Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 653
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-04-30
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Wales (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
2 ////////////MAGYAR--Please help with this problem\\\\\\ (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind)  87 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind)  39 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: also Sam (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Sam Stowe, the expert (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Wales (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
11 Nepszabadsag es Petofi Radio's program (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
12 Proactivity / Inactivity / Is John a racist?? (mind)  152 sor     (cikkei)
13 Sam Stowe, the expert II. (mind)  48 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Horn, Mrs. Kosa, and the MSZP (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Proactivity / Inactivity / Is John a racist?? (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Horn, Mrs. Kosa, and the MSZP (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Wales (mind)  65 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
21 On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  39 sor     (cikkei)
23 Szucs me (mind)  70 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind)  47 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: Proactivity / Inactivity / Is John a racist?? (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
26 Re: Hungarian royalists (mind)  47 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: Wales (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, S or G Farkas
> writes:

>I am bringing this up becase I don't remember that anybody used Great
>Britain as an example to follow in their treatment of minorities (such as
>Welsh).
>
>Gabor D. Farkas

Monitor some of the newsgroups dedicated to those minorities and you'll
see why. One of the most popular threads in NGs devoted to Scotland and
Wales right now is the possible break-up of the United Kingdom into its
four constituent parts. Many of the participants would prefer that it
occur. I gather from monitoring soc.culture.wales that the Welsh language
has picked up a bit of steam culturally speaking in the last decade or
two, but I doubt many Welsh themselves would credit Westminster with doing
much to foster that revival. I do think Wales offers an instructive
example of what a minority group can do to preserve its own culture when
the dominant culture around it is, at best, indifferent to its survival.
Gabor, it might be interesting to cross-post your original message on this
thread to soc.culture.wales and see what they have to say on the subject
themselves.
Sam Stowe
+ - ////////////MAGYAR--Please help with this problem\\\\\\ (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Could someone please tell me something about this car:  Daewood Racer.
I am looking in to renting it for a family reunion in Hungary this
summer and would like some specs.  Thank you all very much.

Mike Bachers

  (IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, PLEASE RESPOND VIA
E-MAIL.)
+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I enjoyed Prof. Aycock's comments on the constitutional aspects of
regulating speech, both public and private.  The distinction between the
two in respect to libel laws is a relatively recent phenomenon: until the
NY Times v. Sullivan decision in 1964 it was possible for public officials
to use libel suits, or the threat of libel suits, to intimidate the press.
The current situation in Hungary is similar to the U.S. ante Sullivan.
Threats of libel suits are thrown around with reckless abandon.  The press,
spineless enough as it is, usually fails to follow up on stories involving
charges of corruption or abuse of power.  The threat of libel suits must
be playing a part in this, along with the economic insecurity of newspapers
and journalists.

There was a notorious case about three years ago when the then Prime
Minister sued a columnist for asserting that Hungarian public officials
can be bought for "a set price".  More recently, the leader of the
Smallholders Party won a libel suit against a newspaper for reporting
(correctly) a statement by a rival politician that the court considered
libelous.  There was even a case when a theater director filed a libel
suit against a critic for panning several of his shows.  The mind boggles.

In any case, the question of libel is important but peripheral to the
hate speech topic that this thread was about.  On that issue, Prof. Aycock
writes:

> The largest concern of having laws against hate speech, symbols of
> past regimes, publications of organizations that are considered
> noxious to the general public, etc., is that governments enjoy the
> power to define such laws in expansive ways.  For instance, why could
> not the party in power decide under a law outlawing hate speech
> decide that any speech that is critical of its government decisions
> be hate speech under the law?  [...]  Freedom of speech must include
> those voices of the fringe - to pass laws to limit or eliminate one
> kind of fringe voice surely WILL limit other fringe voices essential
> to an open society.  In the case NEW YORK TIMES v. U.S, the famous
> Pentagon Papers case, Justice Black made the argument that the remedy
> for bad speech is more speech.  In the public arena, I must say, I
> agree with him.

I put this away till the weekend to look up Black's opinion but I could
not find the quote there.  The phrase about "more speech" being the remedy
against bad speech goes further back, at least to Brandeis' opinion in
Whitney v. California.  I would not be surprised if it goes all the
way back to Jefferson's writings, or the Federalist.  In any case, here
is the Brandeis version, written in 1927 when Hugo Black was still a
mere Senator from Alabama.  I cannot resist typing in the paragraphs
leading up to the quote:

  [Those who won our independence] valued liberty both as an end and as
  a means.  They believed that freedom to think as you will and speak
  as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of
  political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would
  be futile; that with them, discussion affords adequate protection against
  the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to free-
  dom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and
  that this should be the fundamental principle of American government.
  They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject.
  But they knew that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate;
  that hate menaces stable government; and that the fitting remedy for
  evil counsels is good ones.

  Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify suppression of free speech
  and assembly.  Men feared witches and burned women.  It is the function
  of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

  Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards.  They did
  not fear political change.  They did not exalt order at the cost of
  liberty.  To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power
  of free and fearless reasoning, no danger flowing from speech can be
  deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended
  is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full
  discussion.  If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood
  and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy
  to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Of course, USSC decisions have no force outside of the United States.
But the force of arguments does carry across boundaries.  Kis and Tamas
have nowhere near the eloquence of Brandeis, but they are making the
same points.  For now, their voice seems to be a cry in the wilderness.
But remember that Brandeis stood alone when he wrote this: he was
outvoted in the Whitney case.  It took another 40 years for his views
to become the majority opinion on the court.  I may take another
generation or two for Brandeis' idea to take root in Hungary, but it
is bound to happen sooner or later.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

+ - Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hali (again),

Sam Stowe wrote:

>No, but you made it pretty clear you're willing to attack anyone who takes
>him on. Gee, Det. Columbo, I guess that means maybe you agree with what he
>has to say.

T.J. Hooker, you're wrong. I don't bother posting a response to Szucs. I don't
agree with him. I don't see why I have to prove to you or this list, where I
stand? I'm in the middle of it all. I've been telling you that if you all were
half serious about getting rid of Szucs, it could've been done in the beginning
of it all, but since many of you took the liberty of pouncing on him and
dragging this out, it seems pretty useless to kick him out. So, that tells me
that many of you get your jollies off of mudslinging back and forth and that
you're not as staunch an Anti-Nazi as you make yourselves out to be.

>how you take more offense to our responses to Szucs than you do to Szucs
>itself.

Szucs deserves what he gets, but don't come off as someone who claims to be
"offended" by what Szucs says and not take care of it from the start. Look,
Sam, it's all common sense, but there's this thing that clouds the mind: your
agenda. Airing your agenda, whatever it is, has become more important than the
problem itself. Outside of our mocking one another, I admit you're pretty wise,
but I can't stand it when self-promotion takes precedence over the issue. You
say you want to get rid of Szucs, then do it when it counts, not after the fact
.

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com
+ - Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hali,

Joe (Just call him Joe) Szalai wrote:
>At 07:08 PM 4/26/96 -0400, John (Lazarus) Czifra, who is still exhausted
>from dancing with me earlier this year, wrote:

Hey, Joe, you've been hitting the punch bowl a bit, too, much.

>Mr. Czifra can't get past the 'political correctness' lessons I gave.

Yeah, the teacher wound up being a hypocrite.

> For him, political correctness has become the great satan.

666

> He hates it, and he hates me for showing him how to behave in a mature, adult
world.

Awww man!!! You made me spit my delicious hot java all over my computer.
Joe........don't drink another drop from that punch bowl, please?? Betty Ford
has a room ready for you.

>P.S.  John, you should have used a gender neutral name for your thread.  If
>I'm not mistaken, Oscar is a male name.

The caped crusader rides again.

> Maybe you can lobby Hollywood to hand out some gender inclusive awards.

How did that Frito Lay's campaign work out??

>Just a thought, John.

>From the truly warped mind of Joe Szalai.

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com
+ - Re: also Sam (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I couldn't have put it  better my self Charles !!!!!

I share every  word with your article and hope the kids will do it too !
By suppresing others opinion to lift  one self  to top is wrong strategy
in the long run,  even in  politics !

Still  looking for  other subjects !
Like how to:
                co-operate trough this media .
                healp and concern of our colture  - (not  just politics)!
                MAKE A GOOD GULASH !?
                Did you dance CHARDAS lately ?

Regards from the Osies !
Istvan


>   CHARLES J CSIPKAY > writes:
>  Dear All,
>  Sz=FCcs must be very young or suffers from extended immaturity if he thinks
>  that an error in math, or historical recollection, or simply in judgment is
>  a lie. A lie can only occur involving facts, not truth. Truth is highly
>  relative, fact is pretty concrete. The water flows down, not up: that's a
>  fact. An object held in your hands falls down when you open your hand;
>  that's a fact. Szalasi or Rakosi were lice: not a fact, not even truth, but
>  a very widely shared opinion.  As history runs its course, the opinions
>  Lets not blame ourselves (Hungarians) for not being able to tolerate each
>  other
>  One thing we do not need, is more enemies than what we already have. And
>  making every Hungarian or everybody thinking of himself as a Hungarian into
>  an enemy just because his or her opinion,  vision of the country's  future

>  Please stop the bickering, and forget the idea that you are right!
>  Karoly Csipkay
+ - Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hali,

Sam Stowe wrote:

>Sweet Light, you're reaping what you sow. You attack ad hominem out of the
>box, you can expect to receive it in kind.

I still don't see why you take offense to me telling you that your problems
with Szucs could've been taken care of early on.

> And to follow up your original attack with butt-covering posts about how you
wouldn't ever attack > anyone and how reasonable you are...well, the readers
can judge for themselves.

Well, Sam, an overwhelming amount of readers have judged not to respond, except
you, Aniko, and now Szalai, unless you consider three people the entire list.

>You still won't explain why you're covering for Szucs, however I suppose
>it's beyond your limited abilities to do so in a way that won't make you
>look like a knuckle-dragging bigot

More assumptions from the Federales.

>I have a little free time each evening

You have way, too, much free time.

>after washing the dishes and would be willing to put you in your place.

".....put you in your place." That's, really, a "politicallly correct" thing to
say isn't it?? You want me to wash your dishes?? Am I your bitch/ whore/
woman?? I guess you want me to clean your house for you, too. You'd better
watch what you say, Durant & Szalai will look upon you differently.

