Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 651
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-04-28
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Facts of 1956 - it is a lie that we don't call it SZAB (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: A bit of correction (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
3 Sam Stowe, the detective (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind)  75 sor     (cikkei)
5 Why does anyone need a cover? (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: A bit of correction (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: A bit of correction (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
9 Szucsing for answers (mind)  45 sor     (cikkei)
10 Szucs for tomorrow (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
12 A bit of correction of Joe Szalai's "subtext" (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Great Expectations (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Police minister (mind)  102 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind)  110 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Police minister (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Another subject (Szucs) (mind)  50 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: Police minister (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: Police minister (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Facts of 1956 - it is a lie that we don't call it SZAB (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

We can only be thankful for Karoly Csipkay for his argument
that is as correct as wise. Certainly, one cannot agree more with
him that the category of "lie" is relational to "fact" (lie being a
conscious statement contrary to fact known to the person). This
is why "we don't call 1956 in the Hungarian language as
SZABADSAGHARC" is clearly a lie, since it is a FACT that
we do.

This fact was established not only by my eyewittnessing 1956
on spot, but by 41 pieces of evidence. Let me just re-iterate the
FIRST, citing a poster that appeared on the 24th of October on
the streets of Budapest. I did happen to see that with my very
eyes, but you can rely better on its facsimile reproduced on page
52 of "1956 plakatjai es roplapjai", Zrinyi kiado, 1991, ISBN
 963 327 147 9. It says:

"A szabadsagharcosok piroslo vere ontozi az utcakat. A szovjet
es magyar arulok fektelen terroral akarjak elnyomni fiatal
fuggetlensegunket. Segitsetek hazankat fegyverrel, elelemmel.
Kuzdelmunket csodalattal figyeli az egesz vilag, segitseg mar
nem kesik soka. Tartsatok velunk, draga magyar testvereink.
Jelszavunk: szabadsag vagy halal.   [alairas] Szabadsagharcosok."

(This typewritten poster I saw pasted on the wall in the corner
vacant lot of Calvin ter, next to the Museum, on the afternoon-
evening of Wednesday Oct. 24. But I only claim its *reproduction
in a document-collection* as proof of fact.)

Since Karoly Csipkay was not in Budapest at that time but is
an honest person (nor was the character that calls itself Stowe,
but who gives a damn about in Hungarian matters who neither
ever set foot there, nor do they speak the language!) conscious
denial of known documented facts must be taken as LIES. And
those whe were THERE know, that it was impossible not to
see, hear, touch, SZABADSAGHARCOSOK, or at the least
know about them.

I ask again Stowe, where was HE in 1956, and if he knows
any details of SZABADSAGHARC? Can he even raise any
question of detail?
+ - Re: A bit of correction (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>
> I wrote a minute ago:
>
> > Semmi sem ragadt ra'juk. (A Hungarian saying: "Nothing stcuck to
> them."--doesn't sound as good as inthe original!)
>
> Especially it doesn't sound right the way as I let it go. Meant to say:
> "Nothing stuck to them." Doesn't sound as good as in the original!) But
> basically it means: they haven't learned a thing!
>
>         Eva BaloghHi Eva,

How about "Nothing rubs off on them"

Jozsi
+ - Sam Stowe, the detective (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

What an idiot! Just because I use a relay-account for a good
reason in somebody else's domain, he "concludes" that the domain
home page is mine. It is NOT Andras Szucs' domain at all!
Someone was kind enough to protect us, the numerous users of
his "public" subdomain relays, from scum of Internet like Sam
- those who cannot win by arguments.

For my age in 1956, try 17 and for CV and other data concentrate
 on Szucs_Andras. (Oops, you can't read in Hungarian; Andras is
the Christian name, Szucs is the family name).

If Sam Stowe is too stupid to understand the difference between
USERS of a domain and OWNER of a domain, since he uses the
 account, should look up the web-page
that is "HIS" domain:

Based on "HIS" homepage of    http://www.aol.com,   with
his (nonexistent) "logic",  one could conclude:

"Sam Stowe does not exist, since the www.aol.com homepage
belongs to a TOTALLY DIFFERENT OWNER!  The owner is
not even a person!"
+ - Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Eva and Listmembers!

