Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 759
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-08-15
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Sophistry (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Interest and Inflation Free Money (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (mind)  45 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Identities in XV (mind)  158 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Sophistry (mind)  60 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Sophistry (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Identities in XV (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: Sophistry (mind)  44 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Identities in XV (mind)  63 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Interest and Inflation Free Money (mind)  101 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Speaking in many tongues (was Re: American Imperial (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Identities in XV (mind)  46 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Speaking in many tongues (was Re: American Imperial (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Morals (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: Sophistry (mind)  50 sor     (cikkei)
21 German Army (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
22 Morals (mind)  58 sor     (cikkei)

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

In article >, 
says...
<snip>..
>In the history of the Second World War a lot of emphasis is put
>on the suffering of Jews. And it is right, because they suffered
>the most. (Historical evidences show that almost 6 million Jewish
>people was killed during the War.) Not questioning this facts,
>sometime we may have the feeling, that no similar emphasis is put
>on the suffering of other nations, even if their loss is
>comparable to that of the Jews.
<snip>..

I normally steer well clear of discussing so-called "Jewish" issues,
for various reasons, but this is a very pointed posting that prompts
me to express an opinion...

Of course, it is understandable that a lot of emphasis is put on the
mass murder and suffering of the Jews in WWII, but suffered the most?
Consider this: the original figures of 20 million Soviet losses in WWII
is now considered severely conservative (it covered the embarrassment
of the Soviet authorities at the time). The figure is now reckoned to
be anything up from 40 million. Many millions of Chinese civilians
suffered and died at the hands of the Japanese (albeit from 1936
onwards), but anyone remotely acquainted with how the average Japanese
conducted themselves throughout their war on China, USA and Britain,
etc, this century will very easily put victims of the Japanese at top
of any most horrific suffering list of the war (if it is possible to
quantify something like suffering).

You raise an important point. The surviving Jewish victims of WWII
are naturally vociferous in their condemnation of the crimes committed
against them, but, personally, I would prefer a vociferous campaign on
behalf of ALL humankind and civilization against all inhumanities
perpetrated throughout WWII (and other times, as well as the present),
not just a tribal egoism crying foul over WWII and past history, while
presently justifying their own inhumanity against others...

--
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
+ - Re: Interest and Inflation Free Money (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Barna!

At 13:46 13/08/96 -0400,  Barna Bozoki wrote:
>I just came across an interesting little book with the above title. The
>author is Margrit Kennedy, a Professor of Ecological Building Techniques at
>the University of Hannover in Germany. The publisher is the "New Society
>Publishers", 1995.

<snip snip>

>It sounds very much like a prescription particularly suited to countries
>like Hungary with large burden of debt and the need for money to create
>jobs and economic revival. I wonder if anybody is familiar with this
>book and can comment on the feasibility of implementing the proposed
>concepts.
>
>Barna Bozoki

Since I would imagine that most people on the List, myself included, are not
familiar with the book, could you give us a summary of its central theses?

Ko:so:no:m,

Johanne/Janka
>
>
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I'll throw a little more fuel into the fire re English as the official
language of the USA.

Not only am I for it, but I'm for the establishment of an American Academy
of English (something like the French have with their language).  The sad
fact is, we need to be as concerned with "English-speaking" Americans not
being able to speak English as with foreign-born citizens.

Harper's Magazine has a feature called the Harper's Index, in which it
publishes interesting comparative statistics.  I remember one which read
(if I recall correctly): "Average Vocabulary of 6 to 14 year old American
child in 1945: 25,000 words.  Average Vocabulary of 6 to 14 year old
American child in 1995: 12,000 words."

I was surprised it was that many.  I thought it was only two: "Cool" and
"Sucks."

There's also a concept called "word murder."  That is, if enough people
misuse a word enough times, it can't be used in its original meaning ever
again--in effect, it's been murdered.  A good example: "Outrageous."  We
simply can't use that word anymore to any effect because of continual
misuse; and we have no replacement that could convey the original meaning
of "outrageous."

Madison Avenue, of course, has been one of the main culprits: "Friends,
avoid the agony of hemorrhoids . . ."  Enough of that and when someone
says s/he's in "agony," we think the experience is nothing more intense
than rectal discomfort.

I know this sounds amusing, but it's a serious matter.  Languages have a
life of their own, and when they're misused by an entire culture, the
people of that culture one day wind up unable to talk to, or understand,
each other.  Not to mention the beauty lost when a precise word--the
*perfect* word for one's experience--is no longer available.

If anyone should appreciate what I'm saying, it's Hungarians.  I've heard
that Hungarian is one of the most beautifully expressive languages on
earth.  I'm only sorry I don't have the knowledge to appreciate that
beauty.

