Eva Balogh wrote still using my in the subject:

>I don't know what Ferenc Novak did during the revolution, but I did
>my share before, during, and after the revolution.

But we don't know what Eva did before & during the  revolution  and
"szabadsagharc". We only know what she says she did, and we do know
what she did after. ;-)

NPA.

At 11:17 AM 7/31/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>My local newspaper require a signature before it will print letters to the
>editor.  However, what pisses me off is that the editorials are not signed.
>The French papers do it.  Why can't the English papers?  And, to be quite
>honest, I don't know if the editorials in Hungary are signed.

Hungarian papers do publish signed editorials. The New York Times (as far as
I know) has an editorial board and they publish unsigned editorials to
express the opinion of that board. They do occasionally publish smaller
signed editorial-like pieces.

Gabor D. Farkas

In article >, "Zoli
Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq" > writes:

> The Boston Globe mentioned criticizing NBC's coverage (following the
>gymnastic women's team competition, which had been showed with some 5
>hours delay to USA viewers) that patrons in some bars around here rather
>watched the Canadian broadcast - that way they saw superior commentary
and
>real-time coverage too.
>
>

NBC's coverage really has been horrible. I don't know what the absolute
low point has been -- following Janet Evans around everywhere even when
she wasn't a major factor in the swimming events, almost totally ignoring
anyone from outside the United States or allowing John Tesh airtime. And
those interminably smarmy profiles of the athletes -yech. I've always
enjoyed the CBC whenever I had the opportunity to catch it on a satellite
feed. Makes me wish I could afford a satellite dish.
Sam Stowe

"Ah, it's the fellow who floats
like a lepidoptera and stings
like a hymenoptera..."
-- Dr. Niles Crane

I agree with those who have complained of the constant to-and-fro about the
NPA affair. But I am also disturbed by the amount of plain nastyness of some
who, by keeping up their NPA-baiting, make sure the topic stays with us.  I
mean statements such as:

>Since I work (I did not resign) nowadays I only have access to the Internet
>on weekends.  (Farkas, Hungary#735)

also,

> Maybe Nemenyi was fired (or "forced to resign") because his
>bosses at ANL realized what becomes more and more obvious from his postings
>on Hungary: he does not have the ability of writing  grammatically correct
>sentences in English. (Farkas, Hungary#741)

to mention only two of the more unsavory expressions of poor debating
technique.  There are others who are not much better except for putting their
hatemongering phrases in more civilized language.  They keep accusing NPA of
anti-semitism, but will not engage him in honest debate on most subjects,
preferring instead to hide behind empty demagoguery.  While proudly declaring
themselves as liberals, their minds are closed to a full and free debate.  If
they are truly so intellectually superior, they should have nothing to fear
the outcome of such debate.  They should let us, the other readers of Hungary
decide who is right.  Now, that would be in the true LIBERAL tradition (as I
was taught in college: "the pursuit of knowledge, wherever it may lead").

I happen to agree with NPA that were it not for the constant attacks by the
likes of Farkas, Balogh, Kornai, Stowewrite, Fekete etc. that keep the topic
alive, we could go on to other subjects.  When I sent in my original post
"Who denounced NPA?" I never envisioned a situation where the average size of
a Hungary file would grow to be in the neighborhood of 80 kbytes, and most of
it dealing with this topic!  Enough already!

As for those who seem to relish NPA's misfortune (which was partially
self-inflicted), they should be aware that they are showing their true colors
for all to see.

Ferenc

_JELIKO > wrote:

>One of recent concise description of the site is in "Korai Magyar
>Tortenelmi Lexicon" Editor Kristo Gyula, Akademia 1995. It also mentions
>the Ba~lgrad use. It is no wonder that some of the term survived , in the
>Calea Motilor 83 area a 1,700 grave site from Bulgarian times have been
>found with many lower Danube artifacts. That size cemetery indicates a
>fairly large population. The village apperared to have been burnt in the
>first half of the X century and in the ruins of one house a mounted
>Hungarian grave have been found. Even parts of the Roman ruins consists of
>white stones.

The ability of Hungarian archaeologists to identify one Hungarian
grave among other 1,700 Bulgarian graves is as good as the ability of
Romanian archaeologists to identify several Daco-Roman graves within a
sea of purely Dacian ones ;-)

>In spite of the common Ba~lgrad name, it is nice that the Romanian govt.
>decided to keep the name Iulia (from Gyula). There is no reason for the
>Hungarians always to complain.

I'm sure the Romanian government decision, if it really ever came to
such a decision, had nothing to do with the Hungarian complains.
Anyhow, concerning the Gyula--->Iulia derivation, I for one prefer to
confess ignorance. However, I am amazed by the versatility with which
certain scholars seem to handle linguistic questions according to
their own prejudices (e.g., Gyula--------->Iulia or
Gyula--------->Gelou)

Any other interesting derivations from Gyula one should be aware of ?

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

I don't know. One person's disgusting food may be
another's delicacy. In American, for example, beef
is aged (that is, it is allowed to rot to a certain
point) and then is consumed with lots of bloody,
"raw" stuff in the middle . . . It took getting
used to this when I came to the US many years ago,
but now I like my steak medium rare . . . Blood
sausage (veres hurka) is still made and eaten in
Hungary, I believe, and I really don't think it's
all that disgusting, but that's just my own personal
view. Most of my American friends seem to like
pretty much all things Hungarian . . . but I have
yet to have Americans like or even try "kocsonya,"
a kind of pork jelly . . . to them "jelly" *must*
be sweet . . . And so on. There are cultures where
snakes and even dogs are eaten. Now that seems
disgusting to me . . . Maybe what makes a food
disgusting is that we are just not used to it, to
the very idea of eating such a thing?

Speaking of rotten things, isn't wine a kind of
rotten grape juice? And, boy, do I love it . . .

Steven C. Scheer

Zoli Fekete, in discussing anonymity on the Net, mentions "those nameless
discussions shaping the constitution".  To which Sam Stowe replies thusly:

> Anyway, those "nameless discussions" produced a final document which
> was then publicly discussed and explained by the men who attended the
> Constitutional convention.

I hate to jump in and spoil the fun, but I think the premises of this
argument are backwards.  The Convention of 1787 deliberated in secret, but
the names of the participants were known, and extensively discussed in the
Philadelphia press.  It is the public discussion afterwards that was
conducted largely under pseudonyms.  The most famous collection of campaign
propaganda pieces (collectively known as The Federalist) was produced under
the pseudonym Publius by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison.  We can safely assume
that their reasons for using a pseudonymous identity were honorable.
Whatever their reasons might have been, they surely did not do it in order
to "avoid public scrutiny of public acts", to quote Sam.  Why did they do it?
Why did Joe Klein write pseudonymously?  Was it a marketing ploy, or did he
do it because it allowed him to create a literary persona separate from his
"day job"?  Why did Swift publish much of his satire anonymously?  The same
question can be asked about Voltaire, Twain, Pope, and Lewis Carroll.  Why
did the Bronte sisters write under a pseudonym?  Or Isak Dinesen, or George
Eliot?  I cannot believe Sam would consider these folks potential KKK
recruits.  Entirely above-ground motivations for creating pseudonymous
identities existed long before the Net, and they had precious little to do
with Klansmen's sheets.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

In article >,  says...
>
>In article >,
 says...
>>>Chicken feet is also a Chinese delicacy. I've eaten it in London's
>>>Chinatown (as a several times guest of a Malaysian Chinese family)
>>>usually as one of a long series of snacks (as a kind of brunch.)
>>>It is surprisingly good. Can't say that I've ever had it as part of
>>>an Hungarian course, though.
>
>>You wouldn't be referring to "Dim Sum" by chance?  If so, it is one of
my
>>favourite ways of eating.  Come to think of it, duck feet in Hong Kong
were
>>widely offered during Dim Sum also.
>
>Rings a bell...but talking Chinese cuisine really gets me going...golly,
>the barbecued roast pork, that baked crab..the whole thing on the plate
>(and having to use that shell cracker,) and really good Peking duck is
hard
>to beat, though I've yet to sample duck's feet. It's a bit misleading to
>bracket it all just as *Chinese cuisine*, considering that it includes
>a huge variety of different styles.
>
>This brings me to an interesting point about the ingredients of
Hungarian
>food, (naturally dependent on prevailing borders, politics and economy)
>and though some of my all-time favourite dishes are Hungarian (having
>been brought up with it to some extent,) being a small land-locked
>country recently meant that sea-food hasn't figured on the menu very
>often in my experience of eating there, something I would find hard
>to reconcile myself to, having gotten used to the British taste for
>great varieties of sea-food (and the even better Mediterannean and
>Chinese taste for sea creatures.) Freshwater fish from the Tisza just
>doesn't cut it for me when lightly prepared in sea fish style. (I must
>say though, the only place I've been able to afford real Volga Sturgeon
>caviar was in Kadar's Hungary some time ago.)
>
>Perhaps things are changing, though, because one of the best meals
>I had in Budapest last year was an excellent fish soup [more like a
>stew, really] in a restaurant near Moskva ter. I think that must have
>been mainly freshwater fish, too, but it was really well cooked and
>spicy (as would suit the heavy flesh of Tisza fish.)
>
>To sign off this self-indulgent ramble.....could anyone used to living
>by the coast (say in the Bay Area of California) go back to a purely
>Hungarian diet without those HUGE Pacific scallops, tiger king prawns,
>etc? Next time I'm in San Francisco I must make a point of doing some
>serious shopping at the fish market there and preparing something really
>special...right, Cecilia? :-)  One (very last) final muse: I wonder how
>many gastronomes here regularly drink wine, in true Hungarian style,
with
>their evening and weekend meals?
>
>--
>George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
>Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC
>

We do.  My husband makes quite good wine from concentrate, 4 carboils (2
whites 2 reds) every year.

Incidentally, my best dinners last year in Hungary were also halaszle
(fish soup), I had it 4 times.  It only can be made with fresh water
fish.