At 16:20 26/04/96 -0700, Eva Balogh provided fascinating biographical info
regarding Mr. Horn:

<snipped Sam's and Janos' material>

       I think it wouldn't hurt to explain Gyula Horn's role in 1956. Horn
>was born in 1932 into a old communist family. His father served in the Red
>Army of the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919. He was introduced into
>illegal political activities by his older brother even before the end of the
>war when he was distirbuting pamphlets published by the illegal communist
>party. After the war, and especially after the the communist takeover in
>1948/49, the Horn family fortunes rose with the change in regime:

<snip snip>

> In any case, in 1954 he returned to Hungary and not
>surprisingly he immediately received a high position in the Ministry of
>Finance. He was still so employed when the revolution broke out. And here is
>the rub! Gyula Horn in the middle of December 1956 volunteered to be a
>member of the militia (pufajkasos--as they were called because of the
>Soviet-styled quilted winter jackets they wore). The early Kadar regime was
>inherently weak and so without any popular base. For almost two months or so
>the Soviet-installed puppet government didn't even dare to organize its own
>military force. All the dirty work was done by the Soviet occupying forces.
>The people who "volunteered" in mid-December were the most despised and, in
>my opinion at least, the lowest of the low. They were serving a foreign
>power against 99% percent of the Hungarian population who either actively or
>passively were on the side of the revolution. And Gyula Horn who, by that
>time, was 26 years old, was one of them.

<snip>

 In any case,
>some people find it difficult to forgive Gyula Horn, I being one of them.
>However, it seems that the majority of the Hungarian voters are not bothered
>by that. Unfortunately, or fortunately,  memories of events of forty years
>ago are fading from public consciousness, and the Hungarian voters in 1994
>didn't hold Gyula Horn's role in 1956 against him and or against his party.
>The MSZP received 54 percent of the parliamentary seats.

When I was young, one of the base canards which passed as a joke in the
States went as follows:

"A Hungarian is the only person who can enter a revolving door behind
someone and come out ahead."

Somehow when I hear about Mr. Horn this phrase keeps coming to mind. He
managed to change the stripes of the Hungarian Communist Party and succeeded
in bringing it back to power - in its new guise as the Hungarian Socialist
Party - within just a few years of the fall of Communism in Eastern and
Central Europe. And now we hear furthermore that he was actively involved in
fighting his own fellow countrymen in 1956! Incredible!

Maybe most Hungarians really wouldn't be capable of the magical feat
involving the aforementioned revolving door, but it certainly seems that Mr.
Horn has mastered the trick!

U:dvo:zlettel,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

p.s. And, by the way, it is Mme. Balogh's commentary which is so insightful
and provides a context to the current affairs in Hungary which people like
myself, out in the wilds of Nova Scotia, would never get otherwise from the
mainstream print and electronic media or from people whose primary skill has
been learning how to rant on the Internet!

Nagyon sze'pen ko:szo:no:m, Eva!

Jo
+ - Why does anyone need a cover? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Andras Szucs wrote:

> What an idiot! Just because I use a relay-account for a good
> reason in somebody else's domain, he "concludes" that the domain
> home page is mine. It is NOT Andras Szucs' domain at all!
> Someone was kind enough to protect us, the numerous users of
> his "public" subdomain relays, from scum of Internet like Sam
> - those who cannot win by arguments.

To my best knowledge, all others who post on this list are using their
own names and addresses.  We have nothing to hide.  (From whom?)

I would like to know that, *in a democracy,* what valid reasons are behind
the use of a "relay-account?"  (BTW, what IS it?)

The net result of employment of a cover is that it makes other members
of this list weary and outright suspicious of persons posting from such
addresses.  Were it not for this, I venture to guess that Sam Stowe would
never have been prompted to don his Sherlock Holmes suit.