Burian

P.S.--Yes, I majored in English in college.  Those who didn't will, I'm
sure, tell me to "chill out."  Don't bother: I already feel ice cold over
the matter.
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 2:11 p.m. 8/12/96 Joe Szalai wrote:
>Canada is not divided because of language.  The Quebec question is about
>history and culture, as well as language.  As a matter of fact, there is
>only one officially bilingual province in Canada.  And that province has no
>intention of leaving the confederation and dividing the country.  That
>province is New Brunswick.  Never heard of the place?  That might be because
>the official use of English and French (Acadian) has not been a problem.
>
>Language is not divisive.  Intolerance is.
>


I must second Joe's comment.  To a large degree, the Canadian Unity problem
can be traced to the language legislation of Manitoba and Saskatxhewan in
the late 19th Century when language bigots legislated unilingual education,
depriving French settlers of language rights and discouraging French
speaking Canadians from migrating West, thus isolating the French Language
to the present areas where it prevails.  Had the Dominion been official
bilingual from the beginning, separatism would have never become an issue.

With respect to language rights, it seems to me that the right to be
monolingual in one's native language should be a fundamental human wright.
With modern technology every state has the resources to serve its citizens
in their own language.  Anything less is unacceptable, especially since
national boundaries rarely correspond to the boundaries of ethnic
communities.


I want Salish, G'itskan, Tlinglit and Nootka, etc., to be to some degree
official languages of British Columbia.  A few civil servants being obliged
to learn these languages, might be an education to us all.

For the long term, the notion of language rights being a part of human
rights would guarantee the future of the Hungarian minorities in the lands
"beyond the borders".

Respectfuly


Tibor Benke
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:12 AM 8/14/96 -0700, Tibor Benke wrote:

>I want Salish, G'itskan, Tlinglit and Nootka, etc., to be to some degree
>official languages of British Columbia.  A few civil servants being obliged
>to learn these languages, might be an education to us all.
>
>For the long term, the notion of language rights being a part of human
>rights would guarantee the future of the Hungarian minorities in the lands
>"beyond the borders".

Here here!

And let's remember that the future just doesn't happen.  We have to create it.

Joe Szalai

"There is no such thing as an ugly language. Today I hear every language as
if it were the only one, and when I hear of one that is dying, it overwhelms
me as though it were the death of the earth."
                 Elias Canetti
+ - Re: Identities in XV (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Mr. Soltesz:

Thank you for replying to my comments regarding religion yesterday.  It's good
to be able to talk rationally with someone.  Here are some of my responses:

(BTW, don't worry, I won't continue any kind of long-winded debate on the
Hungary list.  If this gets too involved, it could always be switched to
private lines. I apologize to Eva Balogh, Joe Szalai and everyone else for
the length of this posting.)

> >>>  Many societies flourish for a while (centuries) then fail because of
> moral decay.

Could you please give examples of such societies?  It often seems that
 societiesfall because of combinations of ills.  Weren't malaria and foreign
 invaders
threats to Roman and Greek society?  Other cultures saw combinations of
 political intrigue, domestic and foreign wars.  What is this moral decay?  I
 agree that a morality and positive structure are needed for development, but
 generally
talking about "morals" and "moral decay" is sensitive.  Especially, what
 societycrumbled simply because they didn't persecute homosexuals and treated
 them
fairly????????

> Soltesz ur, tesse/k, what about the Soviet society??  They had their own
> highly CONSERVATIVE morality and imprisoned gays... they fell too!
>
> >>> Your implication is that the Soviet Empire was sinless (perfect)
> because they >>> were conservatives??? Far be it from the truth!!! They
> killed many people in the >>> name of Communism, destroyed many families,
> and stole and spent all the
> >>> wealth the country had [ in fact they are still doing so now! }  As
> they say the Evil >>> Empire fell. {Actually, it may yet stand up again!}

* Oh!  I think I just said the Soviets were conservative, not sinless.
They were self-righteous with their *own* set of morals... and were busy
condemning others that did not fit into their correct ways and did not want
to be "saved" by the Party.  As Christians seem to sometimes kick the "immorals
 and apostates" out of their Heaven, so the Communists liked kicking "bad
 elements" out of the Party or mainstream society.  Christians talk often of
 people
w/o morals, and Chinese communists talk of the evils of "incorrect thoughts."

>
> >>> BTW the //Great Satan// as some like to call the USA will also fall
> if it does not >>> get back to being God fearing and get back on the
> right track.  Perhaps you >>> should also read and learn from the bible
> and you can find out what happened >>> in Rome under the guise of
> Christianity in the early days of the Roman Church.

I agree.  That is why the Church, to me, seems like a teflon institution.  They
certainly have some power on their side if they can massacre Jews, burn gays,
defame and burn scientists, make up prices for sins (indulgences)...  yet peopl
e
look at it as a wise institution... the sole protector of eternal truths!!!!

The Church's view of the family makes me laugh and cry.  Priests!!!  They wear
their frocks and pretty dresses for holidays, don't get married, are
 *supposedlycelibate???.....and DARE tell others how to raise their families!!>

> I lived as a teenager in Asia, and people can live in happiness and
> prosperity without the burden of a god or any Jesus in many places.
>
> >>> It is too bad that you consider religion a burden. Then again, Jesus
> even said >>> (among others) that the road to heaven is narrow and not
> well trodden ....

