelessly divided, there is a
>tendency among opposition politicians to try to stand out from the
>crowd by sounding more radical than the next guy.  But the polls show
>that as soon as a politician starts mouthing extremist slogans, his
>popularity instantly declines.  This has now happened often enough to
>conclude that there is not much of a market in Hungary for political
>extremism of any stripe.

        I think that I agree with Gabor on this, although I consider Torgyan
more dangerous than most people. On the other hand, I have to admit that
Torgyan's awful hate speeches on March 14th did him a great deal of harm
(thank God!). His party's popularity went from something like 22% to 12%. It
seems indeed, that Hungarians immediately shirk from too extreme positions.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Free speech of Hungarians (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

The latest "change of subject" is a whole lot more subtle (and more
intelligent) than the knee-jerk ("fasisztazo") reflexes of those who
turn to "Hitler" and "antisemitism" whenever they encounter an
argument they cannot rationally defeat.

What transpires from my simple objection to Eva Balogh's lies
that "in Hungarian we do not call 1956 "Szabadsagharc"?

Clearly, the whole affair has nothing to do with Jews. The issue
is not Jewish at all. And Eva Balogh not once stated that she has no
Jewish ancestry whatsoever. The issue simply is that the whole
civilized world (now including the Russians!) know "Freedom-
fighters" of 1956 as such (see Time cover magazine in
http://www.siliconvalley.com/magyar.html ) -- yet Eva Balogh
insists in her stupid lie that "in Hungarian we do not call 1956
SZABADSAGHARC".

A lie is a lie is a lie. Eva Balogh and her lowly grupies would
have been much better off by just admitting "oh well, it was just
another stupid mistake by Eva, just like her adding non-additive
percentages". They did not - and thus painted themselves into
a tight corner. To cover it up, tried to abuse *their definition*
of free speech -- that any undesirable speech has to be
snowed under "more speech". Since the right to "more speech"
is clearly reversible, however, (I just held up a mirror to them)
this coverup failed miserably, too. Their whole mess escalated
into their blatant extremism, invoking "antisemitism", "Hitler"
and their usual garbage.

All Hungarians know that 1956 was SZABADSAGHARC.
Stupid statement of BE grupies that "no one agrees with Andras
Szucs" is nothing but self-delusion. Should they know (e.g.
by breaking into computers as intolerant liberal Gabor
Elek did...) the vast support of "silent majority" that I
have received, they would be scared wittless. They are petrified
of "Forum" and "Moka" already, which  lacking a strong but
moderate conservative voice (since "siliconvalley" was censored
out of HIX in collective punishment), deteriorated lately into a
Szalasi-shrine and wholesale supplier of antisemitic racial jokes).
I have nothing but sympathy to the "Andy Kozma"-type - just
wish that they were a little more clever, *not* falling for
mistaken campaigns.

Some of the more intelligent ones are trying to raise here
therefore this whole issue to where it belongs:
"freedom of speech".

"Verbal warfare" is a mockery of "freedom of speech" ;
NO snow-job, NO "fasisztazo" extremism, NO cenzorship
belongs there!

Eva Balogh (or anyone) has the supreme right to blatantly
lie on Internet (and elsewhere).

Andras Szucs (or anyone) has equal right to confront the lie
with the facts, pull 41 pieces of evidence to defeat it, or just
simply refere to Time Magazine "Man of the Year".

And the whole affair should stop there, shouldn't it?

We went through the whole spiel once, why didn't we leave
it at that? - could one ask innocently.

BECAUSE EVA BALOGH WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO
RE-RAISE THE ISSUE  - THAT'S WHY.

No debatter would miss such a "high ball" -- and if her grupies
err also in their (distorted) misrepresentation (verbal warfare)
of "free speech" -- an easy illustration of "what's wrong with
them" could also be made.