We begin all our reasoning within ourselves: honest people presume others
innocent, until proven otherwise.  Unless given a reason to doubt
someone's words, we do not question them.  Please consider this premise.

Naturally, here I am not talking here about an exchange of ideas; that is
the way one arrives at the proper synthesis - one of the reasons for this
list.

Martha S. Bihari


P.S. I could have written this letter all in upper case, but on the Internet
it is CONSIDERED SHOUTING and inappropriate.  Please stop SHOUTING.
+ - Re: A bit of correction (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 04:43 PM 4/26/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>"Nothing stuck to them." Doesn't sound as good as in the original!) But
>basically it means: they haven't learned a thing!
>
>        Eva Balogh

The subtext of the above statement is at least as interesting as the
translation and says a lot about the person who utters it.  I take the
subtext to mean that the person doesn't see things the way I do.  I doubt
that it has anything to do with 'learning'.  Saying that someone is like
Teflon might be a better way to convey the meaning of 'semmi sem ragadt ra'juk'
.

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

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

>Will Sam be a decent human being and cast some blame on himself for being a
>part of this nonsense or will he hide under badge of "political correctness"
>and blame others only because he is working for the forces of good, justice,
>and the American way??

Mr. Czifra can't get past the 'political correctness' lessons I gave.  For
him, political correctness has become the great satan.  He hates it, and he
hates me for showing him how to behave in a mature, adult world.  But, and
this is an important but, he hasn't used any offensive language since he
reappeared on this list.

Joe Szalai

P.S.  John, you should have used a gender neutral name for your thread.  If
I'm not mistaken, Oscar is a male name.  Maybe you can lobby Hollywood to
hand out some gender inclusive awards.  Just a thought, John.  There's no
need to hyper-ventilate.
+ - Re: A bit of correction (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:53 AM 4/27/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>At 04:43 PM 4/26/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>"Nothing stuck to them." Doesn't sound as good as in the original!) But
>>basically it means: they haven't learned a thing!
>>
>>        Eva Balogh
>
>The subtext of the above statement is at least as interesting as the
>translation and says a lot about the person who utters it.  I take the
>subtext to mean that the person doesn't see things the way I do.  I doubt
>that it has anything to do with 'learning'.  Saying that someone is like
>Teflon might be a better way to convey the meaning of 'semmi sem ragadt
ra'juk'.

I disagree. I don't know whether Joe speaks Hungarian or not but Eva's
interpretation is definitely closer to its meaning. The teflon meaning is
totally different, became generally used during Reagan's presidency. It
means that a person's actions or words (howeeve stupid they are or seem to
be) have no effect on the way that person is viewed.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Szucsing for answers (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article <v01510121ada77a06fb8e@[204.156.156.118]>, the fictional entity
calling itself Andras Szucs >
writes:

>What an idiot! Just because I use a relay-account for a good
>reason in somebody else's domain, he "concludes" that the domain
>home page is mine. It is NOT Andras Szucs' domain at all!
>Someone was kind enough to protect us, the numerous users of
>his "public" subdomain relays, from scum of Internet like Sam
>- those who cannot win by arguments.
>
>For my age in 1956, try 17 and for CV and other data concentrate
> on Szucs_Andras. (Oops, you can't read in Hungarian; Andras is
>the Christian name, Szucs is the family name).
>
>If Sam Stowe is too stupid to understand the difference between
>USERS of a domain and OWNER of a domain, since he uses the
 account, should look up the web-page
>that is "HIS" domain:
>
>Based on "HIS" homepage of    http://www.aol.com,   with
>his (nonexistent) "logic",  one could conclude:
>
>"Sam Stowe does not exist, since the www.aol.com homepage
>belongs to a TOTALLY DIFFERENT OWNER!  The owner is
>not even a person!"
 Well, at least I've finally gotten you away from attacking poor Eva
Balogh. Now the questions shifts to other aspects of your character. Do
you have a criminal record here in the United States? Any connections to
unsavory political groups -- militias, neo-Nazi organizations, that type
of thing? Your latest post tells me that I have hit you hard right where
you live. Fine, let the game continue. I will continue to see what I can
dig up on your background, verify it (pace Frank Aycock) and print it
here. I will need a willing volunteer in the San Francisco area to do some
legwork for me. Just e-mail me and I'll explain where you need to go and
what to look for.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Either your curriculum vitae posted on the Web is in error or you
are, once again, lying. You claim to have graduated in the Class of 1962.
That would make you 23 years old when you received your high school
diploma if your assertion that you were 17 in 1956 is true. While you are
slow and Stalinist, I doubt you are truly that moronic. We're all still
waiting for you to tell us exact details about where you were during the
revolution of 1956 and what you did. We want to authenticate your account.
+ - Szucs for tomorrow (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear List Members:
As long-time readers can undoubtedly testify to the newer members, the
existence of those posting from a Silicon Valley account is brief in the
extreme. Since Andras Szucs has just about reached the end of his shelf
life (judging from the past encounters we've had with fictional characters
from Silicon Valley), it will soon be incumbent upon his creator to come
up with yet another wacky persona to plague this list.