Agnes

In article >,
 says...
>
>At 02:34 PM 7/30/96 -0400, Zoli Fekete wrote:
>
>>In our family it was sort of neat - both
>>my parents liking the lower leg (I can't fathom what's good about bones
>>and skin, but they do), while me taking all the drumsticks :-).
>
>I wonder when this was. When there wasn't enough to go around, mothers
had
>the tendency to like legs and other parts with no meat on them. I
clearly
>remember a period when my mother was never hungry around dinner time.
>
>Gabor D. Farkas

It was the same in our house... my mother also insisted on the back and
the wings.

Agnes

I remember my mom made escargot from scratch. Was questionable for a kid
at first. But we were always required to taste food before we rejected it.
Loved it after I tried it.

At 07:08 PM 7/31/96 GMT, Steven C. Scheer wrote:

>The best wines I have ever had were Hungarian wines in Hungary, not
>"palackozott," however, but straight out of barrels in
>those lovely, cool wine cellars . . . In the US, I drink
>California varietals. Either these have improved (for I
>seem to like them now) or my taste has been completely ruined . . .

Your taste has not been ruined.  California varietals are excellent.

My favorites are German Spatlese and Auslese wines.  Spatlese wines go well
with chicken, frog legs, mild cheeses and cold meats.

Joe Szalai

At 03:34 PM 7/31/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>After reading Apri Bamby's post I feel kinda hurt and left out.  What does
>one have to do to get on his list?

        To have blinkers on but not the kind you wear. The other kind.

        Eva Balogh

Dear Andy,

        For Pete's sake, what are you apologizing about? You are smarter
than most of the people you and I have been arguing with. Don't let yourself
to be intimidated. I always tell people that I am not an intellectual. And I
am saying this by observing some of the so-called intellectuals in
university circles!! A pitiful lot. Most of them couldn't tie their own
shoes. They don't have no common sense whatsoever. And, most importantly,
these so-called super liberals usually treat ordinary folks like dirt!

        Eva B.

_JELIKO > wrote:

>> >The now mainly Slav (icized)
>> >Bulgarians were the ones who had control of the eastern half of Hungary
>> >at
>> >the time of the "Honfoglalas", as an example Csongrad is a known extant
>> >Bulgarian stronghold at the time of the conquest. (At that time Serbia
>> >was
>> >centered further south than it is today).

>> That's not what contemporary sources are saying (see DAI, Regnum
>> Sclavorum, Bavarian Geographer, and many others).

>OK, lets start with the DAI (I am using the Dumbarton Oaks edition of
>Greek/English text)

>further on the DAI discusses where the Hungarians (Turks) live. "But the
>Turks expelled by the Pechenegs, came and settled in the land where they
>now dwell in. In this place are various landmarks of the olden days: first,
>there is the bridge of the emperor Trajan, where Turkey begins; (that much
>for the Anonymus legends) then three days journey from this same bridge
>there is Belegrad, in which is the tower of the holy and great Constantine
>,the emperor; then again at the running of the river, is the renowned
>Sirmium by name, a journey of two days from Belegrad..." Now please note
>these were landmarks in the area where the Turks now live.

Why did you stop here?

" ...and beyond [i.e. above the these landmarks] lies megale Moravia,
the unbaptized, which the Turks have blotted out, but over which in
former days Sphendoplokos used to rule. Such are the landmarks along
the Ister river."

It follows that the one having control over the eastern half of
Hungary, at the time of Honfoglalas,  was not the Bulgarian czar but
Sventopolk and/or his inheritors. And the other paragraphs confirm the
same thing.

>That the Bulgarians were in the Carpathian basin before the Hungarian
>arrival is diffcult to contest.

Yes, but those are the Pannonian Onogurs-Bulgars, who arrived there in
the 2nd half of the 7th century, not Asparuch's Danubian Bulgars.Let's
see what Simon de Keza says:

At the end there rose a Prince in Poland [i.e. Pannonia] by the name
of Svatopluk, who was Marot's son [c.f., Anonymus' Men-Marot, the one
with the Bulgarian heart,  whose grandfather was Marot], and who after
conquering Bratka, ruled over Bulgarians and the Messinians [i.e.,
inhabitors of Upper Moesia].


Regards,

Liviu Iordache

In article >,
 says...
>At 01:57 AM 7/31/96 GMT, George Szaszvari wrote, Re: Rare Delicacies (Was
>disgusting food/A growing list)
>>One (very last) final muse: I wonder how
>>many gastronomes here regularly drink wine, in true Hungarian style, with
>>their evening and weekend meals?

>I don't.  When we have guests for dinner a bottle of wine *may* appear.
>It seems that most Canadians prefer beer, even during meals.
>The last time I was in Budapest I overheard some wine bar staff lament
>the fact that fewer Hungarians were drinking wine.  I don't know if this
>is true or not but I've met some younger Hungarians at the University of
>Waterloo and beer was clearly their choice of beverage.  I know that most
>people like Canadian beer but was that the only reason they weren't
>drinking wine?

My experience too. Standards must be slipping ;-) I prefer a good wine
with most foods, but a decent beer, or two, is also acceptable! A lot
of youngsters seem to think that beer is more *cool* and *with it* than
wine. Little do they know ;-)  Perhaps it's also the price of the stuff
since the explosion in urbanisation of populations. Wine could have been
much cheaper in the past. Local wines in Greece, were (and still are, I
suspect) certainly very much cheaper than beer. But this is also true of
Hungary, isn't it? Hmmm..

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC

At 06:27 AM 7/30/96 -0700, you wrote:

>I am really glad I am a vegetarian!! By the way, if we are what we eat, how
>would you define Hungarians??
>
>Anna M.

Dear Anna:

Superb question - could well start a "spicy" new thread or 3rd world war?
For sure though, a picture of a limp celery stick does not come to mind when
trying to define Hungarians.  (Passionate, intelligent, hot blooded,
tempermental and opinionated does though... whoops, not to leave out great
looking, dedicated, romantic and most capable....must be all that paprika
garlic and hot peppers - or is it the mushrooms and goose fat....and of
course, not at all biased?

On the more serious side, if you really look into the Hungarian Cuisine, you
will find that consumption of vegetables in general and meatless dishes are
far more widely used than are in North America.  In fact, several vegetarian
friends have become elated to have discovered the extremely varied and
imaginative methods of the Hungarian Cuisine to suit their lifestyles.   In
addition, if you've been following this thread, it began with people's
recollections from eons ago.  Like anywhere in the world things have changed
dramatically - but as you can see for yourself, memories built around food
are still vivid.

Regards,
Aniko.

At 12:43 PM 7/31/96 PDT, Jeliko wrote:

>In spite of the common Ba~lgrad name, it is nice that the Romanian govt.
>decided to keep the name Iulia (from Gyula). There is no reason for the
>Hungarians always to complain.

        But, isn't it so that in the last, let's say, one and a half
centuries, there has been a concerted effort on the part of the Romanians
(Romanian goverments?) to Latinize names. For example, the name of
Transylvania itself. I always found it very compelling that the original
Romanian name of Transylvania was something like Ardenau(?), obviously
coming from Erde'ly, which is Finno-Ugric in origin. I find it very
compelling (I am sorry, Liviu) that the Romanians called Transylvania by a
name which was Hungarian in origin. Because if the Romanians had been in
Transylvania all along, it would have made sense that the Hungarians, the
new comers, would pick up the original Romanian name of the place. At least,
this is how it is when it comes to geographic names in general.

        Eva Balogh

In article >,  says...

>In article >, George Antony
> writes:
>> the infamous Pa'lpusztai cheese: the one that
>>is so mature that some consider it off, reminiscent of a block of
>>Camembert left out in the Sun for a few days in Summer and dried up
>>so that it is not runny.

>Thanks, George. And just when I thought we had plumbed the bottom of the
>cuisine barrel. I bet Pa'lpusztai works miracles when applied to gaping
>wounds or against staph infections.

Hey, should you like cheese that smells *off*, then try Limburgs
(Dutch/Flemish) It stinks something vile, but is delicious. My
favourite cheese (not quite so vile smelling) is Chaumes (French.)
The more mature and soft, the better!

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 Well, since JFerengi just gave the pithy version of it, I'll allow
myself the luxury of verbosity here - you've been warned ;-)!
 Sam, I trust that you know better than having me to explain all this. I
tell you I can play patient longer than anyone keep with playing dense, so
the sooner you quit the better off you'd be ;-).

On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Stowewrite wrote:
> >The question is the inherent
> >difficulty in connecting online personality with real-life one. While, at
> >this point, I have reason to trust that you are indeed the same Sam Stowe
> >I may find off-line - in principle the 'stowewrite' string does not say
> >more, nor less, than 'jferengi' or 'mpflerr' or 'Szabo_III_Janos' or
> >'Jeliko'. That JFerengi made a choice of writing under a pen name (and
> > one that reveals itself to be so, incidentally  <sznip> you may not have
> > found it out at all) should not be a factor in judging her/his/its posts.
> >
> We seem to have some disagreement about what constitutes signing one's
> posts.
 Sure we do; we also differ on which one of us is wrong about it too ;-(.

> You want to confine a discussion of signing to what's on the
> message header.
 No I do not. Nor do I confine it to what else you may be putting inside
the message body, as you are errenously proceeding below:

> This totally overlooks the fact that many of us, yourself
> included, post our real names in the body of our messages.
 First of all, this is a non sequitor with respect to your main lemma
that using a pen name is ab ovo irresponsible. Second of all, how do we
know that what looks like real is indeed real? Would repeating it inside
make it doubly sure? And, back to the original question, why "Sam Stowe"
is a better real name than "JFerengi" or "Jeliko" (which I always
considered a pen name, although I might be wrong about this - either way,
his writings are as impeccable as they come).