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Gabor Fencsik
> writes:

>Glad you asked the question.  I am happy to report the Hungarian royalist
>movement is alive and well, and rapidly growing.  What gave the
organization
>a real boost is their recent merger with the Save the Dodo Foundation.
>Since then, their annual convention had to be expanded to accommodate all
>the new members flocking in, and is now held every year in a Cleveland
>phone booth.
>
>-----
>Gabor Fencsik

You did lots of book reports on George Washington and Tom Paine when you
were a kid in school, didn't you? Lots and lots of them.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Sam Stowe, the expert (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article <v01510109ada9f93275f0@[204.156.156.118]>, Andras Szucs
> writes:

>I just learned that Sam Stowe, who pretends to be The Judge
>if we call Freedomfighters of 56 "szabadsagharcosok"
>in our Hungarian language, certainly was *not* in Hungary
>at the time of the revolution.
>
>Make that "at that time, either". As Sam Stow has *never* set
>foot in Hungary. A "true expert" (in this list) in Hungarian matters!
>
>Sure, he can defend, nonetheless, Eva Balogh, the liar, who said
>we don't call heroes of 1956 "szabadsagharcosok" ("freedomfighters")
>in the Hungarian language.
>
>Except that Sam Stowe does *not* speak the Hungarian language!
>
>Some idiots, who subscribed to *his* arbitration in Eva Balogh's
>lie, have just been had by Sam Stowe, who is doubly incompetent
>to defend her.
Doc, we have an old saying here in the States that a man is known by the
enemies he makes. So don't think I'm losing any sleep over anything you
have to say. Every subsequent post of yours re-inforces my conviction that
you are a jerk. And I must admit that I'd rather take the time to learn
something about another culture, even if I've never been there, than to go
there, live there and not learn a damned thing about it, as appears to
have been your experience in the United States.

You, sir, remain a liar, a coward and singularly unable to account for
your whereabouts during the events of 1956.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Wales (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

To those interested in the Wales discussion.

I have a professor who has gone there several times, and while he says
the efforts to promote Welsh has been somewhat successful, he noted that
while walking past a school in whihc instruction was in Welsh, it was
recess time and the children on the playground were using English.

sorry to put the damper on hopes with the anecdote.

Darren Purcell
Department of Geography
Florida State University
+ - Nepszabadsag es Petofi Radio's program (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Thanks to Gabor Farkas I learned that the Hungarian daily,
Nepszabadsag, is on the Web. Site: http://www.nepszabadsag.hu[.] It looks
very good. Highly recommended to those who know Hungarian. There is a
heading called "English" but I haven't yet had time to explore what that
means exactly.

        There national news, economic news, sport, and the daily radio and
tv programs! Although I spent no more than two minutes on it, one seems to
reach older articles as well as today's.

        Eva Balogh

P.S. The paper Magyar Hirek will be on the Web also very soon. There is a
sight already: www.mhirek.hu but no actual paper yet; just a promise that
they are working on it. I mus say all that boggles the mind--at least mine.
+ - Proactivity / Inactivity / Is John a racist?? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hali,

Aniko Dunford wrote:


>>Just mocking what our glorious educational system has tried to instill in the
>>youth of America, for years.
>
>I rest my case.  Why mock it?  Better it, direct it, change it. Make a
>difference! (proactivity)

"Make a difference!" How many x's have we heard this one?? Sure, it works, but
many groups/organizations lose their initial focus and become disenchanted,
thus the splintering affect occurs. Great example is the Hungarian community
itself. There's no solid bond anymore. Why do you think there's all these
different general discussion lists (I'm not including Szalon and so forth,
those are specialized)?? We talk about the same things (HIX & Gotthard), but
many won't associate themselves with the other list, because of some political
chip each one has. Same thing goes for the Hungarian American Lobby list. You'd
think that anyone with a mere drop of Hungarian blood would hop on and "Make a
difference", but the "political" thing gets in the way, which is why I think
the "politically correct" thing is bunch of bull, too, it splits people into
groups. If I don't agree with the current application of "political
correctness", then I'm deemed a facist, racist, woman hater, or whatever, which
is far from what I am.  I question the "political" aspect. Why should
government force people to be "more human"?? I think it should start from the
personal level. It's been proven that many things that the government gets
their hands in (be it controlled by forces on the left or right), eventually
backfires on them. "Political correctness" has always been around (it depends
on who's in power) and it's just that: "political" and nothing else, but it's
convenient to sugar coat it as a "better way" to conduct yourself.

>>I never stated, I was out to stop Szucs.
>
>In that case, I misunderstood the entire intent of your post.  The way I see
>it; if you're big enough to complain, you must have the solution.  If you
>have the solution, than it becomes your right and responsibility to
>excercise it - without excercising them, you have given up your right to
>complain or 'make light of people' or for that matter, the right to complain
>about the 'outcome and/or result of the discussion'.  It's this simple.