I propose a contest to help him find that personae. All you have to do is
come up with a new alter ego with which the good doctor can indulge his
passion for vitriol and far right-wing Hungarian politics. Simply post the
name of the new alter ego, a brief biography and a small sampling of what
he might post on this list. (Hey, kids -- don't forget those krazy KAPITAL
letters in your rambling replies!) I propose a committee of three list
members be appointed to review the entries and choose a winner. The good
doctor will then have a usable, suitably nutty, new screen persona --
perhaps one that, for a change, doesn't sound just like the good doctor.
And the winner will bask in the glory of being forever known as winner of
the 1996 Andras Szucs Service to Humanity Award, better known as the
"Pelly." We will need to come to agreement on who will be on the review
committee. It would also help if one of our more artistically-inclined
list members could design and construct a Pelly to give the winner --
preferrably something made out of silicon.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Contest not valid in Alaska, Hawaii or Transylvania. Taxes, tags
and title not included. All prices based on MSRP -- LSMFT. All employees
of Silicon Valley Institute, their families or known co-conspirators are
ineligible for participation. Odds of winning are pretty good if you can
convincingly foam at the mouth.
+ - Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, John Czifra
> writes:

>"Nyah-nyah" prodding by Sam Stowe the first day, in a long while, John
Czifra
>airs his opinion results in an equally "nyah-nyah" response right back at
>him.
>What you give is what you get. On the other hand Aniko Dunford gave a
great
>and
>kind explanation as to why she disagrees with me and, justly, gets a kind
>response from me.
>
>>Sweet Light here would never make it as a Goebbels for his movement.
>
>Karnac, you amaze me with the knowledge you possess. No one is supposed
to
>know
>about my "movement". Shhhhh!!
>
Sweet Light, you're reaping what you sow. You attack ad hominem out of the
box, you can expect to receive it in kind. 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.
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. Oh, and don't tell Joe Szalai or Eva
Durant that I'm "politically correct", okay? I wouldn't want to ruin their
current illusion that I'm a conservative Bob Dole kinda guy.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- If you want to continue this back and forth -- and God knows, you
need the practice -- e-mail me. I have a little free time each evening
after washing the dishes and would be willing to put you in your place.
+ - A bit of correction of Joe Szalai's "subtext" (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:53 AM 4/27/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 04:43 PM 4/26/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>"Nothing stuck to them." Doesn't sound as good as in the original!) But
>>basically it means: they haven't learned a thing!
>>
>>        Eva Balogh
>
>The subtext of the above statement is at least as interesting as the
>translation and says a lot about the person who utters it.  I take the
>subtext to mean that the person doesn't see things the way I do.  I doubt
>that it has anything to do with 'learning'.  Saying that someone is like
>Teflon might be a better way to convey the meaning of 'semmi sem ragadt
ra'juk'.