> And many of us,
> yourself included, have not been taken in when a frequent flyer on this
> list tries to worm his way back in using a pseudonym.
 I guess a little trick of guilt by association can't hurt your case much
;-(, but how this comes in here? No, we were not taken - so then what's
wrong with pseudonyms at large? And, theoretically, some or all the
silli.con personas might have been actual separate persons, or they may
have even gotten someone outside of PA's circle to take up the flag and
regurgiate the same all over again, from actual individuals using "real
names" at AOL or wherever else - how would have that made the situation
any better in the absence of any pseudonyms and dubious accounts?

> I think it is worthwhile in judging posts when someone makes
> controversial statements, yet cannot seem to summon up the courage to put
> his or her real name with them.
 It may be worthwhile to you, but I do not accept it as universal judging
criteria. There may be occasions where I give more weight to an opinion
backed up by someone's real-life persona - but if the poster forgoes that
I can understand, as they do how they give up some currency that way. You
may not know how much harassment one can make his/herself gotten into the
thick of the Net; unwillingness to become subject to that is no basis
for evaluating one's postings (nor character, for that matter).

> I think it offers us important evidence of the poster's motivations
> for making the post and for desiring to avoid public scrutiny for what he
> or she has said in a public forum.
 So let's say I'm assured that you are "Sam Stowe" - what impact does
that have on your motivations and our opinion on it, and how does it
place you under public scrutiny?

> Doesn't your local newspaper require a
> signature before it will print letters to the editor?
 Well, some do and some don't. I believe any would withold names per
request. None of the serious ones make it easy to call the writer up and
scrutinize them over the phone, though (how would I know which one of the
S. Stowe's of Boston to connect with anyways). In any case, such letters
should be read for the opinions presented not for the flimsy factual
content which is typically slanted at best.
 On the other hand in yellow journalism you can see the more obviously
fake something the more authentically "real name"-y support appear to
purportedly verify it. Just the yesterday I got this sensational report on
how Clintonites murdered dozens of people - the pamphlet was complete with
scrores of witnesses, experts, real-name editor with phone number and
subscription address. Same holds with things like The New American story
on the Oklahoma bombing as inside demolition work, or with whatever
Hungarian rag cooked up the false news of hundreds of thousands foreign
Jews set out to colonialize Hungary (which tale then was spread to the
Internet with known accounts of established reputation). So how was that
connection between veracity and real names again ;-<?

> If so, you need to
> call them up and raise hell with them just to maintain your intellectual
> consistency.

 You mean my consistency with your idea, don't you ;-)...

> > Well, if you assume veracity based on what you think of the poster's
> >identity, then you're big trouble already. For me anything to be accepted
> >as objectively true it should be independently verifyable, and preferably
> >based on documented facts - if it is, then anyone can check it no matter
> >who said what.
> And independently verifiable, documented facts include attribution of who
> said what. Otherwise we venture into the Cecilian Straits.
 It's independently verifiable that JFerengi's posts are indeed by
JFerengi - that's not an iota different than you being Sam Stowe.

> >> I take concept of the net as a public forum a little more seriously
> >> than you do.                                              ^^^^^^^^^
> > You mispelt "naively" above ;-(. I am all for the public forum. I am
> >also for the concept of personal responsibility (have you verifyably signed
> >your digital writing yet, incidentally ;-)?), too. I just can't take
> >seriously the idea that choosing one's username would have much to do
> >with either!
> This follows logically from your inability to take seriously anything else
> that's said on the net and your unwillingness to critically scrutinize
> what's served up to you for signs of authenticity.

 Talk about missing the point big time ;-<. I do take a lot of things
seriously (perhaps too much - Rule #1 out there is that much of it is
not). But what you are serving up is failing the most basic test of
criticism. The authenticity of "Sam Stowe" hinges on the very same thing
as that of "JFerengi" - that I can email either of you, ask for you phone
number, SSN and tax records whatnot which you may or may not provide
(thus both of you are equally more easily accessible than in your
newspaper example, incidentally). Note that AOL will not vouch for you
just like they won't for her/him/it - on the other hand, would any nasty
things you're envisioning facilitated by anonymity happen to occur, they
would co-operate to bring either of you to justice in the court of law.

> Either what happens on
> here is real or it isn't. If you believe it is real, then you've been
> arguing just to be contrary. If you believe it isn't, then what the hell
> do you care? In either case, speaking of signs, you're showing signs of
> desperation when you start reeling out spelling trolls. Is your customary
> sang-froid losing a little of its mojo?

 Maybe I'm under some spell, but the above literally doesn't make any
sense to me - is there some code to it?

> Note that in your last sentence
> here, you are once again confusing usernames with signing one's posts.
 No, you are confounding the issues. 'JFerengi' could've chosen a
real-sounding name and put the same inside the body of the messages just
as well. This would not be "signing" in a real sense, but then it isn't
so much in your case either - but according to your criteria, making you
believe to see a "real name" it would've raised your opinion on the
content of the poster as well as the personal courage of her/him/it.
 JFerengi chose a cute name, made that a username and signs off with that.
We know, as well we can, that articles submitted that way represent
her/him/it, just like we know similarly about yours. So what is so
different in cyberspace?

> And I haven't reached a sufficient level of paranoia and
> technical expertise to either want to use PGP signatures or know how to
> use it if I did. How about sending me some info on how to do it?
 I thought in the foregoing you meant say how important it is to
make verifiable digital signitures, which is what I am doing with PGP.
A good starting point for the PGP technical diddly-do is
<http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp>;, or for a more down-to-earth start see
<http://www.well.com/user/abacard/pgp.html>;.

 I could pick apart the rest of your arguments, as they were with KKK
etc., but suddenly I'm feeling merciful so I leave for now :-)...
- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMf/oNMQ/4s87M5ohAQG+nQH/U9DqTpvplwUeLj9Le5HONGnEjmi00+dT
yS1P4zybvIFxweZ7ap2doC15s4nlXJ7cq5n+CGF0Soe5kS2Bo4E79w==
=oVNK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 04:32 PM 7/31/96 -0400, Zoltan Szekely wrote:

>As I heard, when he got his infamous head injury,
>he decided not to inform his helper about the
>possibility of contacting HIV from his (Louganis')
>head injury. And he let his blood flow into the
>pool, where other athletes also jumped into.
>
>If it is not irresponsibility, then what is
>irresponsibility!?

You're right.  He should have told his helper about his HIV status.

The reason I asked the question is because I thought that you were blaming
him for getting HIV in the first place.  Since that doesn't appear to be the
case, I accept your explanation.

Joe Szalai

In article >, 
says...
>       If you read my note above carefully you will notice that I
>    didn't even mention Eva's name.  So it is difficult for me to
>    be the leader of her adoration gang.
>       But I have objected  to your belittling  the importance of
>    alumni contribution to  education in this country.  The least
>    you could do is find out before  you use it as a tool of your
>    attack on somebody.  But at least  you may use  the excuse of
>    being on another continent. But what is Joe's excuse?
>                                                            Amos

What are you on about? The context was Eva Balogh's inclusion of
her alumni contributions to help make her point.

How on earth do you see my comment as the *belittling* of alumni
contributions in general? Don't be absurd. In the context of the
Szalai-Balogh exchange about funding and taxes, etc, in education,
I asked a question about whether alumni contributions was germane
to her argument. I'm quite aware of the importance of alumni
contributions in Britain and everywhere else. Some influential
alumni here were my former proteges, so I suggest you consider
your attempts to belittle others more carefully before you make
a much bigger fool of yourself than you already have done.

As for the leader of the adoration gang, you contradict yourself.
Did you not make a posting a week or two back admiring Eva's
sense in one of her arguments? And what are you doing now in this
unprovoked personal attack on me concerning a simple question
about a comment made by Eva Balogh? You say that I attacked Eva
Balogh in the posting, then in your own defence you claim the
posting has nothing to do with Eva Balogh...you're either not
terribly bright or you're a provocative prankster posting a very
transparent troll: with friends like you, Eva will not need any
more critics.. you'll bury her by association. Keep it up ;-)

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC

In article >, George Antony
> writes:

> the infamous Pa'lpusztai cheese: the one that
>is so mature that some consider it off, reminiscent of a block of
>Camembert left out in the Sun for a few days in Summer and dried up
>so that it is not runny.
>
>

Thanks, George. And just when I thought we had plumbed the bottom of the
cuisine barrel. I bet Pa'lpusztai works miracles when applied to gaping
wounds or against staph infections.
Sam Stowe

"Ah, it's the fellow who floats
like a lepidoptera and stings
like a hymenoptera..."
-- Dr. Niles Crane

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Ferenc Novak wrote:
> alive, we could go on to other subjects.  When I sent in my original post
> "Who denounced NPA?" I never envisioned a situation where the average size of
> a Hungary file would grow to be in the neighborhood of 80 kbytes, and most of
> it dealing with this topic!  Enough already!

 I see. So the topic is worth discussing insofar as dark hints could be
made to smear anyone on the wrong side of NPA, but not any further. Why
am I not surprised that this is how you envision discussion ;-<?!

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgCZs8Q/4s87M5ohAQEobgH/SyirPseFwlEJ294+pVu4dNsoa6ixCpHg
nQzMvA/ooCJgDm0Wk26cU35OuKCIM/kcdhGc5NQRLK+7/7cassj+Fw==
=VpgW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dear fellow-listmembers:

In my opinion it's a nice piece of sophistry to say that one cannot be an
anti-Semite if one does not attack Arabs, but only Jews.  For, whatever we
may think about the logicality of it, the word has been used, at least
since the 1870s in Europe, to describe precisely the kind of agitation
and advocacy (in political, economic or social realms) of measures against
the Jews, supposed "Jewish influences," "culture" and so on ad nauseam,
that the word is usually used to describe today.  Of course one can be
critical of specific actions of specific person who are Jews, or of the
policies of the State of Israel, without deserving the label anti-Semite.
When, however, what one observes is a pattern of general, consistent,
and persistent attitudes, then I think one would be justified in suggesting
that something, somewhere, stinks.