My points are more than proven, thank you.
+ - the forint (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear List Readers,
        I was just offered a job in Hungary this summer.  I lived there
for 14 months but never had to convert the  Hungarian Forint into the
American Dollar.  Is it legally possible to do this there?  I will be
paid in Forint and need to convert it.  I would appreciate any
suggestions.  Please answer me here on the List or at my email address:



Thank you,

Carolyn E. Daley
+ - Re: The truth (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:01 AM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In article >, "Amos J. Danube"
> writes:
>
>>My conclusion is that  arguing with him  will serve "only"
>>    his purposes.
>>                   Amos
>>
>So we're supposed to let him post his crap without challenge? No freaking
>way. You may not mind his anti-Semitism, but I do.
>Sam Stowe

Hi Sam:

I've been trying to digest Amos's message for a couple of days now.  Is it
possible that his message was filled with ironies?  At least, that is where
my thoughpattern is leading me.  Comments welcome.
Regards,
Aniko

>
>
+ - Re: the forint (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:01 PM 4/23/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear List Readers,
>        I was just offered a job in Hungary this summer.  I lived there
>for 14 months but never had to convert the  Hungarian Forint into the
>American Dollar.  Is it legally possible to do this there?  I will be
>paid in Forint and need to convert it.  I would appreciate any
>suggestions.  Please answer me here on the List or at my email address:
>

>
>Thank you,
>
>Carolyn E. Daley

        Yes, you can. I converted my whole inheritance dollars and sent them
to my American bank without the slightest hassle--except at the beginning
when I encountered one bank employee didn't know that this was entirely
legal. But once they found the reference to the convertibility of the
Hungarian forints as of January 1, 1996--no trouble.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Weores S (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

The following poem by Weores Sandor seems to be beyond my
        grammar comprehension.  I can make sense of the word meanings,
        but the grammar seems to be very precise and subtle.

        Perhaps we can have fun with it, as we did with the last
        'tre'fa' translation...

        Tana'rikari karika
        papiripari paripa
        karika tana'ri kara
        paripa papiripara

        Anyone who can say it very fast is as equally talented..
        Misi
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,
Louis Elteto, carrying water for > writes:

>I do not care about putting the author "in his place", which has, as you
>can see for yourself, no salutary effect whatever; on the other hand, the
>fact that Mr Szucs can safely count on eliciting lots of reflex reactions
>every time he pushes the  button to ring the bell,  must make him feel
very
>successful. I am merely suggesting that we deprive him of his reward.
>
>Of course some people need a Szucs to feel brave and upright, and to
>reassure the world - and maybe themselves - that they are not
>anti-semites. I do not have such a need.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Louis J. Elteto
>
>
You sure are spending a lot of time and energy trying to discourage anyone
from challenging him, so he must be fulfilling some need for you. And the
only prerequisite I know for speaking out against anti-Semitism is having
a conscience and a fundamental sense of decency. No need for all the
psychological clap-trap you bruited about in your post.
 And how Szucsian, nay Nixonian, perhaps even Gingrichian, of you to elect
yourself the voice of the silent majority. I tell you what I'll do for
you. Every post I make about Szucs from here on out, I'll put his name in
the subject line. That way you can kill-file it right off the bat and not
have your day ruined. I myself am waiting for Gabor Fencsik to pop up and
slice Szucs into ribbons. He's better at putting a stop to this Silicon
Valley nonsense than anyone else on the list.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (Szucs) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Gabor Fencsik
> writes:

>Thus, arguing for a restriction of free speech by postulating an
>extremist danger is at best disingenuous.  Saying that Hungarians are
>any less ready than 18th century Virginians to sort out what they read
>and hear is saying, in essence, that Hungarians must be protected from
>bad influences, like a bunch of toddlers.  I think the chance of
>right-wing or left-wing extremists coming to power in Hungary is about
>the same as the likelihood of David Duke or Ted Kaczynski becoming
>President of the United States.  Such a miniscule danger does not justify
>crippling the constitution with free speech restrictions.  But this kind
>of free speech absolutism is clearly not fashionable in Hungary at
present.
>
>-----
>Gabor Fencsik