What I mean about religious burden isn't about sacrificing... I mean they are
not burdened by moral codes and balancing acts between doing things with
rewards and balances.  The godless religion of Buddhism is interesting, because
you take responsibility for your own actions.  Whether you are "saved" or not
or believe in a certain book is besides the point.  Ideally in Buddhism there
is an equilibrium that unprejudicially balances itself out.  There is no room
for personal judgements.  Buddhists don't ever claim to "know a god or under-
stand its morality:" they feel that "those who say they know and understand"
don't know enough to see their own ignorance.

> I laughed at the comment by the Olympian athlete when she said she won a race
> because (something to the effect that) she is a Christian and her prayers
> were
> answered!  Oi, Istenem!  Wow!  What if other competitors prayed to Jesus ...
> would they all win the same race!!

> >>> Unlike you, I cannot fault them...if they believe that God helped
> them focus, do >>> better, etc. then good for them...if you cannot
> believe that is your loss perhaps, >>> but apparently not theirs!!!

I do not see where it would be my loss to recognize her skill. If she believes
this fine, then I wonder if she would be just as happy if she lost!  Would she
also say, "I'm so happy I lost, because I prayed and god let me lose!"  It's
funny how people make their own judgements as if they know the unknown for
their own benefit. Maybe she also wore a luck pin, and she could just as easliy
say the lucky pin won the race.  I often see this religiousness as another
superstition... but with more influence.  That's all.

This makes me think of Christians who say god brought AIDS to punish homosexual
s
!!  Well, why is it if a family member of theirs dies, they say "God called
them!" "It's god's will!" or "God is giving us a trial to make us stronger!"
What angel from High came on down to give them these wonderful double-standard
interpretations??  Maybe god just didn't like those Christians and wanted to
see them die???

> >>> One more thing....please show me where in any religious book you can
> find that >>> it is OK (or acceptable) to be homosexual?  One basic thing
> is that life on this >>> planet at least is based on the family.   It is
> the attempt at destroying this family >>> that bothers me, since without
> the family we are ALL doomed.

Religious books don't hold any ground for me.  (Especially the Book of Mormon..
.
found on a non-extant mountain, the document brought by an angel is convenientl
y
lost.... originally could only be read with crystal glasses!!!!!)  I could make
up a better story.  I know homosexuals who play important FAMILY roles.  They
are good brothers and sisters, loving sons and daughters and fun aunts and
uncles.  Isn't that family?  The Church always spews on about God's family....
isn't that also a distortion of the nuclear family?  I believe family's come
in all forms.  I don't think I gay person who is asking for fair treatment or
for rights taken for granted by others is asking to destroy families or asking
heterosexuals to become homosexuals.  Blacks want civil rights... they don't
want every to become Black.

>The only thing I think god blesses is peace!

Very good point, Mr. Soltesz.  Here we also agree.
>
> Another topic to talk about some time is the silliness of interpreting
> what //god// says through natural disasters and good times.
>
> >>> Well, that is also an interesting question. All I will say about it
> now is that there >>> are sections of the Judeo-Christian bible that
> clearly imply that there is some >>> definite relationship.
>

If you believe this, that is fine, but if the god is so superior and mysterious
,
which human dares to judge for it and have the audacity to say their understand
the logic and judgements of the god?  I know I would be insulted if someone
decided to speak for Me on issues on My behalf and claimed to understand Me.

It was insulting to hear the 700 Club (???) about two years ago say that the
Ca. earthquakes and midwestern floods were caused by god's displeasure with
the gays!!!  So the god has an American political agenda?  There are more
 quakesin Japan than in San Fran, so is Japan the land of gay boys???  Maybe th
e
 floodswere caused, then, because god is tired of all the Bible thumping
 Christians
who lived there!?  (Anyway, Ca. had earthquakes *centuries* ago, why does god
suddenly decide to give them a new meaning???)

Thank you for the dialogue,

I sincerely mean no offense w/ any remarks.  Communicating by typed words is
lacking in some ways, and I wish for no misunderstandings.

Mark
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Sam, you have some nice and also a couple very nasty and arrogant
claims regarding Martin Heidegger:

> Zoltan, I speak as someone with a deep respect for Heidegger's philosophy
> (even if it is maddeningly difficult to understand). Heidegger paid a
> heavy price for his year-long fling with the Nazis. By the end of the
> Second World War, he had been impressed into one of those scratch
> collections of old men and little boys (Volkssturm? I'm not a scholar of
> late Nazi Germany) sent out to serve as cannon fodder against Russian
> tanks. Then, surviving that ordeal, he spent the rest of his life keeping
> his mouth shut about why he fell in with the Nazis in the first place.
That last claim is simply not true, by at least two reasons.

1. He did not fall in with the Nazis in the first place. He accep-
   a 1-year position after Hitler became Chancellor. That's all.
   In 1933 the Nazi character just began to develop in Germany. In
   1933 you still can not speak of the 'Nazi Germany'. It was a
   process until it went on to its full power. Heidegger resigned
   from his post as university president after 1 year. (When did
   the Reichstag burn, anyway...?)

2. I read the story of Heidegger's presidency at this university
   written by Heidegger himself! Just take a dive in the philosophy
   section of your nearest library, and you will find it.