To try to confuse the issue by dragging in the other meanings of the term
Semitic (from professional ethnography or linguistics) is a classic use
of red herrings.  Word meanings are given by use (here I am happy to be
corrected by the professional linguists on the list;-); the term was
coined and has been used since to mean anti-Jewish attitudes, behaviour
and especially agitation, so that's what it means, whether one likes it
or not.

Of course since the unlamented demise of Der Fuehrer, it has become a bit
less fashionable, except in certain select circles, to avow anti-Semitism
as an open political creed, so it has to be carried out much more subtly.
Obfuscating meanings can unfortunately be a useful means to this end.

Personally, I suspect anti-Semitism to be present wherever a point is made
about the Jewishness of a figure in a context where what the person _is_
is irrelevant, and what ought to be focussed on is what one _does_.  A case
in point, I believe, is the constant harping on the Jewishness of many of
the leaders of political radicalism in early 20th century Europe--including
but not limited to Communism.  Few of these figures were practicing,
religious Jews, so their Jewishness as religious belief is irrelevant to
their politics.  Since many of their fellow-Jews were _not_ Communists
or were conservative to moderate politically, there is no sense in which
"racial" or cultural Jewish identity is particularly relevant to their
politics.  From a social-historical point of view, given the attitudes
of the states and societies in which they lived, it doesn't surprise me
that many Jews joined others in movements directed against those regimes
and social orders.  That factor does not, in my view, justify the kind of
identification of these revolutionary movements with "Jewishness" in some
generalized way, and when someone cannot write Leon Trotsky without adding
in parentheses (Bronstein) then I think either that person must be held to
using originally-given names for all public figures who adopt for whatever
reason pseudonyms (whether they post from siliconvalley.com or not:-)),
or I think one can justifiably suspect anti-Semitism.

Just a few idle thoughts...

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

In article >,  says...
>>At 01:57 AM 7/31/96 GMT, George Szaszvari wrote, Re: Rare Delicacies (Was
>>disgusting food/A growing list)
>>>One (very last) final muse: I wonder how
>>>many gastronomes here regularly drink wine, in true Hungarian style, with
>>>their evening and weekend meals?

>Well, I am afraid I have to confess to being partial
>to all kinds of alcoholic beverages. I must even admit
>that I drink wine with every evening meal (perhaps more
>than I should . . . I mean, doctors say that a small
>glass or two is drinking in moderation . . . I am afraid
>that's not drinking at all . . . :-)

Great minds think alike ;-)

>The best wines I
>have ever had were Hungarian wines in Hungary, not
>"palackozott," however, but straight out of barrels in
>those lovely, cool wine cellars . . .

Right. I've yet to have the pleasure of drinking straight from the
barrel :-) (the mind boggles) in Hungary (Greece, often, even trod
it there) but I've had it served from the barrel rather than the
bottle in Budapest, though it's probably not quite the same. Uh,
I can't really remember how good it was; I wonder why... :-)

> In the US, I drink
>California varietals. Either these have improved (for I
>seem to like them now) or my taste has been completely ruined . . .

Some Californian wines are pretty good these days. BTW are you
resident in California? Maybe we can enjoy a *session*, or two,
together sometime when I'm next over there? (note the organization
in my header.)

>Cheers,

Salute!

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC

Eva Balogh wrote:


>Arpi Rambo, a well known correspondent on the Forum, tried three
>times to post the material here to HUNGARY but failed. He failed because he
>doesn't seem to realize that one must subscribe to HUNGARY in order to post.
>In any case, due to his inability to post this piece in HUNGARY, he decided
>to publish it in the Forum, "tudvan hogy akiknek szol, ergus szemekkel
>olvassak a mindennapi Forumot." [knowing that those to whom it is addressed
>read (sic!)  the daily Forum with ergus (sic!) eyes.] Properly they "watch"
>the Forum like a hawk. Because a lot of people actually is not reading the
>Forum--they have sensitive stomachs--here it is.

Wow, you guys are real friends. I had no idea, You Eva and Rambo Arpi are
so close, that you help him out like that. Hey I was wrong. Eva is a
fair player. ;-)

>I must say Arpi Rambo is much more colorful in Hungarian. And his
>grammar and vocabulary is also a tad better in his mother tongue.

No problem, I guess. Eva can translate Arpi's English to English, and
in return, Arpi can translate Eva's Hungarian to Hungarian. See how
nice little Hungarian family we are? :-)))))

NPA.

This morning I received a long list of un-sub messages. Someone
in my name un-subscribed me of all, the HIX. lists. It was done
early afternoon, when I was not even around my computer. Someone
used my account, which I reported to the proper authorities.

So guys, can you find something better to play with? I can suggest
few alternatives. :-)

NPA.

Dear fellow-listmembers,

It's beginning to stike me as a curious kind of reverse messianism to
think that any possible criticism of, for example, anti-Semitism, amounts
only, solely, and intentionally to "Hungary-bashing" as I think the word
of choice puts it.

Well, let's leave aside the question of whether uncritically praising
everything about one's country is genuine patriotism (hmm... a little
USA-bashing going on just now re: Olympic coverage?  Criticism with which
I -- rootless cosmopolite that I am! -- agree entirely?).  Just how is
Hungary supposed to be unique in that political anti-Semitism reared its
ugly head there in the last part of the nineteenth century, and remained
a powerful factor until the end of WWII, and still influences (alas!) the
attitudes of some people today?  Just how does that experience differ
from that of France in the same time period (Gobineau's racist theories,
the newpaper _La libre parole_, the Dreyfus affair), Germany (Karl Duehring),
Austria (Lueger, von Schoenerer, the Czech National Socialists), and so on?
Bohemia had its Hilsner affair that was easily a match for the Tiszaeszlar
trial.  (BTW, I noticed a brief story in one of the Czech papers that the
Jewish community in the Czech republic was considering trying to get the
conviction of Hilsner overturned legally -- at the time he was released
early on an act of imperial clemency by Franz Joseph).  Not to mention
the situation in Imperial Russia where organized violence against Jews
begins in the 1880s and peaks around 1906 in the waves of pogroms?

By saying this I do not mean to excuse the anti-Semitism of any country,
including the history of anti-Semitism in Hungary, but to deny the kind
of national narcissism that considers it specifically Hungary-bashing to
decry it.  It is part of the nation's past, it must be subject to that
process of "coming to terms with history" that we all face.

That doesn't particularly amount to "Hungary-bashing" in my book.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

  wrote:

>>alive, we could go on to other subjects.  When I sent in my original post
>>"Who denounced NPA?" I never envisioned a situation where the average size
>>of a Hungary file would grow to be in the neighborhood of 80 kbytes, and
>>most of it dealing with this topic!  Enough already!

>I see. So the topic is worth discussing insofar as dark hints could be
>made to smear anyone on the wrong side of NPA, but not any further. Why
>am I not surprised that this is how you envision discussion ;-<?!

But I enjoy all the crap thrown around by the Gang of Four and their
ilk. If Mr. Fekete wants to keep that topic alive, ...good for him. It
doesn't bother me a bit. And about the stupid game of messing with my
account. That can be a bit dangerous. :-)

NPA.

At 09:31 PM 7/31/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Eva Balogh wrote still using my in the subject:
>
>>I don't know what Ferenc Novak did during the revolution, but I did
>>my share before, during, and after the revolution.
>
>But we don't know what Eva did before & during the  revolution  and
>"szabadsagharc". We only know what she says she did, and we do know
>what she did after. ;-)
>
>NPA.

        Unlike you, my friend, I have independent confirmation what I did
during the revolution. You may want to write to the 1956 Institute and ask
his director.

        Eva Balogh

At 08:03 AM 8/1/96 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:
>Dear fellow-listmembers:
>
>In my opinion it's a nice piece of sophistry to say that one cannot be an
>anti-Semite if one does not attack Arabs, but only Jews.  For, whatever we
>may think about the logicality of it, the word has been used, at least
>since the 1870s in Europe, to describe precisely the kind of agitation
>and advocacy (in political, economic or social realms) of measures against
>the Jews, supposed "Jewish influences," "culture" and so on ad nauseam,
>that the word is usually used to describe today.  Of course one can be
>critical of specific actions of specific person who are Jews, or of the
>policies of the State of Israel, without deserving the label anti-Semite.
>When, however, what one observes is a pattern of general, consistent,
>and persistent attitudes, then I think one would be justified in suggesting
>that something, somewhere, stinks.

        This is usually the last refuge and not a very good one at that. A
somewhat similar sophistry is going on when anyone talks about national
socialism, fascism, Hungarism, the Iron Guard, and what not. There is always
someone who will try to give you a lecture about the "huge" differences
between the ideologies and they you that you are an ignoramus for using, for
example, nazism instead of Hungarism. I received quite a lecture myself
about this when one of the admirers of Szalasi read one of my articles and
found that I didn't use the word the "proper" word, Hungarism, to describe
Szalasi's ideology.

        Eva Balogh

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Hugh Agnew wrote:
> Few of these figures were practicing,
> religious Jews, so their Jewishness as religious belief is irrelevant to
> their politics.

 This of course is particularly true of contemporary Hungarian life: the
vast majority of Hungarians with Jewish extraction have not maintained
religious (nor ethnic) ties for many generations. But then for certain
circles what really counts is whether your politics could be considered
serving Jewishness and/or "liberalism" - as in 'cosmopolitan
anti-nationalism' -, not whether there's any objective (as much as racist
categorization may be called such) basis for the categorization...