Yeah, and you see that dynamic on this very NG today. Let a nutwing like
Szucs appear with his babble and a sizable portion of the readers
immediately want the whole ugly thing to just go away. If Hungarians
aren't ready for American-style freedom of speech, it is in the sense that
they're neither ready nor willing to use it for the purposes for which it
is intended -- to stop extremism by challenging it in the public square.
>From my own monitoring of this list and participation in some threads,
I've learned that Hungarians really aren't comfortable with free speech
once it moves past the slightly jaded and cynical rhetoric one might
overhear in one of those awful, fashionable bars with ferns and a lot of
brass fixtures. Sally Jesse Raphael and Ricki Lake might make it in
Hungary, but none of the Sunday morning news programs like the ones David
Brinkley and Tim Russert host would.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Luis Elteto wrote:

> Mr. Stowe: We are not talking about fascists in general, nor  about
> Csurka, but specifically about postings to a list of some 140 addresses
> by a person with whom, it seems, no-one agrees,

If only this were so simple.  There ARE people agreeing with him all right,
just look at the Hungarian-language FORUM.

George Antony
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Sam Stowe wrote:

> For nutcases like Szucs, silence equals agreement. Is
> there something cultural going on here, a reluctance to speak out that is
> typical of Hungarians? I never expected such a brave people to avoid
> putting a hate-monger like Szucs in his place.

I will just ignore the flamebait and point out that we have been doing
just that for some time now.  Dr Pellionisz (in his various reincarnations)
as well as his friends and comrades have been countered over the years
before you appeared.  As far as I am concerned, I haven't the time and
aggro anymore to put on that broken record.

> Szabolcs's plea for us to
> drop this discussion and Elteto's request that we ignore Szucs are typical
> reactions in this regard. What, do you think fascist jerks like Szucs or
> Csurka just give up after awhile and go away?

Well, Csurka has been marginalized, partly due to the uproar of Hungarians
against his views.  Pellionisz is a much smaller fish, with a much greater
staying power in his own little pond.  He will carry on whatever, and the
day he shuts up will be the day when he finally bursts an artery in his brain.

> If anyone ought to know
> better, it's Hungarians. Like I said in an earlier post, you want to make
> the cockroaches scurry, you have to turn on the lights. For those of you
> who aren't familiar with that saying from a former judge on the U.S.
> Supreme Court, it has to do with speaking out against the Szucses of this
> world.
> Sam Stowe
>
> P.S. -- The son of a gun still won't tell us where he was during the
> events of 1956.

And never will.  If you still think that you can actually have a dialogue
with him then I have a cheap bridge for you around here.

Apart from a standard disclaimer along the lines of 'this person's neo-nazi
rantings do not represent Hungarian public opinion' there is not much one
can do.

Besides, he is doing a useful public service, by so thoroughly discrediting
his own political line of 'thought'.  The worry is when such Neanderthals
get kitted out in a neat suit and find electoral respectability.

George Antony
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination - reszucs' [1/1] (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Louis Elteto: Yes. Don't reply to him. Don't comment his postings.
Ignore him.

Bob Hosh: I agree with prof. Elteto.  Best to ignore.

GS: This is a heroically noble and aloof attitude, but ignoring comments you
consider mis-guided or wicked, is the same as allowing their dissemination
unchallenged. Should one not like what is being posted by AS on this world-
wide public medium, should one stick one's head in the sand? Adolf Hitler
just loved such people that disagreed with him (and might have prevented
him from taking absolute power in Germany had they spoken up and acted in
time) to behave like that. Wrong-doing, when it is being openly perpetrated,
must be openly challenged, otherwise the silent dissenters are going along
with it.

Louis Elteto: I don't quite see what Hitler has to do with it, but I dare
say if no one had paid any attention to him, things might have turned out
differently. The point is: it is not Mr Szucs that keeps this thread going,
but those who spar with him. Maybe they enjoy it: I do not, and it seems
neither does the ever greater silent majority of this list.

GS: Umm, the Hitler thing is an analogy, duh, you know, taking a known
example to make a comparison to help understand the principle of not
acquiescing with evil-doing (if one considers it evil-doing, that is)...
I dare say that if nobody paid any attention to anybody else, things would
always turn out differently, uuhh....