        You can think of any old subtext you want. But you may want to learn
right now that I don't employ subtexts. I say straight what's on my mind.
No, it means that they left a dictatorial regime and moved to a democracy,
let's say twenty years ago. And twenty years later they are still as
undemocratic as they most likely were when they got here. That's what it means!

        As for teflon. Let's not be unhistorical. Teflon is faily new. The
saying is most likely centuries old.


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

In article >, "W. BATKAY"
> says:
>
>Thanks again to Hugh Agnew for his sensible and broad-minded reminder of
>who we are and what we are doing on the list.  Disagreement--even pas-
>sionate disagreement--is healthy and necessary in any democratic context.
>But a *stable* and *rational* democracy also requires a minimum level of
>civility.  Hugh, as is his right, sets that level lower than I would tolerate
>if it were up to me.  I will simply add that it is not simply another human
>being on the other end of the computer, but a human being whose views are
>as deserving of a hearing as we think ours are.  If in fact they are not,
>then maybe some of us are in the wrong line of work.

Well said!

>So--disagree, shout, yell, protest, whine, cajole, wheedle, object--
>but let's do it like Americans,

Hey, what about the Canadians, Brits, and others....??

>and not like some other peoples we could name, whose contributions to
>political disourse of a civilized sort leave something to be desired.

Your most civil 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!
+ - Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Janos Zsargo about Gyula Horn:

>It is another negative record hold by the Hungarian, namely that such a man
>can be prime minister. I just would like to ask the american readers of this
>NS, if they can imagine, someone let's say who fought actively on the side
>of the viet-kong later become the president of the US?

        A lot of people thought that it would have been better not to have
Gyula Horn to become prime minister and the negative reactions came not only
from the right of center parties. Liberal commentators felt the same way:
Flora Fencsik, for example, argued that the "new, independent, multi-party
Hungary's first piece of legislation was to declare October 23 as a national
holiday. Its legitimacy is based on the rehabilitation of the lost
revolution." (LibikOka: Valogatott publicisztikai irasok, Budapest, 1995, p.
103; originally in *168 ora, May 1994) Therefore, a man with Horn's past
should not be prime minister. In the same piece, she pretty well suggested
to Horn to give up the idea, although she admitted that Horn is a stubborn
man and surely he wants to be prime minister because "he deserves it." The
leaders of the SZDSZ felt the same way and today's minister of education
blurted out "with anyone else but not with Horn." Yet, at the end, they
decided to join the MSZP to form a government and accepted Horn as prime
minister.

>Well, the MSZP was slightly tricky, they did not have nominee for Prime
>Minister officially. Of course everybody or most people knew they (the MSZP)
>just feel unconfortable with Horn's past.

        Oh, yes, this is true but you really think it would have made a
difference? That is if the MSZP officially designated him for the
premiership would the party received have received fewer votes? I doubt it.
Moreover, look around in the MSZP! Do you see anyone who could be prime
minister? And please, don't bring up Mrs. Kosa--I don't like her very much.
Plus, I think that she is farther to the left than Horn.

        Eva
+ - Re: Police minister (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

[I had the misfortune that Szu3cs/Pellionisz professes agreement with
me on this issue. Just to clear up a few things about the guy, he was
never empleyed by NASA (he was there on a soft money grant which expired
years ago -- his NASA fame lives on because he loved to show off his cool
Ames Research Center netaddress). He also posted on HIX FORUM that he was
13 years old in 1956 and didn't particularly do anything except feeling
enthused. Now "Szu3cs" claims to have been a freedom fighter, but of course
we have no evidence whatsoever for the physical existense of Szu3cs -- he
is just one of Pellionisz' virtual personalities.] Now for the main debate:

> Felado : Fencsik Gabor
> Temakor: Re: police minister ( 48 sor )
>
> Andras Kornai lists the shortcomings of the Hungarian system of law
> enforcement:
>
> > In Hungary, there is still nothing like the FBI, all criminal
> > investigations are conducted by the same police force that provides the
> > traffic cops and local law enforcement, and the boss is a cabinet member.
> > The opportunities for abuse are tremendous, and if Kuncze is not a
> > J. Edgar-type personality that's just an accidental piece of luck, the
> > structure is still in place for one.
>
> I hate to sound dense but it is not clear to me what aspect of the FBI
> you consider worthy of emulation.
That it has a director who can act independent of the executive branch.
It is perhaps worth adding that the FBI is a reasonably successful
crime-fighting organization, largely corruption-free, with relatively few
fiascos and quite a few success stories. It is far from perfect, but the
Hungarian police would lose very little, to put it mildly, by trying to
emulate the education/training level of FBI agents.