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgC03sQ/4s87M5ohAQHFuQIArlL0/1U72fLBTrPCHxoQBSL5Ddj8U5Un
5mJkjPSrLQ874UDgk3ZtAwT6z2Ss+O8dsByoWWRhmidQcnvbtsrBQA==
=TBj1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article >,  says...
>

>>The best wines I
>>have ever had were Hungarian wines in Hungary, not
>>"palackozott," however, but straight out of barrels in
>>those lovely, cool wine cellars . . .
>
>Right. I've yet to have the pleasure of drinking straight from the
>barrel :-) (the mind boggles) in Hungary (Greece, often, even trod
>it there) but I've had it served from the barrel rather than the
>bottle in Budapest, though it's probably not quite the same. Uh,
>I can't really remember how good it was; I wonder why... :-)
>
Goodness gracious, I stand corrected. Of course, I had meant to say
*served* out of barrels . . . :-)

>> In the US, I drink
>>California varietals. Either these have improved (for I
>>seem to like them now) or my taste has been completely ruined . . .
>
>Some Californian wines are pretty good these days. BTW are you
>resident in California? Maybe we can enjoy a *session*, or two,
>together sometime when I'm next over there? (note the organization
>in my header.)
>
>>Cheers,
>
>Salute!
>
>--
>George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
>Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC
>
Thanks for the invitation. I would take you up on it, too,
but unfortunately I live in Southwestern Indiana, not, alas,
in California . . .

Steven C. Scheer

At 10:17 PM 7/31/96 -0400, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>I happen to agree with NPA that were it not for the constant attacks by the
>likes of Farkas, Balogh, Kornai, Stowewrite, Fekete etc. that keep the topic
>alive, we could go on to other subjects.  When I sent in my original post
>"Who denounced NPA?" I never envisioned a situation where the average size of
>a Hungary file would grow to be in the neighborhood of 80 kbytes, and most of
>it dealing with this topic!  Enough already!

        You have a strange way of thinking. Nemenyi two months ago, almost
to the day, posts a long piece in which he makes accusations that
someone/someones from HIX have denounced him at the workplace and as a
result these nasty people deprived him of his livelihood. Hints here, hints
there, eventually several names float about. For good measure Nemenyi goes
to the Hungarian Radio with the same accusation. To this day it has been
impossible to ascertain the real facts. And according to you the accused
people on this list whose name has been dragged into the mud over and over
again should simply drop the subject and sit down and have a nice, rational
discussion about Nemenyi's ideas about history.

        Eva Balogh

At 07:14 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Gabor Farkas wrote:

>Hungarian papers do publish signed editorials. The New York Times (as far as
>I know) has an editorial board and they publish unsigned editorials to
>express the opinion of that board. They do occasionally publish smaller
>signed editorial-like pieces.

        Yes, but I see editorials in Magyar Narancs, signed: Szerk. Of
course, I don't know whether it stands for "szerkeszto," or "szerkesztoseg."
That is: editor, or editorial board. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

        Eva B.

At 08:48 AM 8/1/96 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:

>By saying this I do not mean to excuse the anti-Semitism of any country,
>including the history of anti-Semitism in Hungary, but to deny the kind
>of national narcissism that considers it specifically Hungary-bashing to
>decry it.  It is part of the nation's past, it must be subject to that
>process of "coming to terms with history" that we all face.

        This is exactly what some people refuse to do: "coming to terms with
history," or looking at ourselves honestly in the face.

        Eva Balogh

Eva Balogh wrote:

>You have a strange way of thinking. Nemenyi two months ago, almost
>to the day, posts a long piece in which he makes accusations that
>someone/someones from HIX have denounced him at the workplace and as a
>result these nasty people deprived him of his livelihood.

The subject was this list, ..Hungary. I ask Eva to show me just one
line of may case  posted on this list by me. There were none! So what
the heck Eva is talking about? I had discussion on the case on Forum,
but not Hungary. I had no intention to start a debate on the subject
on Hungary list.

And I did not make accusation. There were facts, so they were mentioned.

>Hints here, hints there, eventually several names float about. For good
>measure Nemenyi goes to the Hungarian Radio with the same accusation.

Again. There is no accusation, but a case. I would like Eva to quote just
one line from the radio report, where I name the denouncers by name. If
Eva can't do it, than she is miserable liar.

>To this day it has been impossible to ascertain the real facts.

Patient Eva. Hold your horses. Why are you so nervous ? I know the real
facts, and it is satisfying me. :-) In due time, everybody will learn
the facts. Until I want you to run around and make a fool of yourself
raging on this subject. :-)

>And according to you the accused people on this list whose name has been
>dragged into the mud over and over again should simply drop the subject
>and sit down and have a nice, rational discussion about Nemenyi's ideas
>about history.

Names like yours? Don't make yourself appearing important in this case.
You missed this train Eva. That is why you started your snooping around
after the case was on the move already. Your little correspondence
traffic to people about me, and your communication with Istvan N. at ANL.
was a late comer's try. And about the trigger man and his buddies....I
did not give out their names on any HIX. lists. And mentioning how
"wolfish" ;-) some people could be? Oh that was proven by now, wasn't it?
So Eva, I ask you to write, and write about this topic. Bore everybody to
death by bringing it up & up again & again. Trust me. The case is still
in motion. So you will get, what you want to know. Just hold your horses.

NPA.

At 05:32 PM 7/31/96 -0700,  Eva Balogh wrote:

>At 03:34 PM 7/31/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>>After reading Apri Bamby's post I feel kinda hurt and left out.  What does
>>one have to do to get on his list?
>
>        To have blinkers on but not the kind you wear. The other kind.
>
>        Eva Balogh

I don't get it, Eva.  Care to elaborate?

Joe Szalai

Eva Balogh wrote:

>There is always someone who will try to give you a lecture about
>the "huge" differences between the ideologies and they you that
>you are an ignoramus for using, for example, nazism instead of
>Hungarism.

I always thought that Nazism was a GERMAN NATIONAL socialism based
party, meanwhile Hungarism was a HUNGARIAN NATIONAL socialism based
party. Both had their OWN nationalistic agenda.

>I received quite a lecture myself about this when one of the admirers
>of Szalasi read one of my articles and found that I didn't use the
>word the "proper" word, Hungarism, to describe Szalasi's ideology.

That fellow never claimed to be an admirer. You slapped with him, with
your label. But you Eva, simply ran away from the argument. You lost
miserably. And believe me, posting on this list against him is a wasted
time. Why don't you go back to the original platform of the argument
and win your case there? Because you are too little for that!

And he was right! What did you for the word "Hungarism" instead? :-)

NPA.

_JELIKO > wrote:

>Liviu Iordache writes:

>> The ability of Hungarian archaeologists to identify one Hungarian
>> grave among other 1,700 Bulgarian graves is as good as the ability of
>> Romanian archaeologists to identify several Daco-Roman graves within a
>> sea of purely Dacian ones ;-)

>Well, next to the Slavic (Bulgarian ?) cemetery, there is a 500 grave
>Hungarian cemetery also so one grave does not have bring resolution.
>However, when a grave is sunk into the remnants of a dwelling, it does
>assist in timing the grave and the dwelling.

Sure, is telling you that probably the dwelling is older than the
grave, but this relationship has little bearing on the ethnicity of
the deceased. The funeral rite is typical of nomads, but where the
Hungarians of Arpad the only nomads roaming around Ba~lgrad in the
firs half of the 10th century? The isolated position with respect to
the other 500 Hungarian graves speaks for the contrary.

>>I am amazed by the versatility with which
>>certain scholars seem to handle linguistic questions according to
>>their own prejudices (e.g., Gyula--------->Iulia or
>>Gyula--------->Gelou)

>I hope I do not have to use smilies for you to indicate sarcasm in
>either direction.

No misunderstanding here, but since I got the right nuance of your
"Alba Iulia" comment I though you would not mind a smiley-lacking, but
nevertheless friendly, irony ;-)

>> Any other interesting derivations from Gyula one should be aware of ?

>Yes, that was my name before I anglicised it; and beware I am half
>Transylvanian, but I did not stay to become Gelou.

Let's leave the Apponyi laws aside for the moment, and focus on this
Gyula---Gelou derivation. Was Anonymus the first Romanizing agent or
the interpretation of his work, by Hungarian historians, a clear case
of forced, but unconvincing, Magyarization? ;-)

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

_JELIKO > wrote:

>> " ...and beyond [i.e. above the these landmarks] lies megale Moravia,
>> the unbaptized, which the Turks have blotted out, but over which in
>> former days Sphendoplokos used to rule. Such are the landmarks along
>> the Ister river."

>OK but let's add the continuation of the sentence "but the regions above
>these,

Constantine describes the rivers that are north of these landmarks
[.i.e., north of Trajan's bridge, Belgrade, Sirmium] "which
compound the whole settlement of Turkey" , and follows with Timisis
[Timis, Romania], the yet to be identified, Toutis, Morisis [Mures,
Romania], Krisos [Cris, Romania] and Titza.

These regions compound the whole settlement of Turkey, as Constantine
stressed in chapter 38: "[the Turks] expelled the inhabitants of
megale Moravia and settled in their land, in which the Turks now live
to this day." Therfore the land of the former [megale] Moravia is now
the land of the Hungarians.  It follows that most of the above rivers
where once part of the Sventopolk's realm.

>So above these
>what happened to the Moravias which he called earlier no the north of the
>Turks,

Constantine never said that the Moravians were north of the Turks.

> but forgets them by page 179 when he lists the neighbors of the
>Turks.

See chapter 13, " These nations are adjacent to the Turks: on the
western side, Francia; on their northern, the Pechenegs, on the south
side, megale Moravia, the country of Sphendoplokos, which has now been
totally devastated by these Turks and occupied by them. On the side of
the mountains the Croats are adjacent to the Turks."

Has he forgotten anybody?

>I am aware of your (and several other) interpretation of the confusing text
>of the DAI regarding the "Moravias".

Get rid of the traditional interpretation and you will see that the
text is not confusing and Constantine knew his geography.

>But I just plain believe based on the
>same sources, that Porphyrogenitus (or whoever he was copying or whoever
>wrote parts of his text) was rather confused in this aspect.

I don't think so. Constantine had the most reliable source in his
Kabaroi guests.

>He states in places that the baptized Moravians were under Svatopluk and south
of the
>Hungarians, in other places he puts Svatopluk at the head of the
>"unbaptized Moravians" and puts them north of the Hungarians as it your
>above citation. The western chronicles are fairly clear in Svatopluk and
>his folks christianity.