> Perhaps by suffering himself at the hands of the Nazis and refusing to
> defend himself after the war, when it would have been much easier to
> redeem himself in the eyes of his countrymen and the former Allies, he
> made amends of a sort.
Amendment for what? Could you explain, please?

> I haven't seen the same submission to the scrutiny
> of a later generation in Lukacs' case, although I'm not as familiar with
> his work and life.
Later generation? Lukacs already executed his own soldiers back
in 1919.

> I'm just not sure your analogy between the two
> philosophers holds up very well.
Come on, Sam! It is NOT MY analogy. I am, in fact, deeply ashamed
by this kind of 'analogies'. That's exactly the whole point: Some
guys claim symmetry where no symmetry exist! The Heidegger vs.
Lukacs 'analogy' is a revealing example of the asymmetrical way of
thinking.

Another interesting case is that of the late Mitterand, earlier
French President. In his last year as president, before he died,
he made a couple surprising comments about his WWII past and his
still-existing respect toward the 'excellence' of the German Army
of the war.

Now, Mitterand was neither a Nazi nor a Fascist, was he? He simply
tried to discontinue (I really wonder, why??) a kind of cultic
behavior in the way of thinking about the Nazi Germany by many
highly respected intellectuals. This way of thinking is exclusively
black and white and lacks the deep intellectual effort of real
understanding of the historical process. (A kind of intellectual
lazyness.) I call it cultic, because it resembles to ancient cultic
behavior.
                                                          Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

George Szaszvari wrote:
> Consider this: the original figures of 20 million Soviet losses in WWII
> is now considered severely conservative (it covered the embarrassment
> of the Soviet authorities at the time). The figure is now reckoned to
> be anything up from 40 million.
I know this. Part of the loss is due to Dzugashvili himself.
Anyway, we had millions of Soviet war memorials all around
Hungary during the Russian occupation (between 45 and 90).
Maybe imperialism can force occupied countries to pay
hommage to the imperialist by erecting countless memorials
as kinda cultic shrines, to demonstrate who are the real
rulers of the occupied country. Sometime they even require
blood sacrifices, as happened (during and) after 1956 in
Hungary.

> You raise an important point. The surviving Jewish victims of WWII
> are naturally vociferous in their condemnation of the crimes committed
> against them, but, personally, I would prefer a vociferous campaign on
> behalf of ALL humankind and civilization against all inhumanities
> perpetrated throughout WWII
That is what I miss, when I talk about the asymmetrical
view of the history.
                                                Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: A footnote to my last note to JFerengi (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

ESB wrote:
> What we all must realize that you cannot
> simply take one segment of society, in this case the journalists, and demand
> a different behavior from them than exhibited by the population as a whole.
That is sadly true. The Hungarian population knows
awful little about the feeling of political freedom.
They are compromised by feel-good actions of
political leaders. They still don't know that for
freedom you have to fight. And the media and other
powerful forces take advantage of this situation
without scrutiny.

> I would say that perhaps another twenty years will be
> necessary before public attitude towards this issue will change.
It's too bad, but probably true...
                                          Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: Identities in XV (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Mark Humpreys said:
>  As Christians seem to sometimes kick the "immorals
>  and apostates" out of their Heaven, so the Communists liked kicking "bad
>  elements" out of the Party or mainstream society.
Goodness me. Do you have any idea what did it mean to be an
'anti-socialist element' in this very Century in the commu-
nist countries?? Depending on time and place you could end
up out of your school, out of your job, out of chances to
continue studies ever or support your family, or maybe
end up in a place, like Gulag and die.

Now, being a non-Christian, what do you lose when you are
'kicked out of their Heaven'? Come on, you don't even believe
in Heaven...

> Christians talk often of people w/o morals,
> and Chinese communists talk of the evils of "incorrect thoughts."
Do you know, how many people died in this Century in China
during the 'Cultural Revolution' or on the Tienanmen Square?
Nobody knows, so many! I just can't believe that you really
feel good about comparing this blood-flow to the Christian
talk of morals!?

I guess, the lives and the blood of people who were killed
during this Century somehow weights much more then simple-
minded anti-moralistic ideologies.

Talking about the Church you said:
> They certainly have some power on their side if they can massacre Jews
I have serious doubt about the claim, that the Church
massacred Jews. Actually, the Church saved Jews during the
WWII. You simply try to have a big force (that of the Jewish
solidarity) on the side of your agenda, which is regrettable
regarding that in the 20th Century Jews in fact were massacred.
This kind of utilization of real pain is at least questionable.

> Religious books don't hold any ground for me.
> I could make up a better story.
Then why don't you go ahead and just make it? Let's see if
you could add any competitive to the Bible?
                                                    Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: Sophistry (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At the outset I want to put in a disclaimer here. I cannot speak about
Heidegger and Lukacs with the same authority, as I can, for example, of the
events of 1918-1920 in Hungary. However, I would like to add a few words to
the discussion, or rather ask a few questions.