> You also seem to contradict yourself:
> if something like the FBI is desirable, but a personality like J. Edgar
> Hoover can still abuse his power, then how can an FBI-like institution
> protect Hungary from an overly ambitious local mini-Hoover?
This is a hard task, but concentrating too much power in one hand (that
of the police minister) only makes it harder.

> And what
> exactly is wrong with criminal investigations "conducted by the same
> police force that provides the traffic cops and local law enforcement"?
Except for federal crimes, right? It's OK for local police to handle all
sorts of matters, but some criminal activities, particularly organized
crime, are hard to fight at that level.

> This is how the NYPD is organized, for a city that is comparable in size
> to Hungary (although, for obscure historical reasons, New York has a
> separate transit police and housing police, to keep tabs on the subways
> and housing projects, respectively).
The NYPD doesn't handle federal crimes alone. I think they have an anti-mob
and an anti-terrorist branch, and even an international arm (New York being
a city of some significance even if measured on an international scale)
but this does not change the fundamental makeup of its police force.

> The Hungarian law enforcement system, as far as I can see, suffers from
> the same syndrome that tends to make all goverment operations so
> incredibly inefficient there: overcentralization.
Gotcha! So if overcentralization is bad, how can having a single minister in
charge of all police forces be good? Even if the same powers were left in the
hand of a single person, it would be much better to have that person be the
director of an independent agency, reporting to the chief executive indirectly,
(e.g. through the Attorney General) than for him to be a cabinet member,
directly under the thumb of the prime minister.

> Local governments
> have too little power, and every decision must be made at the center.
> A central authority controlling all fire departments throughout the
> country seems like a ridiculous idea.  In the U.S. every dinky little
> cow town manages to have its local volunteer fire department without
> any involvement at the state or Federal level.  The same goes for
> local police departments.  These are ideal issues for local control.
> The locals know exactly how much police or fire protection they want,
> and how much they are willing to pay for.  One thing the new constitution
> ought to do is to shift much more responsibility from the central
> authorities to local governments.  This should also cut down on the
> potential for the kind of abuse of power you are worrying about.
Hey who said we disagreed? Sounds like even 
agrees with us! Who could ask for anything more?

> Finally, a question: we all know that the Worker's Militia (one of the
> 'armed thug' organizations used to prop up the ancien regime) has been
> disbanded following the 1989 referendum.  There was another, far more
> professional force trained under the late Kadar era for riot control
> and general intimidation: the Revolutionary Police Brigade (Forradalmi
> Rendorezred).  What happened to that outfit?  Is it still around under
> a different name?  If so, who controls it?
The Forradalmi Rendo3rezred was formed long before 1989. The Workers'
Militia (Munka1so3rse1g) were armed thugs with a day job: essentially
they were cadres getting their noses so brown that they were given some
paramilitary training, were trusted with handguns, and could be expected
to be called upon in various emergencies threatening the communist regime
(I'm not sure how often, and for what purpose, they were actually fielded).
In contrast, the Forradalmi Rendo3rezred was based on full-time professional
policemen, who were given paramilitary training (covering mostly riot control
and antiterrorist stuff I think) and also assumed some symbolic duties (like
guarding the Parliament building and the headquarters of the Communist Part).
In short, the Workers' Militia was a way for civilians to advance by
demonstrating faithfulness and ideological reliability, while joing the
Revolutionary Police Brigade was the way for policemen to do the same.

Andra1s Kornai
+ - Re: The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi John:

Haven't been ignoring you... just busy.