Can't argue against that, but because I don't "act", does that mean (according
to Szalai and Stowe) that I'm racist?!?! I don't have solutions, just
suggestions. If my upfront style offends, then I apologize for it ( even to
Stowe and Szalai). I play in a band that plays and upbeat form a of the
predecessor to Reggae (black music, by the way, Sam) called Ska. I deal with
racists at almost every show. We've done benefit shows against racism. Our main
supporters are Skinheads. Before everyone says "Aha! A racist!!" and I receive
a ton of hate mail, read what I'm about to write.

Skinheads, were born out of the Mod scene in England in the late 60's. The Mod
was working class youth who spent tons of money on the latest suits, latest
music (The Who, Small Faces, The Yardbirds, Soul, R&B ), Italian scooters
(Lambrettas and Vespas), and spending Bank Holiday at Brighton getting into
scuffles with their rivals The Rockers (English attempt at a Hell's Angels if
you will.). Mods being exposed to black music (blues especially) from the US,
which wasn't "politically correct" here at the time, also embraced the music of
Jamaica (Ska) because of the influx of Jamaicans coming to England to work.
They embraced them because of their love for R&B and Soul and they were also
snappy dressers to boot. Many Jamaican kids were Skinheads, too.

When the mid-60's came about, though, British-pop, changed towards the
psychedelic sound and there was a split between the Mod scene. Those Mods who
stayed in the vein of blues, R&B, Soul, and Ska, decided in protest to cut
their hair closer to the scalp, but not yet bald. They ditched their high
priced suits for military parkas, flight jackets, jeans, Fred Perry polo
shirts, Dr. Marten boots, and braces (suspenders). Not only did British-pop
change, but Ska changed as well. Ska's rhythm slowed down to Reggae and the
Rastafarian identity (unifing blacks against Babylon = the white man) was born
in the Jamaican communities and many blacks disassociated themselves with
whites. England was going through economic troubles in the late 60's and that
gave rise to the National Front (The National Front is a facist organization in
England). They started blaming the ills of England on Jamaican and Pakistani
immigrants, you know the usual nonsense. Many of the National Front's leaders
decided to spread this "gospel" amongst the working class youth of England
(mostly Skinheads) and many swayed, but many didn't. By the early 70's those
who were true their Skinhead/Mod roots opted to grow out their hair to avoid
any hassle. In the late 70's, with the Punk Rock movement, winding down, a Ska
and Mod Revival of sorts took place and seaside brawls took place between Mods,
Skinheads, and Rockers. As bands of the revival period started to gain
commercial success (Madness, Specials, The Jam) the movement halted in the
early 80's.

As the Revival period died in England, those in the US underground music scene
gave it life. Skinheads started appearing around Stateside. Ska music was the
preferred music, of course to emulate the English. Bands started forming and
playing out and the scene began to flourish, of course the US had/has it
economic troubles and hate groups like the KKK started to spout out propaganda
amongst the youth and many bought it. As a counter measure a group called
S.H.A.R.P. (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice) was formed and is a worldwide
group. Then the Geraldo thing happened. It was made to look like a ton of
racist Skinheads went nuts against the audience, but on the contrary, there
were more non-racist Skinheads in the audience, many of them Asian, Hispanic, a
n
d Black, but that wouldn't get ratings and that never gets printed. They
wouldn't print that 10 Nazis showed up at a Ska show and got beat up by
Skinheads. Or better yet, Saturday night at the Metro Stars soccer game at
Giants Stadium 5 Nazi were beaten up by 10-15 Skinheads. Heavens no. It would
confuse the public because so far they've been led to believe that all
Skinheads are racist. The articles wouldn't mention that. It has been estimated
that 2% of all Skinheads are of the racist category.

Germany has seen a lot "Skinhead" activity, but you only hear of the
firebombing, Sieg Heiler, bonehead types. Let it be known that there is a
tremendous SHARP contingent active in Germany as well as giant Ska movement
there, where they pack clubs up by the thousands. Canada seems to have the most
trouble, though with these racists Skinheads. Our band played a few dates in
Toronto, last month. We did a benefit for the Anti Racist Action group in
Toronto. I never would of thought that it was that bad up there and in a town
called St. Catherines. I'm not Skinhead, but I joined a Ska band years ago
because a friend of mine, who's a Skinhead, needed a sax player. He exposed me
to the music and what true Skinheads are about. My Skinhead friend is of
Jamaican heritage, by the way, via London. So, I hope this clears up whether or
not I'm a bigot.

I'm not backing Szucs. I'm backing that fact that he does have a right to say
what he says, regardless, if it's bull or not and, I guess, not offensive
enough for the list manager to decide to throw him off. If he was left alone to
say what he says or if folks on the list decided not to respond (one of your
options), then he'd look really stupid, bantering about and then we could've
taken it from there to get rid of him. Insted, those who claim to be the
champions of reason and mature behavior (Szalai and Stowe) go in, guns ablaze
and decide to have it out with him and then the feeding frenzy begins. Everyone
piles in and it's a big mess. For 2-3 months no ground is gained by neither
party. Everyone is dug in and no one is budging. It's still going on as you
read this post.

Then out of nowhere the bright idea of throwing Szucs off comes up. The reason:
They couldn't budge him out of his trench. Not reason enough for anyone to
throw him out. If Sam Stowe wants to know where Szucs was in 1956, then Szucs
should at least answer him. Maybe then we'd end this banter, but I think Szucs
has everyone where he wants them. Sam says that he's not losing sleep over his
comments (that means Szucs can stay, doesn't it?), but the 56 question riles
Sam up and Szucs knows it. So, insted of entertaining Szucs by flying off the
handle, Sam; end it. You're not going to get your answer, short of truth serum.