        (1) My understanding is that there is more to Heidegger's nazi
sympathies than his one-year-long tenure as president of the University of
Freiburg. He was sympathetic to the Third Reich, and his whole philosophy is
marked by a "strand of extreme nationalism."

>Later generation? Lukacs already executed his own soldiers back
>in 1919.

        (2) According to my knowledge Lukacs was a political officer in the
Hungarian Red Army for a few weeks but I haven't ever heard that he was
executing his soldiers. I would be curious where you found this piece of
information.

        (3) I, for one, find Lukacs's so-called philosophy and theory of
literature not much of value. I find it difficult to understand a man, like
Lukacs, who, while reality was staring him in the face, remained within a
very sterile so-called philosophical school for the rest of his life. Only
God knows what kind of mind he had but not the kind which would appeal to
me. I can understand of being bitten by the marxist bug, but I can't
understand to stick with it through thick and thin. If one reads just the
short biography of Lukacs in the *Irodalmi lexikon,* one feels somewhat
nauseated: all those self-criticisms and apologies. On a personal note:
years ago I had the opportunity to accompany an American philosophy
professor who was given the opportunity to meet Lukacs if he wanted to
because of a Hungarian acquaintance who offered to arrange a meeting. The
American philosopher calmly turned down the offer. The Hungarian
acquaintance was flaberghasted. The American professor announced that Lukacs
for him is not a philosopher and he has no interest in meeting him. I, as a
historian, was sorry. It would have been interesting the man in person.

        Zoli Szekely can be rest assured. Soon enough nobody is going to
read Lukacs, while millions will read Heidegger.

        (4) My understanding of Mitterand's career that he was a rightwinger
during the war and held high positions in the Vichy government. His career
began on the right and ended on the left. There are people like that. In
Hungary one could mention Mihaly Karolyi.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Identities in XV (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Zoltan,

Reading your response makes me feel so much more secure with my own statements.

1) Yes, I do understand what it means to be persecuted by the Party.  Don't
   give me that "lone sufferer" whine.

   Yes, goodness YOU, Zoltan.  Depending on the time and place in history,
   religious groups could have had you shunned, burned, exiled....

   I don't care about the Christian heaven, but obviously it's a BIG deal for
   them... and when they think they can bar certain people from it... it seems
   to give them a divine superior power.

2)Your response regarding people killed in China seems fairly inane.  Yes, I
  will make comparisons where comparisons are fitting!  I guess you don't know
  how many people have been killed by religious morons!!??  Remember:

  When the sins of the Church are mentioned, don't run and hide behind the filt
h
  of the Communists!  The holy Church didn't need Gulags, because (Yes, Zoli!)
  they simply actively massacred Jews **as well as others**.  (Please explain,
  Zoli, where the word FAGGOT comes from!!)  Did you EVER hear of the Inquisi-
  tion and the love of Christ that was displayed in Spain??  Or what about the
  the Franciscans who actively encouraged the persecution of Jews in Venice
  during the Renaissance??  Why do you think Jews migrated en masse to Mexico
  and Turkey???

  (BTW: when speaking about the knowledge of the Church explain this: How can
   the Church be strictly against artificial birthcontrol when they themselves
   enjoyed the singing of their **castrati** for several centuries???) Teflon!

 Throughout history people who try to play god in science and religion have
  not often come to very happy ends.

  Actually, you exactly hit my point!  Blood is on the hands of the Communists
  as well as on self-righteous religious fanatics!!  Nem rossz!

  The ever-enlightened Church should be commended, though, for finally apologi-
  zing (several centuries too late) for its role in slavery several years ago,
  for forgiving Copernicus, I think it was!  Ha!

3) Why do you say I am trying to put the force of the Jews on my agenda???
   Yes, some individuals in the Church helped save Jews... the homosexual uncle
   of a friend in Austria also helped a family!  Unfortunately, I don't remembe
r
   the pope making any kind of heroic stance on their behalf... do you???
    But that's o.k.... he's teflon.

Zoltan, the more you speak, the more you seem to show the qualities of someone
who is ignorant and religious.  Religiously ignorant?

4) I don't want to make up religious beliefs or my own version of the Bible.
   The Bible has many truths... it's a shame they are often distorted.

   (Anyway, the Old Testament is filled with interesting fables common
 throughout
   the tribes of its time and its always interesting to read about primitive
   tribal practices.)
   Furthermore, why would I want to play the same god game??  Why should I com-
   pete with the Bible when I'm satisfied to just go on and live my life??

- Mark
+ - Re: Interest and Inflation Free Money (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Johanne L. Tournier asked for a summary of the book I inquired about
yesterday. I found the following summary on the net, may be it will help.
I am sorry I did not note the source where I got it, I think the name of
the site was "Books of vision". I found it by searching for the
title of the book.

Barna Bozoki

---- Start of the quote

                       INTEREST AND INFLATION FREE MONEY

Why do we have a money problem? Margrit Kennedy's answer in this booklet is
that it is because 'of the payment of interest from those who have less
money than they need to those who have more money than they need.' To
summarise her arguments:

Interest acts like a cancer in our social structure, with money following
an exponential growth pattern. Inflation through the printing of money is a
way for the government to overcome its increasing interest-related
indebtedness. Government income in West Germany rose only 300% between 1968
and 1982, whilst its interest payments rose by 1,160%.

