Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 1011
Copyright (C) HIX
1997-05-28
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Black Huns (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Black Huns (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Black Huns (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
4 Here is something I have not seen before: a coherent cr (mind)  168 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Compuserve Postmaster - (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Suggestions Re: Cancer and ... (mind)  65 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Suggestions Re: Cancer and ... (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
8 Signing off till mid of June (mind)  5 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Black Huns (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Compuserve Postmaster - (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: Black Huns (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Joe, Liviu and fellow listers,
I have not followed this discussion right from the beginning, but the term
 Ephthalites whether it carries a local name or not, is too suspiciously Greek
 for anyone knowing the language to identify it with any local name.
It is also very likely that the name came to the west through Persian influence
,
 so we may be faced with a transliteration of a Persian name, which I can not
 speculate on.
                                Regards,
                                Panagiotis
+ - Re: Black Huns (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

It appears that no.
Avars come too late and too far from the north to be connected to the white Hun
s
 and besides this, our sources tend to portray them as dark-skinned.
                                Regares,
                                Panagiotis
+ - Re: Black Huns (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 03:46 PM 5/27/97 +0000, Liviu Iordache wrote:

>On 27 May 97 at 15:41, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know why the Huns were refered to as 'White' or 'Black'?
>
>"The Ephthalites are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in
>name; however they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to
>us.... They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies
>and countenances which are not ugly." [Procopius]

What evidence did Procopius have?

>> And where does the name Ephthalites come from?
>
>"Ephthalites" (also spelled Hephthalites) is one of the very few word
>preserved from the language of these people; the meaning, from what I
>read, is unknown. The relationship between Hephthalites and Huns is
>uncertain.

Thanks for the above, Liviu.

Joe Szalai
+ - Here is something I have not seen before: a coherent cr (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

the activities of the Soros Foundation from the Left.  It comes from
the Netherlands by way of a mailing list in Germany.  Subscription
information is at the end of the article.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

 The Art of Being Independant
 On NGOs and the Soros debate
 By Geert Lovink

 A fear is spreading throughout Europe: the creeping, existential angst
 of being possessed and ruled by new, unknown forces. For some, the
 dragon is called Brussels, for others it is neo-liberalism, the
 stockmarket, Asia, globalization, the year 2000, or Soros. In circles
 of media activists and electronic artists there is acute sensitivity
 towards emergent institutional powers. Active groups and individuals on
 the edge (and the margins) of Media Related Creativity are vulnerable
 to new economic and political formations. As temporary, freelance
 workers we are both inside and outside of the culture industry. The
 critique of large size capitalist and state structures from the
 perspective of small groups has been well known since the sixties. It
 is easier to critique Shell, MoMa, the Ministry of Culture, the
 Telecom and McDonalds, as the lines are clear. They are bastards. But
 now the threat is coming from within, without clear frontlines.
 Nowadays, power can be located anywhere. For some it is the body, for
 others the mediasphere, or transnational capital. The process of
 simultaneous fragmentation and centralization leaves us with a
 confusing picture. Does our critique need a clear object anyway, an
 artificial, imaginary focus? Current technologies make it out of the
 question to be fully autonomous, particularly if you are working with
 computers. The rise of the Net will only make us more dependant on
 hostile forces. With complexity and interdependency on the rise, one
 materialisation of this landscape is the decentralized, networked,
 cost-effective office culture, the Non-Government Organisation (NGO).
 The first time I heard a critique of a NGO it was the case of
 Greenpeace. With my own eyes I had seen this organization become a
 megalomanic structure of bureaucratic do-gooders. They were one of the
 first to 'professionalize', leaving behind the more indirect and
 blurry tactics of the ecological movement, a charming universe of
 micro-initiaves which to a 'communications/managerial expert' would
 seem lacking clear direction.  The professional Greenpeace set up a
 chain of branches, raised memberships, organized 'campaigns' and
 specialized in spectacular, advertising-like media interventions. The
 critique focussed on high overhead costs, internal power struggles and
 the misuse of funds collected by masses of innocent, well-meaning
 middle class citizens. This process took place inside the ecological
 movement throughout the eighties, and soon this managerial 'corporate'
 approach would reach all 'independant' organizations dealing with arts,
 culture and politics.