The Emperor said that [chapter 40] "megale Moravia" of **his time**
[not  a Moravia under Sventopolk's rule] was deprived of baptism
[a-baptistos], which is true if you remember that in 900 AD, the
Bavarian bishops complained to the Pope that the Moravians shaved
their heads in Hungarian fashion, lost their church organization and
become "pseudochristians."

> Both the DAI and the western sources are clear that
>Kocil (Kotsilis) was ruling in western Pannonia as a fief of the Franks and
>was killed fighting the Croats. So there was no Svatopluk rule in the
>region just north of the cited region (there is just not enough space
there>for any "megalia".

There is plenty of space south and south-east of Kocel's realm.
Moreover, Constantine uses the adjective "megale" only when referring
to Moravia occupied by the Hungarians, so the meaning is "old" or
"former" not "great," neither "large."Let's stress here that
Constantine consecvently uses this meaning throughout his work.

>The DAI also states in different palces that the Turks
>when they came in destroyed great Moravia while in others that after they
>were there and Svatopluks children started fighting then the Turks attacked
>and destroyed them, which we know from many sources occured later.

Sure, DAI contains detectable factual mistakes, mainly chronological,
but there is no confusion or contradiction regarding the geographic
position of megale Moravia.

>At the
>time when the DAI states that where the "Turks live today" there was no
>longer any megali or non-megali Moravia.

That is the only time for which the expression "megale Moravia" makes
sense. Moreover, in De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae," Constantine
mentioned his correspondence with the "Archons of Moravia," who are
listed next to the archons of the Serbs, Zachlumians, and other South
Slavic tribal formations.  They were probably refugees from
Sventopolk's Moravia. Had his realm being north, in Slovakia, one
would expect they would flee to Poland, Bohemia, even to Frankish
Bavaria.

>Thus on p173 ""came and inturn
>expelled the inhabitants of great Moravia and settled in their land, in
>which the Turks live to this day"  on page 177 he gives your above quote
>for the location of the unbaptized great Moravia to the north of the Turks,

This is incorrect. Nowhere puts Constantine "megale Moravia" north of
the Turks, because "megale Moravia[...], over which Sphendoplokos used
to rule" is the same areal with the one "where the Turks now live."

>by page 179 he forgot that previously he had a
>Moravian neighbor for them

Yes, the southern neighbor, megale Moravia, was occupied by the Turks.
Is nothing unclear here.

>and on page 181 he has Moravians escaping to the
>Turks from the Turks

The Bavarian bishops were saying the same thing, that some Moravians
joined the Hungarians for raids in Frankish Pannonia, which confirms
Constantine's assertion that the Moravians fled to their immediate
neighbors (the Bulgars and the Croats) or joined the Hungarians.

>and on page 183 he has the Turks living at and just
>above the Danube where Moravia used to be.

Correct. All I missed was your previous comment on Anonymus' legends.

>I am sorry but it reads like a
>US highschool students description of central European geography.

The central European geography during Constantine times was different
from the present day geography, so I can see very easily how a US
highschool student might get confused. Tell him that the "megale Alba
Iulia" was called Balgrad and he will insist that you are wrong
because  Belgrad was, and is, not on Mures but at the confluence of
the Danube and Sava

>so he guessed where
>they were as a matter of fact he guessed them in several places.

He did not guess anything. Read Macartney for details regarding the
Kabaroi  visit to Constantine's court. Moreover, there are plenty of
other sources confirming Porphyrogenitus' image. If you know of any
relevant source speaking for the contrary let me know.

>> Yes, but those are the Pannonian Onogur-Bulgars, who arrived there in>> the
2nd half of the 7th century, not Asparuch's Danubian Bulgars.Let's
>> see what Simon de Keza says:

>Well again referr to the RFC for the distinction of Bulgars and the
>indication is that surely it was not the second wave of the Avars (or Avar
>related) folks they are talking about.

??????
>> At the end there rose a Prince in Poland [i.e. Pannonia] by the name>> of
Svatopluk, who was Marot's son [c.f., Anonymus' Men-Marot, the one
>> with the Bulgarian heart,  whose grandfather was Marot], and who after
>> conquering Bratka, ruled over Bulgarians and the Messinians [i.e.,
>> inhabitants of Upper Moesia].

>Gee, I never said that Kezai or Anonymus were any better than
>Porphyrogenitus.

You mean all of them {Constantine, Bavarian Geographer, the bishop of
Passau, Presbyter Diocleas, Nestor, Keza, etc) were making the
**same** mistake?

>How come the Byzantine historians were not aware of this
>event, it was taking place in their backyard, or was it?

That's a good question! How come none of the  Byzantine chroniclers
ever refers to the mission of Cyril and Methodius?

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

Eva Balogh wrote:

>>But we don't know what Eva did before & during the  revolution  and
>>"szabadsagharc". We only know what she says she did, and we do know
>>what she did after. ;-)

>Unlike you, my friend, I have independent confirmation what I did
>during the revolution. You may want to write to the 1956 Institute
>and ask his director.

Would you state a document instead :-) And why are you write "Unlike
you, my friend" ? I never claimed such glory !  You are the one  who
wants to look important!

NPA.

"Eva S. Balogh" > wrote:

>        (2) And this is a question addressed to Jeliko. Andras Rona-Tas's in
>his article, "A magyar ostortenet hatterenek keleti torok (turk) forrasai,"
>says the following in abbreviated form. Hungarian research on the sources of
>early Hungarian history is actually behind international research. This was
>already true one hundred years ago when the famous *Magyar honfoglalas
>kutfoi" appeared. Here and there there were a few, isolated attempts to
>catch up.

Similar remarks were expressed by Denis Sinor, a well-known scholar of
early Hungarian history. In a paper published in 1958 [Journal of
World History, v.4/3, 513-540] he remarked:

"Time and time again attempts have been made to write Hungarian
prehistory without, acquaintance with this literature; these attempts
were, from the inception, doomed to failure. On the other hand it must
be admitted that Hungarian research on the subject is somewhat stuffy,
often enclosed by its own preoccupations and ignoring results obtained
abroad. It also has a markedly scholastic tendency."

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

At 11:57 AM 8/1/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>At 05:32 PM 7/31/96 -0700,  Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>At 03:34 PM 7/31/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>>>After reading Apri Bamby's post I feel kinda hurt and left out.  What does
>>>one have to do to get on his list?
>>
>>        To have blinkers on but not the kind you wear. The other kind.
>>
>>        Eva Balogh
>
>I don't get it, Eva.  Care to elaborate?
>
>Joe Szalai

        Oh, I thought it was such a good line and now turns out that Joe
didn't get it. The Forum is full of rightwingers with blinkers on; he, on
the other hand, has leftwing blinkers on.

        Eva Balogh

"Eva S. Balogh" > wrote:

>        But, isn't it so that in the last, let's say, one and a half
>centuries, there has been a concerted effort on the part of the Romanians
>(Romanian goverments?) to Latinize names.

You are correct here, just that in their mind was an action of
re-Latinization. Same thing with the Romanian language.

>For example, the name of Transylvania itself. I always found it very
>compelling that the original Romanian name of Transylvania was something
>like Ardenau(?), obviously coming from Erde'ly, which is Finno-Ugric in
origin.

Keep in mind that, until the Magyar arrival, there was no previous
organized principality, or whatever you want to call it, covering all
the area of the Middle Age Transylvania. For the same reason there was
no Slavic name for Transylvania, at least no name we know of,
although, and you must agree here, Slavic people were there before the
Magyars.

As a side note, one Romanian theory has it that the old name you have
mentioned above comes from the same Indo-European root as Ardeni.
Don't ask me if it makes any sense or no. Several other examples were
presented but I don't' remember specifics right now.

>I find it very compelling (I am sorry, Liviu) that the Romanians called
>Transylvania by a name which was Hungarian in origin.

Well, it is not that compelling, and even if it would be I don't see
any reasons for you to be sorry. I though the historians are supposed
to be above these trivial feelings that might affect their
objectivity ;-)

>Because if the Romanians had been in
>Transylvania all along, it would have made sense that the Hungarians, the
>new comers, would pick up the original Romanian name of the place.

The Bulgar newcomers  have not picked up the original name of Thracia
or Moesia, right? And how about the Frank newcomers, or the Russ ones?


Regards,

Liviu Iordache

>Eva Balogh wrote still using my in the subject:
>
>>I don't know what Ferenc Novak did during the revolution, but I did
>>my share before, during, and after the revolution.
>
>But we don't know what Eva did before & during the  revolution  and
>"szabadsagharc". We only know what she says she did, and we do know
>what she did after. ;-)
>
>NPA.
>
>and You?