'In contrast to interest, a money system in which people would pay a small
fee if they kept money out of circulation'

Kennedy and others propose, in contrast to interest, a money system in
which people would pay a small fee if they kept money out of circulation.
Everyone would have two accounts, a current account losing 6% a year, and a
savings account with no interest (but with the new money retaining its
value). Borrowers would pay only a risk premium and bank charges (amounting
to about 1.5%). Banks too would be subject to use fees if they were to sit
on their money, so would be keen to give loans. Banknotes would be printed
in different colours, with some recalled once or twice a year, without
prior announcement.

'Land reform would be required. Owners of land would pay 3% of the value of
their plot to the community each year and this would be used by the
community to buy land which came on the market'

Land reform would also be required, or there would be a tendency for
surplus money to be attracted to land speculation. Owners of land would pay
3% of the value of their plot to the community each year and this would be
used by the community to buy land which came on the market. Alternatively,
land owners would pay no fee for 33 years; after which the land would
belong to the community, with the ex-owners and their descendants retaining
the right to use the land - with payment of a 3% lease annually.

Tax reform would also be needed or otherwise the economic boom following
the introduction of interest-free money would have serious environmental
consequences. Income tax would be replaced by a product tax related to the
environ-mental costs of the product.

'People invested in furniture, artwork and everything else that promised to
keep or increase in its value'

Kennedy sketches several historical examples, such as the 1932 Worgl labour
certificates in Austria (described in the next piece), to illuminate her
monetary arguments. She tells how between the 12th and the 15th centuries
in Europe a money system was used called 'Brakteaten'. Issued by the
respective towns, bishops and sovereigns, it helped in the exchange of
goods and services, whilst also, unfortunately in Kennedy's view, serving
as a means of collecting taxes. For every year the thin coins made from
gold and silver were 'recalled', one to three times re-minted, and devalued
on average about 25% in the process. Since nobody wanted to keep this
money, people instead invested in furniture, solidly built houses, artwork
and everything else that promised to keep or increase in its value. Some of
the most beautiful works of art and architecture came into existence. 'For
while monied wealth could not accumulate, real wealth was created.'

Kennedy also quotes a prophetic letter by the economist Sylvio Gesell who
in 1890 had propounded the use-fee as a replacement for interest. His
letter to the editor of the newspaper 'Zeitung am Mittag' in Berlin was
published in 1918, shortly after World War I, when everyone else was
talking about peace and many international organisations were being created
to secure that peace:

'In spite of the holy promise of all people to banish war, once and for
all, in spite of the cry of millions 'Never a war again', in spite of all
the hopes for a better future, I have this to say: if the present monetary
system, based on interest and compound interest, remains in operation, I
dare to predict today, that it will take less than 25 years for us to have
a new and even worse war. I can foresee the coming development clearly. The
present degree of technological advancement will quickly result in a record
performance by industry. The build-up of capital will be rapid in spite of
the enormous losses during the war, and through its over-supply will ...
(affect) ... the interest rate ... Economic activities will diminish and
increasing numbers of unemployed persons will roam the streets ... within
the discontented masses, wild, revolutionary ideas will arise and also the
poisonous plant called 'Super-Nationalism' will proliferate. No country
will understand the other, and the end can only be war again.'

'We can predict a crash mathematically. But instead of learning the hard
way, we may chose the soft evolutionary path'

We have been warned. 'We can predict a crash mathematically,' writes
Kennedy. 'The question is just when and where it starts. But instead of
learning the hard way - which means economic disaster and social chaos for
millions of people - we may chose the soft evolutionary path of change.'

--- end of quote
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,  (Burian)
writes:

>P.S.--Yes, I majored in English in college.  Those who didn't will, I'm
>sure, tell me to "chill out."  Don't bother: I already feel ice cold over
>the matter.

I majored in English in college as well. I make a pretty good living as a
writer. Chill out. The minute we follow the French over the cliff by
establishing a national academy to regulate language usage is the day we
drive a stake through the heart of the English language. One of the
primary strengths of English is its amazing ability to absorb new words
from other languages and generate new words and phrases of its own. Set up
your national academy and it will be an open invitation to every crank
with a linguistic axe to grind, particularly those of the politically
correct stripe. English programs at many of our universities are already
in pathetic shape intellectually thanks to the idiotic, slavish attention
paid to French philosophers like Derrida. I don't think we need to subject
the rest of American society to the loving embrace of the men and womyn in
the English faculty lounge.
Sam Stowe

"Amiguito, amiguito
soy yo de diablos juradores..."
-- Cervantes
+ - Re: Speaking in many tongues (was Re: American Imperial (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Joe Szalai
> writes:

>That's true, today.  However, once a language becomes "official", then
that
>status can be used by less generous people and governments to justify
>limitations on non-English usage.  And if that happens then your
cheerful,
>anarchically polyglot will become less desirable than it is today.
>
>Joe Szalai