However, this is Usenet and I beg to differ with you on the principle of
the thing. The greater silent majority on this ng are just that: silent.
They rarely make comments on anything, never mind this issue. So I can only
surmise that you are psychic if you know that the perennial lurkers are not
*enjoying* this thread. As far I'm concerned, the enjoyment of lurkers has
nothing to do with it..but what is this whole thread about, anyway? I didn't
(couldn't) follow the original thread that led up to this slanging match,
so am not entirely sure what the substance of the argument was about. Please
forgive me if I've got it wrong, but it seems that Ms Balogh (and others)
are denouncing Horthy as an enemy of the people of Hungary, whilst A. Szucs
is claiming Horthy to be a great hero. Is this right? If so, from what
little I know, this outright denunciation of Horthy seems a little bit
simplistic. Wasn't he just trying his best for Hungary (under very trying
circumstances in the overpowering shadow of Nazi Germany) in the only way
he knew how, as a right-wing aristocrat? According to one book I still have
(I had many more than a decade ago, but that's another story), namely,
Hungarian Premier Kallay's memoirs of Hungary in WWII, Horthy was basically
an honourable man with a powerful sense of duty. He wasn't a hero, made
mistakes, etc, but was he really the out and out fascist that some would
have us believe, whether canonized by the right or denounced by the Balogh
kangaroo court? What about trying to understand the man and the horrendous
problems he faced and tried to cope with? Perhaps Marshal Petain of France
is a pertinent analogy (or will Elvtars Elteto not see what Petain has to
do with it?)

Regards,

George

--
 George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
 Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * Cybernautic address: 
 Acorn..RISC OS * IBM PeeCee..PCDOS..Win-OS/2 * NW London Computer Club
 ICPUG..Commodore=64 ** Interested in s/h chess books? Ask for my list!
+ - Free speech on Hungary and 'Szucs' (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Just to put my money where my mouth is in the free speech debate,
I formally suggest that we apply the more restrictive concept of
free speech in this little club of ours, the HUNGARY list, once again.

Many readers and participants will recall that the list owner, at
my suggestion, has barred a previous reincarnation of Dr Pellionisz,
then called 'Jozsef Toth' from the list, for personal attacks on
another person.

As I see it, Dr Pellionisz has done it again, this time with his
persistent personal attacks on Eva Balogh.

Just to recap the argument used before: this is a club, not a public
forum.  To be here is not a natural personal right but a privilege,
for the satisfaction of all members.  In any case, the list owner
OWNS the list, so he is well within his rights to select the members,
even without consulting anybody.

So, let's throw 'Andras Szucs' out.  More than that, if there is
going to be yet another new poster from siliconvalley.com spitting
bile on HUNGARY, reject messages from that address altogether.
After all, it is just one single person anyway.

Now, recline comfortably and wait for Dr Pellionisz repeating his
performances after the previous bannings of his alter-egos and
address from various forums.

George Antony
+ - Re: the forint (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 1:01 PM 4/23/96, ced wrote:
>Dear List Readers,
>        I was just offered a job in Hungary this summer.  I lived there
>for 14 months but never had to convert the  Hungarian Forint into the
>American Dollar.  Is it legally possible to do this there?  I will be
>paid in Forint and need to convert it.  I would appreciate any
>suggestions.  Please answer me here on the List or at my email address:
>

>
>Thank you,
>
>Carolyn E. Daley

US$1=145 forints (April 1996)

Peter I. Hidas

Hungarian Studies
Department Of Russian and Slavic Studies
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (Szucs) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

S.Stowe wrote:

>Yeah, and you see that dynamic on this very NG today. Let a nutwing like
>Szucs appear with his babble and a sizable portion of the readers
>immediately want the whole ugly thing to just go away. If Hungarians
>aren't ready for American-style freedom of speech, it is in the sense that
>they're neither ready nor willing to use it for the purposes for which it
>is intended -- to stop extremism by challenging it in the public square.

There is no problem if the distrubution of the 'nutwing'-s is izotrop (i.e
same in all direction, left, right,etc), it does not even have to be
homogeneous just a smooth well-behaiving function (no singularity anywhere).
The average, and all the statistical parameter of such a distribution function
is quite acceptable.

J.Zsargo
+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Gabor Fencsik wrote:

> Andras Kornai's comment about the current Interior Minister's views
> on law-and-order brings up another important controversy raging in the
> Hungarian press that deserves at least some mention on this list.