>>>Surely to goodness John, *you* can do
>>>better!....
>>
>>As well so many others on this list.
>
>P  r  o  v  e      i t !

Oh, Aniko, please. Look at the posts made by those involved. Look at how long
this has been going on. Look how replies are more personal, than informative,
now.


Regards,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com
+ - Sam Stowe, the expert II. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I am glad for readers that you don't even try to deny
that you have never set foot in Hungary and don't
speak the Hungarian language.

However, with these two disqualifying factors,  stop
fooling honest readers of this list that you have any
competence in the issue of Eva Balogh's outrageous
lie (that we "dont' call 1956 Szabadsagharc in the
Hungarian language).

I do speak Hungarian (better than English, of course)
and I was in Budapest as direct eyewittness of the
Revolution and Freedomfight of 1956. I can prove this by
answering those subtle questions that only an eyewittness
can, but you jerk cannot even ASK such questions! Even
in English, let alone in Hungarian. Can you tell, you jerk,
where the fallen Stalin statue was dragged, to be hammered
into pieces? Any idea of what was the name of the well
known restaurant there, and what its name meant?
Which part of "Szabadsagharcosok" means "Freedom"
and which part means "Fighters"?

Another thing that you are incompetent in is Internet.
Users of a "public.siliconvalley.com" subdomain do
not have to be in the USA even for a second -- just as
a user of "Hungary" list who posts from a Compuserve
account might as well be in Hungary! (Or Germany,
etc.)  There is no rule on the "Hungary" list that users
must reside in the States, must have English as their
mother tongue, or be Americanized in their culture.
Sure, there is no rule that idiots who have never set
foot in Hungary and don't speak the Hungarian language
cannot be contributor groupies. They simply make a fool
of themselves when they pretend to arbitrate in Eva Balogh's
lie that "we don't call 1956 Szabadsagharc in the Hungarian
language".

You are an expert Gestapo Nazi, to unconsitutionally
trying to harrass people at their employers for their
political opinion, supress their freedom of expresion,
nazi-bolsevist style.

As far as I know this is definitely *not* the famous
"American way". Of course, it has nothing to do with
Hungary, or even with decency, either.

You are the same kind of intolerant fascist as Tamas Gaspar
Miklos - ask your friends to translate it for you, why.
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hooray to Eva Balogh for saying what I have felt for a long time--Hungary's
modern misfortunes began with the end of the Empire.  The ,,kuruc" position
is all very well--romantic, full of pride, and so on--but all it achieved
was death and destruction, plus the creation of lots of music and folk-
legends.  Once the Hunyadi dynasty came to end, our fate was inexorably
tied to the Habsburgs, and when was Budapest so glorious as when it was
co-capital of the Empire?

Eljen a habsburgi birodalom!

Udv.,
Be'la
+ - Re: Horn, Mrs. Kosa, and the MSZP (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 06:28 PM 4/28/96 -0700, Eva Balogh, responding to Janos Zsargo, wrote:

>I am sure you are not going to like what I am saying here but
>these measures, which were introduced almost a whole year after the MSZP won
>the elections, were terribly overdue. The former, Antall government should
>have introduced the austerity measures as they were told time and time again
>by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

"...they were told time and time again..." ?????

My Hungarian history is failing me once again.  I wonder if Eva Balogh could
tell us what year the World Bank and the IMF were elected to govern hungary.
And what percentage of the vote did they get?

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

At 06:28 PM 4/28/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>Historical Hungary had no future without belonging to the Habsburg Empire
>and unfortunately the Hungarian politicians of the Party of Independence
>were unable to see that independence also meant the collapse of the country
>as we had known it for a thousand years.

What a surprise!  I never would have guessed that Eva Balogh is a
monarchist.  Of course, she has every right to be a monarchist but now I'm
starting to understand some of her views on the economy, politics, and society.

Why do I say that Eva Balogh is a monarchist?  Well, in a post to Janos
Zsargo, she said that support for Hungarian royalty is not strong at all but
that up until the second world war "it would have been impossible to think
of Hungary as a republic".  She legitimates a couple of Habsburg cousins and
says that they've been "living in Hungary ever since the middle of the
nineteenth century and they became Magyarized".  She then tell us of the
Smallholders 1990 "madcap" idea of Otto as a possible candidate for
president.  Then she tells us that Otto has been helpful to Hungary in the
European Union's parliament and that the family was grateful for Hungarian
loyalty.  Two of their children were married in Budapest.  In conclusion she
admits that she is "one of the very few people who are sorry that our
association with the royal house became severed in 1918."

Get over it!  The monarchy is gone.  It will never return.  The idea of
inherited power, regardless of how symbolic it may be, is repugnant and
undemocratic.

Paleontology, anyone?