>Dear fellow-listmembers:
>
>In my opinion it's a nice piece of sophistry to say that one cannot be an
>anti-Semite if one does not attack Arabs, but only Jews.  For, whatever we
>may think about the logicality of it, the word has been used, at least
>since the 1870s in Europe, to describe precisely the kind of agitation
>and advocacy (in political, economic or social realms) of measures against
>the Jews, supposed "Jewish influences," "culture" and so on ad nauseam,
>that the word is usually used to describe today.  Of course one can be
>critical of specific actions of specific person who are Jews, or of the
>policies of the State of Israel, without deserving the label anti-Semite.
>When, however, what one observes is a pattern of general, consistent,
>and persistent attitudes, then I think one would be justified in suggesting
>that something, somewhere, stinks.
>
>To try to confuse the issue by dragging in the other meanings of the term
>Semitic (from professional ethnography or linguistics) is a classic use
>of red herrings.  Word meanings are given by use (here I am happy to be
>corrected by the professional linguists on the list;-); the term was
>coined and has been used since to mean anti-Jewish attitudes, behaviour
>and especially agitation, so that's what it means, whether one likes it
>or not.
>
>Of course since the unlamented demise of Der Fuehrer, it has become a bit
>less fashionable, except in certain select circles, to avow anti-Semitism
>as an open political creed, so it has to be carried out much more subtly.
>Obfuscating meanings can unfortunately be a useful means to this end.
>
>Personally, I suspect anti-Semitism to be present wherever a point is made
>about the Jewishness of a figure in a context where what the person _is_
>is irrelevant, and what ought to be focussed on is what one _does_.  A case
>in point, I believe, is the constant harping on the Jewishness of many of
>the leaders of political radicalism in early 20th century Europe--including
>but not limited to Communism.  Few of these figures were practicing,
>religious Jews, so their Jewishness as religious belief is irrelevant to
>their politics.  Since many of their fellow-Jews were _not_ Communists
>or were conservative to moderate politically, there is no sense in which
>"racial" or cultural Jewish identity is particularly relevant to their
>politics.  From a social-historical point of view, given the attitudes
>of the states and societies in which they lived, it doesn't surprise me
>that many Jews joined others in movements directed against those regimes
>and social orders.  That factor does not, in my view, justify the kind of
>identification of these revolutionary movements with "Jewishness" in some
>generalized way, and when someone cannot write Leon Trotsky without adding
>in parentheses (Bronstein) then I think either that person must be held to
>using originally-given names for all public figures who adopt for whatever
>reason pseudonyms (whether they post from siliconvalley.com or not:-)),
>or I think one can justifiably suspect anti-Semitism.
>
>Just a few idle thoughts...
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Hugh Agnew

>
B R A V O Mr Agnew
 Andy.>

At 10:06 AM 8/1/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>>>At 03:34 PM 7/31/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>>>>After reading Apri Bamby's post I feel kinda hurt and left out.  What
>>>>does one have to do to get on his list?
>>>
>>>        To have blinkers on but not the kind you wear. The other kind.
>>>
>>>        Eva Balogh
>>
>>I don't get it, Eva.  Care to elaborate?
>>
>>Joe Szalai
>
>        Oh, I thought it was such a good line and now turns out that Joe
>didn't get it. The Forum is full of rightwingers with blinkers on; he, on
>the other hand, has leftwing blinkers on.
>
>          Eva Balogh

Oh, now I get it.

For a change, I'll be uncharacteristically quarrelsome.  See quote below.

Joe Szalai

"Nothing is so easy to fake as the inner vision."
               Robertson Davies

Wed Jul 31 12:45:27 EDT 1996  HUNGARY #745, Eva Balogh is back again and
says:

>At 12:01 AM 7/31/96 -0400, Ferenc Novak is back again and he wrote:

Yes; I hope my presence does not disturb you ;-)

>>Please, Andra's, get a life; if Eva's remark (showing a remarkable lack of
>>judgement and being a plain affront to the memory of the thousands who died
>>fighting communism) was "obviously ironic", why can't you dismiss mine as a
>>mild quip?
>
>        I don't know what Ferenc Novak did during the revolution, but I did
>my share before, during, and after the revolution.

Whatever I did, I am not boasting about it, like some people.

>Therefore, I don't need
>lectures about my remarks being an "affront to the memory of the thousands
>who died fighting communism)." I consider the Hungarian revolution, as I
>said many, many times, one of the shining moments of Hungarian history.

Does that mean you no longer call it an "icipici szabadsagharc"?

> But,
>at the same time, I will fight against those, like Ferenc Novak, who is
>misinterpreting the origins and the events of that revolution.

Did I?  Would you mind quoting?

Ferenc

 wrote on Wed Jul 31 09:29:06 EDT 1996 HUNGARY #745

>Just in case....
>
>For those who do like mushrooms and are in Hungary, please DO NOT
>purchase any mushrooms from the little peasant ladies at farmers markets
>or roadside stands UNLESS they have a certificate from an authorized
>mushroom inspector.
>
>That is unsless you wish to be with Timothy Leary!

Good advice.  I don't know if this is still true, but there used to be an
official mushroom inspector at every farmer's market who would inspect the
mushrooms (whether bought there or picked elsewhere) free of charge.  I don't
know about certificates, though.

Ferenc

Dans le but de lier une amitii et d'un voyage en Hongrie au mois de mai
1997, je recherche des Hongrois Hongroises parlant le frangais qui
disirent ichanger sur bien des sujets avec un Quibicois (Canada).

> ====================================================================
Frangois Marcotte                  Tiliphone : (418) 654-0659
3614 Pilissier
Sainte-Foy, Quibec
G1X 3W8 (Canada)                   Internet :
> ====================================================================

At 05:01 PM 8/1/96 GMT, Liviu wrote:

>Keep in mind that, until the Magyar arrival, there was no previous
>organized principality, or whatever you want to call it, covering all
>the area of the Middle Age Transylvania. For the same reason there was
>no Slavic name for Transylvania, at least no name we know of,
>although, and you must agree here, Slavic people were there before the
>Magyars.

        Of course, we agree that Slavic people were there before the
Magyars. However, there was an organized entity before the arrival of the
Slavs: the Roman Dacia. It would have been logical, at least to me, that the
Romanized Dacians would continue to call the place Dacia.


>>I find it very compelling (I am sorry, Liviu) that the Romanians called
>>Transylvania by a name which was Hungarian in origin.
>
>Well, it is not that compelling, and even if it would be I don't see
>any reasons for you to be sorry. I though the historians are supposed
>to be above these trivial feelings that might affect their
>objectivity ;-)

        Of course, they are supposed to be objective and I think most of us
try although, you also have to admit, it is difficult to keep the
nationalism out of these discussions. But, I really don't think that I am
influenced by any kind of nationalism (if I am, it is subconscious) in this
particular case. I find it compelling. I always have. Geographic names are
quite sensitive indicators of the comings and goings of people.

>The Bulgar newcomers  have not picked up the original name of Thracia
>or Moesia, right? And how about the Frank newcomers, or the Russ ones?

        But you must admit: the two are not comparable. The Bulgars (whether
they were Turkic people or Huns or whatever) settled in the middle of some
Slavic population who themselves were newcomers to the region. They could
have not had any, even faint, recollection, of Thracia or Moesia. The
Romanians were supposed to be there all along from the withdrawal of the
Roman troops on.

        Eva Balogh

At 08:13 PM 7/31/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>My favorites are German Spatlese and Auslese wines.  Spatlese wines go well
>with chicken, frog legs, mild cheeses and cold meats.

I suggest you try Beerenauslese. Only Tokay beats it (ot puttonyos).

Gabor D. Farkas

Ferenc Novak:

>>at the same time, I will fight against those, like Ferenc Novak, who is
>>misinterpreting the origins and the events of that revolution.
>
>Did I?  Would you mind quoting?

        I am not talking about you; I am taking in general. I have heard
incredible interpretations of 1956 from some quarters.

        Eva Balogh

Ferenc Novak disagreed with my personal attacks against Nemenyi. I would
accept his criticism had I seen similar concerns when Nemeny attacked me in
a similar manner.

Novak also writes:

>  When I sent in my original post
>"Who denounced NPA?" I never envisioned a situation where the average size of
>a Hungary file would grow to be in the neighborhood of 80 kbytes, and most of
>it dealing with this topic!  Enough already!

Why then this new posting on the topic?

Gabor D. Farkas

Andy Kozma wrote:


>>But we don't know what Eva did before & during the  revolution  and
>>"szabadsagharc". We only know what she says she did, and we do know
>>what she did after. ;-)

>and You?

That is a secret, Andy! Do you want to get me in trouble? ;-)

NPA.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 1 Aug 1996  wrote:
> I am surprised that you should be talking about "dark hints" "to smear anyone
> on the wrong side of NPA".
 Why are you surprised, and what's wrong with me talking (besides the
obvious pun on Fekete ;-))?!

> This is newspeak, straight out of "1984".
 How so?

> The smear is on the other side, if I may be permitted a bad pun.
 I don't get the pun either (may that be our biggest problem here ;-().

> What I suggested was: Can't we deal with topics, however controversial,
> within the confines of open and honest debate?  To search for truth no matter
> where it leads us?  Without engaging in character assassination and name
> calling?

 Yes we can. Are you willing to ;-<?!

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgEqdMQ/4s87M5ohAQGetwH/TKz4omw1UvDGegYyeFyDwIIv+PvCnMNS
pnQUM3FIodbJtq3QVUsUYEmlhfiXgqS7sk6si8FFRxAjL104Rrg5zA==
=HNtl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Zoli:

I am surprised that you should be talking about "dark hints" "to smear anyone
on the wrong side of NPA".  This is newspeak, straight out of "1984".  The
smear is on the other side, if I may be permitted a bad pun.

What I suggested was: Can't we deal with topics, however controversial,
within the confines of open and honest debate?  To search for truth no matter
where it leads us?  Without engaging in character assassination and name
calling?

Ferenc

>On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Ferenc Novak wrote:
>> alive, we could go on to other subjects.  When I sent in my original post
>> "Who denounced NPA?" I never envisioned a situation where the average size
of
>> a Hungary file would grow to be in the neighborhood of 80 kbytes, and most
of
>> it dealing with this topic!  Enough already!
>
> I see. So the topic is worth discussing insofar as dark hints could be
>made to smear anyone on the wrong side of NPA, but not any further. Why
>am I not surprised that this is how you envision discussion ;-<?!
>
>- --
> Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgCZs8Q/4s87M5ohAQEobgH/SyirPseFwlEJ294+pVu4dNsoa6ixCpHg
nQzMvA/ooCJgDm0Wk26cU35OuKCIM/kcdhGc5NQRLK+7/7cassj+Fw==
=VpgW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>From   Thu Aug  1 08:24:33 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: from chi3.bc.edu (chi3.bc.edu [136.167.13.125]) by
emin18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21050 for
>; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 08:24:32 -0400
Received: by chi3.bc.edu (931110.SGI/930416.SGI)
        for  id AA25579; Thu, 1 Aug 96 07:49:18 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 07:49:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq" >
Reply-To: 
To: Ferenc Novak >
Cc: Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY >
Subject: Re: Farkas & Co. vs NPA
In-Reply-To: >
Message-Id: >
X-Alternate-Addresses:  
X-Hungarian-Faq_Url: http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/
X-Hungarian-Faq_Key: http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/pgp-key.asc
X-Personal_Key: 0x3B339A21 = AF 35 25 A2 FA 65 AC E5  48 91 AD 42 6C 84 4B 05
X-Policy-Brief: $100 per bulk email and $0.32 per copy of netnews EMP/ECP
X-Spam: see <http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1048/Spam-Policy.html>; or 'finger
' for the full statement
X-Kook-Number_2: (NAME_WITHELD+)X2 (Grubor+)*2 (Fomin+++)/3 (cjames++)*3
Iatskovski-+ (Petersen--+)/2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Eva Balogh:
>>I can surely appreciate that.  But reading Eva Balogh's post, do you now
>>believe it?
>
>        Now, wait a moment! My "mole's" information isn't worth a damn. He
>simply says that "rumor has it" that such and such thing happened to
>Nemenyi. But that rumor may have originated with Mr. Nemenyi himself. This
>is no confirmation of anything.