You judiciously left out the part of my post where I said the English-only
crowd and minority activists who push for official sanction of their
languages are pretty much cut from the same bolt of cloth. I will say
this, however -- if you are going to be a citizen here, you should be able
to speak English. I read about citizenship ceremonies conducted in Spanish
and I wonder just how effectively that citizenship can be exercised when
the new citizen can't understand English well enough to read a newspaper
or watch the evening news on television. And you obviously aren't familiar
with the time-honored tradition of the mass of people ignoring the
dictates of a small few who have managed to codify their beliefs in the
law. Ever hear of the Volstead Act, Joe?
Sam Stowe

"Amiguito, amiguito
soy yo de diablos juradores..."
-- Cervantes
+ - Re: English-Only Bill in the USA (was: American Imperia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:12 AM 8/14/96 -0700, Tibor Benke wrote:

>I want Salish, G'itskan, Tlinglit and Nootka, etc., to be to some degree
>official languages of British Columbia.  A few civil servants being obliged
>to learn these languages, might be an education to us all.

I have no clue what Salish, Gi'tskan, Tlinglit or Nootka are, but wouldn't
the better solution be to have some of the people who already speak these
languages be the civil servants. I doubt that many other ones will be
interested in learning them.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Identities in XV (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:51 AM 8/14/96 EDT, Mark Humphreys wrote:

>Mr. Soltesz:
>
>Thank you for replying to my comments regarding religion yesterday.  It's
>good to be able to talk rationally with someone.

I enjoyed reading your post, Mark.  I'm glad to see that there are some on
this LIST who haven't fallen for religion, hook, line and sinker.  I thought
of challenging Peter Soltesz's latest rant but deceided against it.  He
recently started writing posts in which he puts down anyone who is not like
him.  I asked him why he thought it was OK to refer to people by all sorts
of derogatory terms but he refuses to answer.  Maybe you'll have better luck
with him but I have my doubts.  Your desire to talk rationally about this
issue with Peter Soltesz might be for naught.

>(BTW, don't worry, I won't continue any kind of long-winded debate on the
>Hungary list.  If this gets too involved, it could always be switched to
>private lines. I apologize to Eva Balogh, Joe Szalai and everyone else for
>the length of this posting.)

Please!  You don't have to apologize to me.  And whatever you do, don't take
this thread to private lines.  This issue, like all comtemporary issues, is
vitally important to all Hungarians.  I'm sure there are many Hungarians in
Hungary who are reading this list right now because they want to practice
their English comprehension and because they want to know what the rest of
the world is talking about.  And how the rest of us view gay issues is very
important to some, especially when we consider that there isn't a large gay
organization or lobby group in Hungary.  Besides, we can't talk about
paprikas all the time.

>Ideally in Buddhism there is an equilibrium that unprejudicially balances
>itself out.  There is no room for personal judgements.  Buddhists don't
ever >claim to "know a god or understand its morality:" they feel that
"those who >say they know and understand" don't know enough to see their own
ignorance.

I know next to nothing about Buddhism but I suspect that Peter Soltesz will
prove the Buddhists right.  His own ignorance is a blinding force.  And it
satiates too.  Hence, its power.

Joe Szalai

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith
but must find his brand of intolerance."
                               Eric Hoffer
+ - Re: Speaking in many tongues (was Re: American Imperial (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

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

On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Stowewrite wrote:
> languages are pretty much cut from the same bolt of cloth. I will say
> this, however -- if you are going to be a citizen here, you should be able
> to speak English.
 While I actually agree with this last statement, it is not really linked
to whether or not an official language is legislatively sanctioned. Nor
does equating language activists on both sides have much bearing on the
situation - obviously, the minority language speakers are not going to
force English speakers to abandon their mother tongue.

> I read about citizenship ceremonies conducted in Spanish
> and I wonder just how effectively that citizenship can be exercised when
> the new citizen can't understand English well enough to read a newspaper
> or watch the evening news on television.
 Allo? News-flash to you: there are plenty of Spanish papers, horribile
dictu an increasing number of newscasts and even Hispanic channels around...

 --
 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

iQBVAwUBMhJe98Q/4s87M5ohAQHNowH+Kk+EzGyEzCSR95YHZ7rtVbIsy+J8i4Gh
EuB8uxEOvbexdmwuFsVcdjetDbLDmNaZr0PpRsofon9SodokwbmwSQ==
=iACF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+ - Re: Morals (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:34 AM 8/15/96 +0200, Zsargo Janos > wrote:

At 10:51 AM 8/14/96 EDT, Mark Humphreys wrote:

>>Especially, what society crumbled simply because they didn't persecute
>>homosexuals and treated them fairly????????
>
>None, but it was a signer, barometer which showed the upcoming 'storm'
>in the case of Roman Empire (along with other things).

A signer and a barometer my ass!

Here's a "signer" for you, Janos.

Last week in Ottawa, participants at the Women's Health Forum conference
were shocked to learn that the cost of violence against women in Canada was
estimated at $4.2 billion a year.  Four point two BILLION!  Every year!!  In
Canada, alone.