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: Proactivity / Inactivity / Is John a racist?? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Haliho neked is John:

Let's take a few steps back here shall we?  I answered your post "The Oscar
goes to...." because, I felt that your approach was unfair, demeaning and
utilized undeserved mockery addressed to the group at large.  (of which I
consider myself a teeny part).  Then came your reply.  The only reason I
responded the second time, was because I felt that clarification of my
original points were required *period*.  Being brought into a debate
involving racism, and other peoples' mandates, I resent... higher than
highly.  Please re-read my original post to you and then the reply also.
Racism was never an issue.  Neither were anyone's mandates. As such, I would
greatly appreciate that you withdraw me/my posts to you from referencing to
them altogether.

As for the comments re mishandling of Szucs; your're barking up the wrong
tree.  I have no jurisdiction in that area.  Regarding your assertions of
the debate having gone on for 2-3months, I have no idea what you're talking
about.  Szucs's original posting to this group was somewhere between April
10th - 15th,  and today, being the 29th would make it 14-19 days long in
duration if my memory serves me right.

Having said all that; I tried my best at getting some points accross to you,
which in line with my way of thinking were justified and important at the
time.  Beyond that, I have no desire to go back and forth with attempts at
repeatedly having to justify or clarify them especially if it means being
drawn into other issues, that were not originally at hand .  I stand by my
original words, addressing your original points which I meant wholeheartedly
- each and every one of them.

Regards,
Aniko.

PS - I did enjoy and appreciate reading your account of the music/ history
you shared.  I greatly appreciated you're having voiced your views,
experiences and efforts afforded relating to racism also.  And for what it's
worth Sax is my fav instrument!  Thanks!  Sax ha?  never would have quessed!
+ - Re: Horn, Mrs. Kosa, and the MSZP (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Joe Szalai:

>My Hungarian history is failing me once again.  I wonder if Eva Balogh could
>tell us what year the World Bank and the IMF were elected to govern hungary.
>And what percentage of the vote did they get?
>
>Joe Szalai

        Your Hungarian history is nonexistent, fellow! You can stand side by
side the extreme right in their hatred of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund. But you know what: if you squandered away
billions and billions, and if you are on the verge of bankruptcy and you
need those guys' money, you don't have much choice: you have to listen to
them. Otherwise, your country might not be able to pay the loans back and,
more importantly, if they are not satisfied that you are financially
responsible they might tell you to go and fly a kite! No more loans! And
your "social net" will be even smaller--including those which currently
finance benefits your are so intent on getting!

        Eva Balogh

P.S. As for Szalai's posting on the Habsburgs it doesn't deserve an answer.
+ - Re: Wales (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,  (Stowewrite)
says:
>
>In article >, S or G Farkas
> writes:
>
>>I am bringing this up becase I don't remember that anybody used Great
>>Britain as an example to follow in their treatment of minorities (such as
>>Welsh).
>>
>>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>Monitor some of the newsgroups dedicated to those minorities and you'll
>see why. One of the most popular threads in NGs devoted to Scotland and
>Wales right now is the possible break-up of the United Kingdom into its
>four constituent parts. Many of the participants would prefer that it
>occur. I gather from monitoring soc.culture.wales that the Welsh language
>has picked up a bit of steam culturally speaking in the last decade or
>two, but I doubt many Welsh themselves would credit Westminster with doing
>much to foster that revival. I do think Wales offers an instructive
>example of what a minority group can do to preserve its own culture when
>the dominant culture around it is, at best, indifferent to its survival.
>Gabor, it might be interesting to cross-post your original message on this
>thread to soc.culture.wales and see what they have to say on the subject
>themselves.

Yes, good posting. I've been to Wales only once but have worked with and
conversed with many a Welsh person in England. I'm by no means an expert
and hate to presume to represent a case for any side in such a discussion
(despite Hugh Agnew's prompting.) I'll venture this much: Welsh people tell
me that the English actively repressed the Welsh language and culture for
centuries, until well into this century. Welsh pride kept their language/
culture alive, but the people had to *anglicize* themselves to get anywhere
in English dominated British society, with fair success, one might add,
recent examples being Michael Heseltine and Neil Kinnock, if one judges
political life worthy ;-) Centuries of resentment plus the Celtic identity
with the Irish, etc, reinforces the mentioned growing seperatist movement.
Many Welsh, though spiritually sympathetic, are wary of severing the
relationship in too drastic a fashion since the Welsh economy and
infrastructure is so dependent on their bigger neighbour. I suspect that
many people living in England just think of Wales as another English
county, albeit with a quaint past and funny old language, etc. Personally,
I'd like to see gradual devolution and much more autonomy for both Wales
and Scotland. It would emphasize the diversity of the British Isles and
thus enrich life for everybody here in the long run. If Westminster is
going to be positive about such a move it has to be done in a spirit of
magnanimous conciliation, creating a lot of good-will, but, unfortunately,
I doubt that will happen.

This issue parallels (to some extent) an exchange I'm having on soc.culture.
romanian with one Mr Lutas who is obssessed with paranoid fears about Magyar
irredentists over Transylvania (actually, he is just scapegoating the
Hungarians as an alibi for Romanian failures) and insists that Hungarians
in Romania must learn Romanian and be fully assimilated (like the Borg),
etc, etc....