First of all, the latter of the following two sentences: "Utananeztem a
dolgoknak, amirol kerdezett. Ugy nez ki, hogy a hir igaz." does not
translate into "rumor has it."  Rather: "Apparently, the news are true."
But more importantly, to Zoli (Fekete) I was simply indicating that the
same facts presented by me in the first post of this thread were
independently confirmed by EBalogh, or her "mole."  What are the chances
that two people will say the same thing, independently from each other?
And sorry Eva, the "possible scenario" depicted by you there holds no
water whatsoever.  I must admit, however, that publishing your "mole's"
letter here was commendable(although you stopped short of translating it).

Barna Bihari

At 08:03 AM 8/1/96 EDT, Hugh  Agnew wrote:

A posting that I agree with completely.

>Just a few idle thoughts...

Not as far as I am concerned.

Gabor D. Farkas

P. S. Interesting, how nobody ever writes: Petofi (Petrovics) Sandor.

On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

> Zoli Fekete, in discussing anonymity on the Net, mentions "those nameless
> discussions shaping the constitution".  To which Sam Stowe replies thusly:
>
> > Anyway, those "nameless discussions" produced a final document which
> > was then publicly discussed and explained by the men who attended the
> > Constitutional convention.
>
> I hate to jump in and spoil the fun, but I think the premises of this
> argument are backwards.  The Convention of 1787 deliberated in secret, but
> the names of the participants were known, and extensively discussed in the
> Philadelphia press.  It is the public discussion afterwards that was
> conducted largely under pseudonyms.  The most famous collection of campaign
> propaganda pieces (collectively known as The Federalist) was produced under
> the pseudonym Publius by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison.  We can safely assume
> that their reasons for using a pseudonymous identity were honorable.
> Whatever their reasons might have been, they surely did not do it in order
> to "avoid public scrutiny of public acts", to quote Sam.  Why did they do it?
> Why did Joe Klein write pseudonymously?  Was it a marketing ploy, or did he
> do it because it allowed him to create a literary persona separate from his
> "day job"?  Why did Swift publish much of his satire anonymously?  The same
> question can be asked about Voltaire, Twain, Pope, and Lewis Carroll.  Why
> did the Bronte sisters write under a pseudonym?  Or Isak Dinesen, or George
> Eliot?  I cannot believe Sam would consider these folks potential KKK
> recruits.  Entirely above-ground motivations for creating pseudonymous
> identities existed long before the Net, and they had precious little to do
> with Klansmen's sheets.
>
> -----
> Gabor Fencsik
> 
>

Gabor Fencsik is quite right about all of this.  He asks why so many of
the partipants in the Federalist debates (which are available in large
part--both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist arguments--from the
Library of America) chose to write under pseudonyms.

They did so not to protect their identities, which were usually exposed
very quickly, but to permit their arguments to be considered on their own
merits, not subject to ad hominem rejections or calumny.  Hamilton
himself was most vulnerable to ad hominem attack, since his "monarchist"
views were widely known.  But Madison also was well-known as the
architect of the Virginia Concstitution.  In any case, the population of
the states was then relatively small, and the major players were all
known to each other.  So, to avoid their personal reputations gumming up
the works, most of them published under pseudonyms.

I think this motive is rather far from that being invoked on the Internet.

Richard Alexander.

        ****  Richard W. Alexander  ****                {,   ,}
        2223 "F" St., Vancouver, WA, USA               ,/~~~~~\,
        (360) 695-7876 /                G `0 0' D
                                                       `\ v-v /'
        If you engage in battle with shit--               ~V~
          whether you prevail, or whether it prevails over you--
             you will end up covered with shit.
                 --Peter Bornemissza, 16th C Hungarian Preacher

At 10:55 AM 8/1/96 -0500, Nemenyi wrote:


>Patient Eva. Hold your horses. Why are you so nervous ? I know the real
>facts, and it is satisfying me. :-) In due time, everybody will learn
>the facts.

        No, I am not nervous but I'm afraid that while I'm guarding the
horses you will accuse innocent people of causing your forced resignation.

        ESB

At 09:12 PM 7/31/96 GMT, George Szaszvari wrote:

>My experience too. Standards must be slipping ;-) I prefer a good wine
>with most foods, but a decent beer, or two, is also acceptable! A lot
>of youngsters seem to think that beer is more *cool* and *with it* than
>wine. Little do they know ;-)  Perhaps it's also the price of the stuff
>since the explosion in urbanisation of populations. Wine could have been
>much cheaper in the past. Local wines in Greece, were (and still are, I
>suspect) certainly very much cheaper than beer. But this is also true of
>Hungary, isn't it? Hmmm..

I don't know about today, but wine was always cheaper than beer.  My worst
memories of beer in Hungary was in the good old days when, at night, good
(by comparison) Hungarian beer was not allowed to be sold.  Only that awful
strong beer, made in Poland, if I remember right, was sold after a certain
hour.  It was about 9 or 12 percent alcohol.  I didn't care for it at all.
I guess one of the good things about the demise of the old system is that
Hungary no longer has to sell stuff like that.  Unless, of course, there's a
market for it.  But I didn't see one the last time I was in Hungary.

Joe Szalai

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Richard Alexander wrote:
> chose to write under pseudonyms [...]
> to permit their arguments to be considered on their own
> merits, not subject to ad hominem rejections or calumny.
>[...] to avoid their personal reputations gumming up
> the works, most of them published under pseudonyms.
>
> I think this motive is rather far from that being invoked on the Internet.

 You seem to be assuming that there is 1) one and the same motive for all
"the Internet" which is 2) somehow inferior to the above - even though for
all we know it could be the very one you cited for any given individual.

 Would you care to elaborate? (Under a nym, if you wish ;-(.)

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgFwrMQ/4s87M5ohAQG/uQH+OtuMOo+6ri2cQM9PGfdsR0JmvGFa9kRL
o+1hKlgP9aIUIShwWQcNQlFd6V1PBLeHkGO+S3Sh9FWUx+ly1rfgmQ==
=MrPp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article >, 
says...
>
>>Dear fellow-listmembers:
>>
>>In my opinion it's a nice piece of sophistry to say that one cannot be
an
>>anti-Semite if one does not attack Arabs, but only Jews.  For, whatever
we
>>may think about the logicality of it, the word has been used, at least
>>since the 1870s in Europe, to describe precisely the kind of agitation
>>and advocacy (in political, economic or social realms) of measures
against
>>the Jews, supposed "Jewish influences," "culture" and so on ad nauseam,
>>that the word is usually used to describe today.  Of course one can be
>>critical of specific actions of specific person who are Jews, or of the
>>policies of the State of Israel, without deserving the label
anti-Semite.
>>When, however, what one observes is a pattern of general, consistent,
>>and persistent attitudes, then I think one would be justified in
suggesting
>>that something, somewhere, stinks.
>>
>>To try to confuse the issue by dragging in the other meanings of the
term
>>Semitic (from professional ethnography or linguistics) is a classic use
>>of red herrings.  Word meanings are given by use (here I am happy to be
>>corrected by the professional linguists on the list;-); the term was
>>coined and has been used since to mean anti-Jewish attitudes, behaviour
>>and especially agitation, so that's what it means, whether one likes it
>>or not.
>>
>>Of course since the unlamented demise of Der Fuehrer, it has become a
bit
>>less fashionable, except in certain select circles, to avow
anti-Semitism
>>as an open political creed, so it has to be carried out much more
subtly.
>>Obfuscating meanings can unfortunately be a useful means to this end.
>>
>>Personally, I suspect anti-Semitism to be present wherever a point is
made
>>about the Jewishness of a figure in a context where what the person
_is_
>>is irrelevant, and what ought to be focussed on is what one _does_.  A
case
>>in point, I believe, is the constant harping on the Jewishness of many
of
>>the leaders of political radicalism in early 20th century
Europe--including
>>but not limited to Communism.  Few of these figures were practicing,
>>religious Jews, so their Jewishness as religious belief is irrelevant
to
>>their politics.  Since many of their fellow-Jews were _not_ Communists
>>or were conservative to moderate politically, there is no sense in
which
>>"racial" or cultural Jewish identity is particularly relevant to their
>>politics.  From a social-historical point of view, given the attitudes
>>of the states and societies in which they lived, it doesn't surprise me
>>that many Jews joined others in movements directed against those
regimes
>>and social orders.  That factor does not, in my view, justify the kind
of
>>identification of these revolutionary movements with "Jewishness" in
some
>>generalized way, and when someone cannot write Leon Trotsky without
adding
>>in parentheses (Bronstein) then I think either that person must be held
to
>>using originally-given names for all public figures who adopt for
whatever
>>reason pseudonyms (whether they post from siliconvalley.com or not:-)),
>>or I think one can justifiably suspect anti-Semitism.
>>
>>Just a few idle thoughts...
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Hugh Agnew

>>
>B R A V O Mr Agnew
> Andy.>

I second the motion.

Agnes