I cannot recall seeing the posting referred to, but what the heck. The
issue IS of interest.

> A new constitution being written by a multi-party commission as we speak.
>[...]
> A major debate has erupted about the proposed new constitution's free
> speech provisions.
>[...]
> This is how the debate is shaping up so far.  One side is pushing for
> unrestricted free speech along the lines of the First Amendment, with
> only the standard exceptions for libel, slander, incitement to riot,
> fighting words, fraud, obscenity, etc.  This is essentially the
> "American" model, with no legal restrictions whatever on any form of
> hate speech, including Nazi propaganda sheets, Nazi symbols, or Nazi
> Internet sites.  This is the position advocated by J. Kis and G. M.
> Tamas -- both founding members of SZDSZ, long retired from day-to-day
> politicking to concentrate on teaching and research.
>
> The other side would like to have a category of political speech remain
> unprotected under the constitution, along the lines of German and
> Austrian law.  The prohibited types of speech would include racist
> and/or totalitarian propaganda, including publications, symbols, and
> the like.  The reasons advanced for this view are similar to the German
> and Austrian case: the memories of totalitarian regimes are too fresh,
> and the dangers of totalitarian revival too great to allow racist hate
> speech to flourish.  To the proponents of this view, totalitarian
> propaganda represents a clear and present danger, like shouting fire in
> a crowded theater.  This seems to be the more popular position, judging
> by the number of articles published in the Hungarian papers attacking
> Kis and Tamas.  In the hallowed tradition of Hungarian political
> arguments, some of the attacks were quite vicious and personal: a fact
> that is unlikely to surprise readers of this list.
>
> It stands to reason that the side arguing for restrictions on free speech
> has a heavier burden of proof to meet.

Not really.  Just because you prefer it that way, it doesn't mean that this
is the default solution.

> of convincing arguments.
>
> It seems that the debate turns on one's views about the danger of an
> extremist takeover in Hungary.

A strawman argument.  If we live in a society, personal freedoms cannot
be totally unrestricted.  The question is only where to draw the line,
not whether there is a line to be drawn.

Civilized behaviour is just as much within the definition of civilized
society as not shooting people full of holes.  So, stomping on the grave
of victims of an outrage fits well within the definition of uncouth
behaviour.

> The opponents of Kis and Tamas say that
> US-style free speech is fine for Americans, living as they do in a
> country with a 200-odd year old tradition of free speech, and no
> history of totalitarian takeovers.  (The idea that there might be a
> causal relationship between these two facts of American life does not
> seem to enter the argument.)

Allow me to be slightly skeptical about the glorification of the US
social experiment.  I happen to think that the largesse in  personal
freedom, be it unrestricted free speech or the legal cult of carrying
assault rifles, did not lead to Nirvana in the US.  If anything, I find
US society less appealing than the alternative European model with its
more widespread restriction of personal freedoms.  Needless to say that
I see the latter as a more desirable model for other countries, including
Hungary.

And may I just observe that the US appears rather unique in its approach to
personal freedoms if one does a quick count of nations following one model
or the other.

> Thus, arguing for a restriction of free speech by postulating an
> extremist danger is at best disingenuous.  Saying that Hungarians are
> any less ready than 18th century Virginians to sort out what they read
> and hear is saying, in essence, that Hungarians must be protected from
> bad influences, like a bunch of toddlers.  I think the chance of
> right-wing or left-wing extremists coming to power in Hungary is about
> the same as the likelihood of David Duke or Ted Kaczynski becoming
> President of the United States.  Such a miniscule danger does not justify
> crippling the constitution with free speech restrictions.

I am more worried about the whackoes of Waco and the Freemen of Montana
setting up local chapters in Hungary (or Australia) than about the above
ridiculous examples.  Not having a sense of absolute free for all pervading
society seems to me as a line of defence against such occurrences.

> But this kind
> of free speech absolutism is clearly not fashionable in Hungary at present.

Amen.

George Antony
+ - Here you go, again! (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Szaszvari wrote: "Please forgive me if I've got it wrong, but it seems
that Ms Balogh (and others) are denouncing Horthy as an enemy of
the people of Hungary, whilst A. Szucs is claiming Horthy to be a
great hero."