I'm popping over to soc.culture.welsh now :-)

Regards

--
 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!
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 09:24 PM 4/29/96 EST, W. BATKAY wrote:

>Once the Hunyadi dynasty came to end, our fate was inexorably
>tied to the Habsburgs, and when was Budapest so glorious as when it was
>co-capital of the Empire?
>
>Eljen a habsburgi birodalom!
>
>Udv.,
>Be'la

Ahh!  Nostalgia sure ain't what it used to be.  But wait!  This is really
interesting.  Eva Balogh, and now, Be'la, have come out of the monarchist
closet.  (Does that closet have more queens than kings or is that just a
vicious rumour?) It's amazing to see people express their desire for some
sort of national 'mommy' or 'daddy' figure.  And in public!  I wonder if
they can get anything more than a bowel movement going from such a display.

>Eljen a habsburgi birodalom!

Oh please!  Don't make me gag.  You're joking.  No?  What if they have mad
cow disease?

Joe Szalai
+ - On the Habsburg Monarchy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

The role of the crown in this part of the world had an important function to
fulfill: to be that supranational component which could potentially hold the
different nationalities together. And the Habsubrgs managed to do that,
bungling they might have been, rather successfully. (Especially when
compared to the track record of the successor states.)

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

Bela Batkay writes:

> Hooray to Eva Balogh for saying what I have felt for a long time--
> Hungary's modern misfortunes began with the end of the Empire.  The
> ,,kuruc" position is all very well--romantic, full of pride, and so
> on--but all it achieved was death and destruction, plus the creation of
> lots of music and folk legends.  Once the Hunyadi dynasty came to end,
> our fate was inexorably tied to the Habsburgs, and when was Budapest so
> glorious as when it was co-capital of the Empire?

Was 1848 a regrettable mistake, then?  Should the March 15 national
holiday be abolished?

Habsburg rule has not always been the mellow, gemutlich, easy-going
affair it became in the late 19th century.  For the previous two
centuries, the Habsburgs had a nasty habit of sending punitive
expeditions to their Eastern possessions to grab the lands of renitent
nobles, and extirpate all religious heresy not conforming to their own
narrow brand of Catholic orthodoxy.  Even by the standards of the
mercenary armies of the times, these punitive expeditions were brutal
affairs.  The 18th and 19th century "kuruc" nationalism was drawing on
the emotional residue of that era.  The anti-Habsburg sentiments were a
rational response to what was happening then.  But by the end of the
19th century, all this anti-Habsburg sentiment has become mostly
useless nostalgia.

The "kuruc" independence movement was only one of the nationalistic
movements seeking the Empire's dissolution.  Alone or in combination,
none of these movements would have been sufficient to do away with
the Empire.  It took a defeat in war, combined with the stupidity of the
peacemakers at Versailles, to do that.  In the end, the independence
movements were a sideshow, and the fate of the Empire was decided
elsewhere.

At least the songs and legends are pretty good stuff, don't you think?

-----
Gabor Fencsik

+ - Szucs me (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article <v01510100adaaf65bcb65@[204.156.156.118]>, Andras Szucs
> writes:

>I am glad for readers that you don't even try to deny
>that you have never set foot in Hungary and don't
>speak the Hungarian language.
What "try to deny"? I never made any pretense to either in the first
place.
>
>However, with these two disqualifying factors,  stop
>fooling honest readers of this list that you have any
>competence in the issue of Eva Balogh's outrageous
>lie (that we "dont' call 1956 Szabadsagharc in the
>Hungarian language).
I don't give two farts in a whirlwind what you call them. Neither does
anyone else. What perturbs me is that you claim to speak on the behalf of
the martyrs of 1956 while verbally urinating on their legacy. Do you think
so many brave Hungarians died so a punk like you could insult the values
for which they died?
>
>I do speak Hungarian (better than English, of course)
>and I was in Budapest as direct eyewittness of the
>Revolution and Freedomfight of 1956. I can prove this by
>answering those subtle questions that only an eyewittness
>can, but you jerk cannot even ASK such questions! Even
>in English, let alone in Hungarian. Can you tell, you jerk,
>where the fallen Stalin statue was dragged, to be hammered
>into pieces? Any idea of what was the name of the well
>known restaurant there, and what its name meant?
>Which part of "Szabadsagharcosok" means "Freedom"
>and which part means "Fighters"?
I'm not the one claiming to be a participant in the events of 1956. Are
you going to put up with the proof of your participation. There's no
danger, of course, that you will shut up.
>
>Another thing that you are incompetent in is Internet.
>Users of a "public.siliconvalley.com" subdomain do
>not have to be in the USA even for a second -- just as
>a user of "Hungary" list who posts from a Compuserve
>account might as well be in Hungary! (Or Germany,
>etc.)  There is no rule on the "Hungary" list that users
>must reside in the States, must have English as their
>mother tongue, or be Americanized in their culture.
>Sure, there is no rule that idiots who have never set
>foot in Hungary and don't speak the Hungarian language
>cannot be contributor groupies. They simply make a fool
>of themselves when they pretend to arbitrate in Eva Balogh's
>lie that "we don't call 1956 Szabadsagharc in the Hungarian
>language".
No, I merely dared to kick you in the ass, you putz, when you started
harassing her. By the way, you're not really related to Gheorghe Funar,
are you? I mean, that's just a stupid rumor, right?
>
>You are an expert Gestapo Nazi, to unconsitutionally
>trying to harrass people at their employers for their
>political opinion, supress their freedom of expresion,
>nazi-bolsevist style.
It's Nazi-Bolshevist style. I would prefer the term Szucs-like. Much more
grammatically correct and definitionally accurate. You have spittle
dangling from your chin.
>
>As far as I know this is definitely *not* the famous
>"American way". Of course, it has nothing to do with
>Hungary, or even with decency, either.
Please, dear God, please keep posting this crap, doc. It only hammers home
what I've already pointed out about you on the list.
Sam Stowe

Still no details on where Szucs was during the 1956 Revolution and what he
was doing.
+ - Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Czifra Jancsi
said:
>[ snip.]