>>Proactivity, and all it's positive attributes seems to have failed somewhere
>>in the new and wonderful education system of ours  - if you are a typical
>>example of the byproduct that is.

>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)

<snip my stuff>
>You try to be reasonable with those who beg to differ, they don't listen.
>You get angry at them, they get angry with you....etc. Nothing, too, positive
>or constructive about it. Why bother???

No one is ever in a position to *assume anything*  when involved in a
non-interactive situation as on this list or elsewhere -  So, prior to
getting angry; why not first find that out, for sure?    It seems to me,
that once you know for a fact, that another is not listening, you have two
rational options.  To drop discussion due to lack of interest, or, employ
another approach that might create the interest required to rekindle the
discussion.  That way, the necessity for your third statement above is
totally eliminated.  (of course, there is always, that third option too...?)
As for the last statement; those words do not belong in my 'dictionary' - as
such, I decline comment due to ignorance.

>>So, being a priviledged member of this group; if you truly had a way of
>>stopping Szucs, as you so migthtily(sp) claim;
>>
>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.

>I made light of how people on this
>list messed up on Szucs, in the first place. Anyone or group of people on this
>list could've gotten together and ended this when it began, but insted of
>doing
>that, they squared off and let fly, trying to rip Szucs apart, but as we've
>seen, it hasn't worked and Szucs has dragged decent folk to his level and they
>don't see that.

Again, I rest my case.  I think that above I have answered this also.

>> I would have expected you to jump in at a time when it might really have
>>made
>>a positive
>>impact/difference to all involved.
>I'm choked up, Aniko. I didn't that you are a fan of mine. Seriously, do think
>anyone would've followed my lead?? I'm not the most "popular" on this list,
>remember.

So far, I have not been given the impression that this list operates by the
rules of a popularity contest.  If so, please enlighten me.  Remember; I am
relatively new, when considering the age of this list.  As for your question
whether "anyone would have followed your lead", - I can only share *my*
opinion:  Should your lead have been one, utilizing an appoach with a
purpose; I have no question in my mind, that  further discussion would have
followed.  If it was one utilizing the tone of your original posting -
entitled the "Oscar goes to..." I have no question in my mind that the
results would have been the same.
>
>> As opposed to your prefered opposite of
>>sitting back.... and biting your time ... when you can be most effective at
>>criticising, judging and generalizing.  It is not like your posts were
>>banned - or were they?
>>
>Never bothered posting during the volley of personal attacks.

I think that my paragraph following your words above : "I never stated...
etc" also applies here.
>>
>>This tactic utilized by you; sorry to have to say; I find no much better
>>than the tactics utilized by Szucs.
>
>Tactic, Aniko?? Just being realistic.

Yes, John.  Tactic!  Disappointed? Unhappy? Disassisfied? You have the
answer?  You have a point?  - Voice them, excercise you right - make a
contribution.   Otherwise, in retrospect, it cannot be interpreted in any
other way, but a tactic employed for an excuse to complain, demean, whine,
etc.
>>
>>Surely to goodness John, *you* can do
>>better!....
>
>As well so many others on this list.

P  r  o  v  e      i t !

>> and now... before your fingers decide to think for you, how
>>about digesting the words above first?
>>
>I like your words Aniko and you're one of the reasonable ones on the list, but
>I'm not out to be the martyr.

I really appreciate the compliment, thank you!  And in closing, I only have
to add that being a martyr in our society(es) today, is but a matter of a
personal choice.
>>
Regards, have a nice weekend!
Aniko
+ - Re: Police minister (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

To correct the record: NYC has recently unified its police force, there is
no more separate transit and housing police. This was done under Mayor
Giuliani, who although elected with the police unions' support, "turned on
them" and eliminated all the duplication (triplication?).

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

E.Balogh wrote:

>>Well, the MSZP was slightly tricky, they did not have nominee for Prime
>>Minister officially. Of course everybody or most people knew they (the MSZP)
>>just feel unconfortable with Horn's past.
>
>        Oh, yes, this is true but you really think it would have made a
>difference? That is if the MSZP officially designated him for the
>premiership would the party received have received fewer votes? I doubt it.