 The Berlin Wall fell and numerous NGOs moved into Eastern Europe,
 created from this 'corporate-style' model. There it became really
 visible what the NGO was in essence all about: downsized government
 replacing bureaucracies, typical to the post-ideological times of the
 digital. "We no longer work for the Party, we work for the
 Organisation" (New European saying). In Western Europe there was no
 NGO critique yet. Why? The autonomous movements of the 70s and 80s were
 falling apart and their remains had turned into small NGOs themselves.
 These past and present political strategists tend not to focus on the
 organisational forms of the 'struggle'. What counted was, and still
 does, the debate around the use of violence (against buildings, police,
 corporations). Central questions as to the 'effectiveness' at a
 symbolical and eventually political level remain. With the Organisation
 we are dealing with a specific kind of office management style, social
 code and media strategy imported from the United States into Western
 Europe (and later in the East), without questions as to its
 ideological premiss.
 We are surrounded by the Organization. They want our submissions,
 faxes, letters, and want you to have meetings, gossips and agreements.
 Their way of dealing with the world seems so completely self-evident,
 according to their rules. This 'naturalisation' makes it difficult to
 see its specific shape and program. Do you also have friends who are
 playing office? No anthropologist has written about this human set of
 behaviour patterns so far as I know. But let's draw a line and make a
 difference between the two neighbouring models, the 'movement' and the
 'corporation'. The NGO of course positions itself in-between those two
 concepts. The movement is unpredictable, diverse, without formal
 leadership, full of informal structures and unexpected side events.
 Today, movements are even more fluid than in the past. They do not seem
 to last longer than some days or weeks. For an outsider, they look
 like a spasmodic uprisings, while underneath there are strong currents
 of cultural, media driven tribes, only noticable to the connaisseur.
 Movements need to gather in space as physical collections of bodies
 otherwise they can't exist. There are no virtual movements.
 The corporate model is in essence alien to the non-profit world of the
 late cold war period. It seems to be a tragic option to turn your work
 into a business operation, and a sometimes fatal one. In times of
 ongoing government budget cuts in arts, culture and social services,
 starting your own company -- so as not to rely on subsidies and grants
 -- is constructed to appear an attractive and truely independent
 option. Most NGOs are run like businesses nowadays. Everyone takes
 seriously the standard glossy image (the dictatorship of design).
 Without a legal structure, a bank account, letterhead and an office
 address you are truely non-existent. This even counts for virtual
 operations on the internet. Turning your efforts into a corporation
 has some advantages, in terms of the possible redistribution of wealth,
 but is also producing envy, anger and resentment (for those who have to
 do it, and for those surrounding it), mainly because there is no
 acceptable alternative in sight. Friends turn into clients or
 employees. There is no radical critique on cultural companies, only
 jealousy, bad feelings and old friendships being destroyed. The price
 of switching to other scales and circles, and possible 'success' (and
 some very temporary and virtual influence) is high.
 In most East European countries there is little to choose or
 contemplate about. There is still only one choice: Soros. The
 subcultural undercurrents of the late eighties did not establish
 themselves, and have dissolved over recent years. The small scale
 alternative economy was not a real option, mainly because there was not
 enough cash circulating. Most initiatives were too small, too weak to
 immediately turn themselves into viable companies. Without being part
 of an oppositional or subcultural movement, the NGO style of dealing
 with the world appears to be the only one left. The Soros Foundation is
 the money source for the time being, particularly in the field of
 culture and media. And they are the prime promoters of the professional
 non-profit institution. George Soros: "The foundations had to become
 more professional. It is a change I have had difficulty accepting. In
 the beginning I wanted to have an anti-foundation foundation and for a
 time I succeeded." But that's long ago. Now, most Soros officials
 critize their own position of being the monopolist when it comes to
 'charity'.
 A Soros critique, in my view, would first of all be a (self) critique
 on the inability of West-European society to deal with the tremendous
 changes after 1989. Why is there no British, French or German
 philanthropist like Soros? Why is there no flexible, decentralized plan
 from Brussels? The disagreement amongst the Europeans is an on-going
 scandal, costing thousands of lives, as in Bosnia and even now, in
 Albania. Another problem of a radical Soros critique is his jewish-
 hungarian background. The only critiques so far have come from the
 nationalist, anti-semite far right: all kinds of conspiracy theories
 have errupted to do with the takeover of media and the stockmarket
 through 'culture' by George Soros. It stopped all debate. Then there is
 the serious lack of (independant) information on what this huge and
 very diverse empire of OSF, OSI, OMRI etc. is doing. The few reports in
 Western newspapers only deal with Soros' financial strategies. The
 debate about his critique on capitalism in the Atlantic Monthly has
 hardly any reference to the Foundations and the work they do. Even his
 own book 'Soros on Soros' is very poor in this respect. One gets a
 strong sense that the interviewers he wrote this book with have never
 been to Eastern Europe, and this might also be the case for all the
 finance journalists who report on Soros.