I forgive you for a honest mistake if you take it back that I ever "claimed
Horthy to be a great hero". I NEVER HAVE! This is yet another example
of the smearing campaign that someone is called a "fascist", a "Hitler",
and they put words into others' mouth that the person never said.
I challenge anyone to come up with any citation that I claimed Horthy
a great (or even not so great) hero!

This kind of filthy smearing campaigns are characteristic, of course,
not only to this list, but to "pseudoliberals" that put also words into
Torgyan's mouth - that he never said.

"Lurkers" of this list will thus be reinforced again, that if someone here
stands up for SZABADSAGHARCOSOK of 1956, against a blatant lie that
we never call freedomfighters by that name in Hungarian -- is considered
here a "fascist", a "Hitler", etc.

This would all be appropriate if this list dared calling itself a forum
"BADMOUTHING HUNGARY" -- but is too chicken to do that,
either!
+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 03:05 AM 4/23/96 PDT, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

>It seems that the debate turns on one's views about the danger of an
>extremist takeover in Hungary.  The opponents of Kis and Tamas say that
>US-style free speech is fine for Americans, living as they do in a
>country with a 200-odd year old tradition of free speech, and no
>history of totalitarian takeovers.  (The idea that there might be a
>causal relationship between these two facts of American life does not
>seem to enter the argument.)  Hungary is different, they say: closer to
>Germany in this respect than to the U.S.  They say the state cannot
>remain neutral when the constitutional order is threatened.  With the
>mass media magnifying every demonstration by every tiny extremist
>group, they feel the danger of sudden destabilization is real.

Are they arguing that American style free speech leads to totalitarianism in
countries that have no history of free speech?  Perhaps the US has no
history of totalitarian takeovers because they have a history of free
speech.  Or is it because they have a constitutional right to bear arms?

Joe Szalai
+ - A. Szucs the plagiarist [was:Re: It is a duty to speak (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article <v01510100ada210a15af4@[204.156.156.118]>, Andras Szucs
> says:
>
>It is a heroically noble and aloof attitude, but ignoring Eva Balogh's
>defamation
>of Hungarian Freedomfighters that one considers mis-guided or wicked, is the
>same as allowing their dissemination unchallenged. Should one not like what
>is being posted by EB on this worldwide public medium, should one stick
>one's head in the sand? Gyula Horn and Ivan Peto just loved such people that
>disagreed with him (and might have prevented him from taking absolute power
>in Hungary had they spoken up and acted in time) to behave like that.
>Wrong-doing, when it is being openly perpetrated, must be openly challenged,
>otherwise the silent dissenters are going along with it.

Mr A. Szucs,

You plagiarizing picaroon, why don't you offer up some substantial
arguments that can be discussed and curtail your infantile personal
attacks and hysterical allegations? You haven't posted anything that
can actually be discussed, it's all just frothing at the mouth stuff
from you. If you have something to say about a paricular issue and wish
to convince people that you've got half a brain and that you're not an
entirely moronic arsehole, then state it and be prepared to argue your
points. We all have our bad moments and we all make mistakes, but you
seem to revel in the notoriety of being the greatest walking disaster
area of these ngs. Please get a life, now, there's a good chap.

George

PS: Apologies to the readership for the crude, but plain, speaking.

--
 George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
 Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * Cybernautic address: 
 Acorn..RISC OS * IBM PeeCee..PCDOS..Win-OS/2 * NW London Computer Club
 ICPUG..Commodore=64 ** Interested in s/h chess books? Ask for my list!
+ - Reality check! (used to be Szucs/Toxic/Freedom of spee (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

'Szucs'

Please take special note of the fact that by no means, is there any sign of
respect/endearment specified by the greeting... as obvious as it must be to
all others, I feel it necessary to point it out to *your* displayed level of
intelligence.  The lack of respect is not by any means meant to depict
rudeness.  It is only meant to depict a personal emotion.

I really & truly  feel, that you have succeeded at allowing hatred to eat
you away to the point where rather than helping; you are actually hurting,
demeaning and defaming the very people/their memories/legacies  whom you are
attempting to bring to heroism.  (in case you have not noticed, this is the
second attempt at telling you the same - along with at least five others).