>You want me to wash your dishes?? Am I your bitch/ whore/
>woman?? [ snip.]

>Udv.,
>Czifra Jancsi
> ============================================================
John,

I find the above an insult to all women. It is as contemptuously rude as
humiliating!

I must say it surprised me greatly. The past week you have posted several
notes in which you have upbraided some of us for responding to "A.Szucs".

You have pontificated:
[snip..]
>beginning; you all let it get out of hand and participated in the back
and
>forth volley of personal attacks on each other, which doesn't make any of

you
>better than the next person. [snip..]
(snip..)
>If I were list manager, all those involved in this "brawl" should be
booted
off
>for awhile. It's the only fair thing to do in this situation, isn't it??
No
one
>on this list  should get "preferred treatment" because they happen to be
in
the
>"in crowd" or in the majority. It doesn't work that way. This way the
"Internet
>air" would be a little bit cleaner....               <<<<----------------
Hah!

Please Jancsi, study your own message....
Here you are trying to educate us and than commit such
a blunder.

Regards,
mep
+ - Re: Proactivity / Inactivity / Is John a racist?? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, John Czifra
> writes:

>Then out of nowhere the bright idea of throwing Szucs off comes up. The
>reason:
>They couldn't budge him out of his trench. Not reason enough for anyone
to
>throw him out. If Sam Stowe wants to know where Szucs was in 1956, then
Szucs
>should at least answer him. Maybe then we'd end this banter, but I think
>Szucs
>has everyone where he wants them. Sam says that he's not losing sleep
over
>his
>comments (that means Szucs can stay, doesn't it?), but the 56 question
riles
>Sam up and Szucs knows it. So, insted of entertaining Szucs by flying off
the
>handle, Sam; end it. You're not going to get your answer, short of truth
>serum.
>
>

Oh great -- Jancsi and I love a lot of the same music. I can't buy a
break. Jancsi, if you had paid attention early on in this whole debate,
you'd have noticed that what I dislike about Szucs is that he attacked Eva
Balogh so viciously on such ludicrous grounds. I would love to hear what
some actual participants in the Revolution of 1956 have to say about
Szucs. It might actually shut him up.

I'm glad none of us have yet accused you of homophobia. Otherwise my hard
drive might be clogged with megabytes of confessional stuff about how much
you love the Village People, Freddie Mercury and RuPaul.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- I never thought you were racist. But I do think either your
reading and analytical skills aren't up to snuff or you really agree with
what Szucs is spouting but are much too clever to be seen siding with him
publicly.

P.S.S. -- Is it true ska is making a comeback of sorts here in the States?
+ - Re: Hungarian royalists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Joe Szalai wrote:
>The monarchy is gone.  It will never return.  The idea of
>inherited power, regardless of how symbolic it may be, is repugnant
and
>undemocratic.
>
>Paleontology, anyone?
>
>Joe Szalai
>

For the record, the opposite of monarchy is a republic, not democracy.
The Soviet Union was a republic, having done away with monarchy, but
certainly not a democracy.  Some monarchies (Sweden, Denmark, Holland,
for example) are models of democracy, while some republics (Cuba, Iraq,
China,etc) are dictatorships.

Having said that, let me quickly add that I see no advantage for
monarchies over republics in our time.  I also also doubt that there is
any significant support anywhere for restoring the Kingdom of Hungary
with or without an elected King.

In the past monarchs, especially those who were aliens to the kingdoms
they ruled, served a purpose, for they were able to concentrate on
their person the loyalty (or hatred) of their multi-ethnic subjects.
The Habsburgs were a good example, and they always tried to maintain a
somewhat mysterious non-ethnic royal house that each of their ethnic
groups could accept as their own.

Not that I see ANY chance for it, but if the old empire was resurrected
today, the monarch, by necessity, would have to be an English, Dutch,
Danish or some similar alien person, so that all the Czechs, Austrians,
Hungarians, Slovaks, Croatians, Serbs, Carpatho-Ruthenians, Romanians,
Slovenians, Swabians (and any other group I left out) would be equally
miffed.  (Again, let me repeat, I DO NOT support any such plan, just
illustrating a point.)

And a last point:  I, too, respect Dr. Otto Habsburg as a wise and well
prepared European statesman and appreciate his lifelong efforts for
European unity and his special efforts as a friend and supporter of
Hungary.  Had history preserved the throne of the House of Habsburg, he
may have been a good ruler.  It didn't, however, and it's useless to
speculate.

Regards,

Charles Mikecz Vamossy

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