 This all prolongs the unhealthy monopoly of the Soros Foundation. To
 break this monopoly, alternative models need to be developed based on
 financial diversity. A Soros critique begins with a critique on the
 NGO-model itself. Through the rejection of ritual professionalism we
 could then turn to specific Soros policies and examine them in detail.
 For example: the regional internet program. Within the Soros
 foundations there are dozens of different models (and failures) on how
 to work with the Net. The most common problem is the 'xs4us' policy,
 the so-called 'closed society'. Their internet is only accessable for
 officials and 'organisations', not for individuals. This is the essence
 of the NGO ideology, not specific 'Soros'. The Zamir bbs system, and
 now B92's opennet.org in Belgrade are encouraging exceptions to the NGO
 rule, although they are not fully operating as access providers. Within
 NGOs a lot of money is spent on expensive connectivity (with the money
 flowing away to western telecoms), thereby not creating an independent
 culture of internet providers, to facilitate public access and free
 content. A rich and diverse net culture should work with lots of models
 and ideas, not just that one seductive, seemingly grownup, very
 American idea of the NGO.

 ---
 #  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
 #  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
 #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
 #  more info:  and "info nettime" in the msg body
 #  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: 
+ - Re: Compuserve Postmaster - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Amos J. Danube ) wrote:
: Dear Hungary Netters,
<SNIP>

:    I have never had a Compuserve account so it is a mistery.
                                                      ^^^^^^^
Amos,

the word is spelled "mystery"!!!

i hope this helps!

janos
+ - Re: Suggestions Re: Cancer and ... (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:05 AM 5/28/97 +0200, Miklos wrote, in response to Eva, who was
commenting on Miklos's, Gabor's (?), and Joe's  earlier comments:
Joe:
>> >> > And although some people are alcoholic, alcohol is
>> >> >not addicive like tobacco.
Gabor (?):
>> >> This I don't believe.
Miklos:
>> >It4s is flatly wrong. An alcoholic is an addict FOR EVER. Even if an
>> >alcoholic gives up and is "dry", the smallest amount of alcohol ( e.g.
>> >in a sweet ) bring a complete backlash.
>> >MKH
Eva:
>>         Miklos is right. Just think about AA and what members have to
repeat
>> daily: yes, one little drink and everything is gone. But I am not sure
>> whether this is not the case with smoking.
Miklos:
>Empirically, not. When I started "pausing" ( I must have tried 20 times
>before to give up ) 10-15 years ago, I used to smoke 50+p.d., heavy
>brand. I had 3 cigarettes since. <snip>
>I didn4t enjoy them and I had no desire whatsoever to repeat them.
>MKH