Since my Father happens to be amongst these people, on whose behalf you have
appointed yourself to be a spokesman; and; taking into consideration that
he is no longer able to speak for himself; I, as being his only English
speaking surviving voice feel not only a sense of responsibility but also a
strong obligation to voice my opinion. Never, would He have stood for your
venomous hatred and toxically caustic manipulative if not outright childish
tactics.  He would not have appreciated you, or anything you apparently
stand for. (or his friends - and... again... this is my second attempt at
getting this accross to you... not to mention the others)

I so wanted to keep my silence to your venomously ridiculous words;  I
failed.  But, let me tell *you* that failing has never before been sooooo
worthy!

At 01:03 PM 4/23/96 -0800, you wrote:

>BECAUSE EVA BALOGH WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO
>RE-RAISE THE ISSUE  - THAT'S WHY.
>
Of all your postings to date, I must admit; this is the one, that takes the
cake.  Your original posting to Hungary entitled "Eva Balogh is a
P..L..etc... followed shortly by Doepp's "Check your math... etc"... was
done so at a time, when Eva Balogh was out of reach of the list/group/ as
you so should have realized, when reading some of her most recent replies.
(Let me give your mind a hint; 'Eva Balogh arrives  and what does she see?')
The silence you so utilized to depict cowardly  was obviously due to an
publically unannounced absence.  And, in case you have not noticed,  not all
of us, feel the need to pre-warn of our absences.

Your "capitalized words" as quoted above; are not only a total distortion of
truths and facts; but are also a supremely wonderful example of my above
'categorization' of your ability to manipulate situations to suit your
advantage.  THANK YOU!... on behalf of all of us!!!  (By the way.... this is
exactly what you accuse EB of... ironically howlarious!)

In more simple terms, that surely, you can comprehend;  Eva Balogh, due to
technological restraints, could not possibly have brought the topic to
light. as you so want us to belive.. In fact, Eva Balogh, would have to be
an idiot, beyond any & all of our combined imagination to bring a subject to
life entitled "EB is a pathological liar"  Give us and our intelligence  a
break, already!    Be man enough to take the responsibility for your actions
on your own!  As I am (although I must admit, I wear a bra regularly).  I
take responsibility  for having the lack of 'finger control' when addressing
Doepp's extremely innocent response!  For which; to the ENTIRE GROUP:  MY
SINCERE APOLOGIES!!!!!!..... Perhaps had it not been for that?  None of us
would ever have to deal with "this THING"... (get it yet Szucs?)

Great!  You accuse, and accuse and accuse...- All of a sudden Szucs... my 95
year old grandmothers' expression in Hungarian "mindenki magabol indul ki"
is finally, after all these years making crystal clear sense.  The
difference is, that she only has grade two education, Dr.!  And, from where
I am sitting... she is putting you to shame 'big time'.  (for the non
Hungarian speaking: translates to:  "Everybody starts/comes from within" -
or something close to that(.)

Good night.
Best regards to all of you... sorry for the length of this
Aniko
(not u Szucs! - u don't count in my fantasy of the group - or in my reality
of humanity either!  Go away!  Get a life!  Have some sex for God's sake!
You clearly need it!)
PS:  Sam: excuse all the !'s.  There are times, when only !'s can put an
emotion behind the words..agree?
.
+ - Re: A. Szucs the plagiarist [was:Re: It is a duty to sp (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 12:37 AM 4/24/96 GMT, you wrote:
>In article <v01510100ada210a15af4@[204.156.156.118]>, Andras Szucs
> says:

<snip>  >

><snip> relevant as it may be... which by the way I agree with, wholeheartedly.


time for a touch humour?
George (said):
>. Please get a life, now, there's a good chap.

Touche'! - am still laughing!.. .picture a hat,  much like one for James or
Jake?  Thank You! What a great end to an 'yuckily lousy day!
Aniko
>
>George
>
>PS: Apologies to the readership for the crude, but plain, speaking.

PPS: me too; the 'devil' made me do it :((( but  ;-)))) - AD

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