No, I do not think it either. I just wanted to pinpoint that even those in
the MSZP felt Horn's past is not really appropriate for a PM. Moreover
it could have some connection with the coalition policy of MSZP. One of the
major concern against the MSZP in the SZDSZ was Horn's past.

>Moreover, look around in the MSZP! Do you see anyone who could be prime
>minister? And please, don't bring up Mrs. Kosa--I don't like her very much.
>Plus, I think that she is farther to the left than Horn.

This is a funny question. Well, I do not like MSZP at all, I think they should
not be in the government. I do not say that it is wrong what they are doing in
the economics (it can be!), it seems good at least on short time-scale. But I
am sure that this policy has nothing to do with the 'socialism', which means
something is unhealthy in the government. So I don't really care who can be
a possible PM in the MSZP.

J.Zsargo
+ - Re: Another subject (Szucs) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:40 AM 4/26/96 -0400,Sam Stowe  wrote:

>Gabor, he's free to express his point of view anywhere he wants. But he's
>not free to do so on my dime.

This was my point too. But I think if he does it during his private time
(assuming he is a government employee) that is not on your (or my) dime.

>And I don't know that many of my fellow
>taxpayers want to be in a position of subsidizing a bigot with their tax
>dollars.

Probably (I hope) not many. However, by selecting who is or isn't employed
by the government based on the potential employee's speech is dangerous (in
my opinion). Stamping people "bigot", "communist", "liberal", "fascist",
"racist", etc. is a very subjective process. Which bureaucrat should do it?

>How about the people who keep NYU afloat? Many of them are
>Jewish. Do they feel comfortable with an anti-Semite on the payroll?

NYU is a private institution and can do anything it pleases (again, in my
opinion).

>And
>how do you explain the fact that free speech for employees of the federal
>and many state governments has, at different times over the past century,
>been restricted by laws designed to prevent political activity by those
>employees?

I am not a legal expert and do not know about this kind of restrictions. I
would be interested in some examples.

>Even under the First Amendment, private and public institutions alike have
>a right to decide that an employee's expressed views, whether made as a
>representative of that institution or as a private citizen, are so at odds
>with the values and mission of that institution that their relationship
>can no longer continue. We're going through that here in North Carolina.
>An aide to N.C. House Speaker Harold Brubaker referred to a group of
>people lobbying for better pay for the janitorial staff at UNC-Chapel Hill
>as a "bunch of n-----s and wormy kids." He said this to an Associated
>Press reporter in a closed-door conversation which was overheard by
>another reporter, who duly reported it in print. Speaker Brubaker is now
>coming under fire to get rid of his aide. Free speech doesn't mean you
>have absolute immunity from the consequences attendant upon exercising
>that right.

This example is about a politician. Those gov. employees are always on the
job, their speech is never private (especially with an AP reporter nearby).

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

Until scientists conclusively prove or disprove the theory that Mad-Cow
Disease can be transmitted via the Internet, it is better to be careful.
This is why my computer is set up to instantly flush everything coming
from the general direction of silicondrivel.com.  So I was not aware that
Doctor Silicone has contributed to this thread.  But now Andras Kornai
writes:

> I had the misfortune that Szu3cs/Pellionisz professes agreement with
> me on this issue.

Well, that settles the question, doesn't it?  All that's left is for
Andras to do the decent thing.  Give up, concede, admit defeat, or
drop the subject.  There is nothing more to say.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

+ - Re: Police minister (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Gabor D. Farkas writes:

> To correct the record: NYC has recently unified its police force, there
> is no more separate transit and housing police. This was done under
> Mayor Giuliani, who although elected with the police unions' support,
> "turned on them" and eliminated all the duplication (triplication?).

I stand corrected.  I knew this but it slipped my mind.  This is what
comes from writing at 2AM.  Thanks for the correction.

-----
Gabor Fencsik


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