I wanted to comment earlier on my experience, especially in light of Joe's
assertion that tobacco is addictive and alcohol less so. While I don't have
personal experience being dependent on alcohol. I was a smoker for 10
years. Started when I was 20, because my friends in college smoked, and I
thought it looked cool. Smoked about a pack a day for most of that time.
Quit 7 or 8 times, always cold turkey, and never had any "withdrawal"
symptoms. However, after a couple of months, I would always bum one, then
two or three, then people would say, "Why don't you buy your own?" And then
I would be back smoking a pack a day again, because I had them available. I
could not limit my smoking to just a couple a day, as some people do, even
though I didn't enjoy more than 2 or 3 of them - the first one in the
morning always tasted good. And, yes, I would say that I enjoyed having
something to play with and I enjoyed the inhaling and exhaling, but the
flavor of the tobacco - not really! Anyway, my last cig was my roommate's
last sig - August, 1979. When I realized what a lowlife I was that I would
take her last cig, I determined not to buy any more. The next day was
Sunday. I didn't smoke, and I didn't smoke after that. The trick was
getting through the workday at the Base - where all the Navy sailors walked
around with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Once
I made it through there, it was no prob. At no time did I ever have
***any*** physical symptoms from quitting. It was all psychological, and I
still feel that is true. Perhaps there is some dependence on the part of
smokers who smoke two or more packs a day, but that certainly wasn't true
for me. Therefore I tend to feel the need for Nicorette and other such aids
is overrated, and in fact encourages the person to feel that he can't quit
on his own. And it encourages smokers to feel weaker and more dependent,
when in fact they can control it. BTW, I have absolutely no desire to smoke
and cannot stand the smell of cigarettes (let alone cigars!) now - but I
still occasionally dream that I am smoking!

Also BTW, Canadian cigarettes historically have been stronger than American
brands, and I believe the rate of smoking is higher in Canada than in the US.

Thanks for listening . . .

Tisztelettel,

Johanne/Janka

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - Re: Suggestions Re: Cancer and ... (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

E.S. Balogh wrote:
>
> At 07:48 PM 5/26/97 +0200, Miklos Hoffmann wrote:
>
> >> > And although some people are alcoholic, alcohol is
> >> >not addicive like tobacco.
> >>
> >> This I don't believe.
> >
> >It4s is flatly wrong. An alcoholic is an addict FOR EVER. Even if an
> >alcoholic gives up and is "dry", the smallest amount of alcohol ( e.g.
> >in a sweet ) bring a complete backlash.
> >MKH
>
>         Miklos is right. Just think about AA and what members have to repeat
> daily: yes, one little drink and everything is gone. But I am not sure
> whether this is not the case with smoking.

Empirically, not. When I started "pausing" ( I must have tried 20 times
before to give up ) 10-15 years ago, I used to smoke 50+p.d., heavy
brand. I had 3 cigarettes since. Two for not wanting to refuse, one
after an unexpected survival ( I had to leave the motorway at 110 mph
because of a sudden heavy crash in front of mine. The wood was young. ).
I didn4t enjoy them and I had no desire whatsoever to repeat them.
MKH
+ - Signing off till mid of June (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi everybody,
I sign off till mid June and will have a look at Hungary, instead of
discussing about.
Teke care and have a good time!
Miklos
+ - Re: Black Huns (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On 27 May 97 at 21:40, Joe Szalai wrote:

> >"The Ephthalites are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in
> >name; however they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to
> >us.... They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies
> >and countenances which are not ugly." [Procopius]
>
> What evidence did Procopius have?

According to Procopius' "History of the Wars", he learned about
Hephthalites from a Byzantine ambassador that observed the war
between the Persians and the so-called "White Huns." The latter term
was also use do designate the Avars, but I have no idea if there is
an actual connection between the Avars and Hephthalites.

Regards,

Liviu
+ - Re: Compuserve Postmaster - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Janos,

   You have a strange way  trying to make friends.  The message
below is the wrong way. If you are new to the Internet, perhaps
you should find out what "not to do".
                                       Amos

AND Books wrote:
> Amos J. Danube ) wrote:
> : Dear Hungary Netters,
> <SNIP>
>
> :    I have never had a Compuserve account so it is a mistery.
>                                                       ^^^^^^^
> Amos,
>
> the word is spelled "mystery"!!!
>
> i hope this helps!
>
> janos

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