The cost includes medical costs, social services such as welfare,
counselling, shelters, days absent from work, lost income and taxes and
insurance costs.  According to the local paper, "as much as $1.5 billion a
year is spent on short- and long-term health costs and community support -
from emergency surgery to mental healthcare to drug addiction programs -
resulting from battering."  According to the study's author the $4.2 billion
is a minimum, not a maximum.

Now I ask you.  Is the above a barometer that shows the "'storm'" that
HETEROsexuality is going to bring to Canada?  Or does heterosexuality not
bring any such storms?  Only homosexuality does, right?  "(Along with other
things)", of course.

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

In article >,  says...
>
>In article >,

>says...
><snip>..
>>In the history of the Second World War a lot of emphasis is put
>>on the suffering of Jews. And it is right, because they suffered
>>the most. (Historical evidences show that almost 6 million Jewish
>>people was killed during the War.) Not questioning this facts,
>>sometime we may have the feeling, that no similar emphasis is put
>>on the suffering of other nations, even if their loss is
>>comparable to that of the Jews.
><snip>..
>
>I normally steer well clear of discussing so-called "Jewish" issues,
>for various reasons, but this is a very pointed posting that prompts
>me to express an opinion...
>
>Of course, it is understandable that a lot of emphasis is put on the
>mass murder and suffering of the Jews in WWII, but suffered the most?
>Consider this: the original figures of 20 million Soviet losses in WWII
>is now considered severely conservative (it covered the embarrassment
>of the Soviet authorities at the time). The figure is now reckoned to
>be anything up from 40 million. Many millions of Chinese civilians
>suffered and died at the hands of the Japanese (albeit from 1936
>onwards), but anyone remotely acquainted with how the average Japanese
>conducted themselves throughout their war on China, USA and Britain,
>etc, this century will very easily put victims of the Japanese at top
>of any most horrific suffering list of the war (if it is possible to
>quantify something like suffering).
>
>You raise an important point. The surviving Jewish victims of WWII
>are naturally vociferous in their condemnation of the crimes committed
>against them, but, personally, I would prefer a vociferous campaign on
>behalf of ALL humankind and civilization against all inhumanities
>perpetrated throughout WWII (and other times, as well as the present),
>not just a tribal egoism crying foul over WWII and past history, while
>presently justifying their own inhumanity against others...
>
>--
>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
>

George, Jews were always the first one to defend general human rights.
In the USA, when the civil right movement started, Jews were the first
ones to go down south and fight for black rights.

Agnes
+ - German Army (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Z.Szekely wrote:

>he made a couple surprising comments about his WWII past and his
>still-existing respect toward the 'excellence' of the German >Army of the war.
>
>Now, Mitterand was neither a Nazi nor a Fascist, was he? He >simply

I do not understand why one has to be nazi or fascist to admit
that excellence. I do think that none of the other armies was comparable to tha
t
 German Army untill Stalingrad. Just read
the history books about 1939-1942.

J.Zs
+ - Morals (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Mark Humphreys wrote (To Mr.Soltesz):

>Could you please give examples of such societies?  It often seems
>that societies fall because of combinations of ills.  Weren't malaria
>and foreign invaders threats to Roman and Greek society?  Other cultures
>saw combinations of political intrigue, domestic and foreign wars.

This is funny. It is like if someone fall off the roof and died and you would
say he did not die because the roof was slippery but because he had a broken
backbone. True, but why was that backbone broken? Why were there political
intrigues, domestic wars?  Also foreign invaders are usually the most
succesful if they attack a disordered country!

> What is this moral decay?  I agree that a morality and
>positive structure are needed for development, but generally
>talking about "morals" and "moral decay" is sensitive.

I think the case of the Roman Empire is a very good example. The base of
glorious Empire was the early roman peasant-soldier (legioner) society.
The toughtness and 'aldozatkeszseg' (I don't know the English word) of
these people made the roman legions so succesful. Their ability to recover
from catastrophic defeats (like: battle of Cannea, or when Hannibal went
through the whole Italian peninsula) was the real strength of the Romans and
not their generals or leaders. And I think this 'szivossag' was originated
from their society or 'moral'. As far as I know this people were very
puritan and probably rude, you would most probably call them 'conservative
morons' in todays terms.
Later when the country became bigger and bigger and also wealthier this
society was slowly destroyed. The selfish interest came in the first place
and so on. This is the time when the consul system and later the emperorship wa
s
established. Fortunatelly to the Romans they had gifted individuals (Ceaser,
Augustus, etc) who could built a well organized imperium which could survive
longer. But by this time more and more anarchy came, continous civil wars
'palota forradalmak', etc. As far as I know very few Roman Emperor died
naturally, in most case they were 'helped'. This was the time when the
homosexuality was accepted or 'treated fairly' along with any other way
to enjoy the life. So everybody (or most people) cared only with his/her
interest and life. And then came the end. Of course I don't say the fall
of the Roman Empire had only internal reasons but they had major role
in it.

>Especially, what society crumbled simply because they didn't persecute
>homosexuals and treated them fairly????????

None, but it was a signer, barometer which showed the upcoming 'storm'
in the case of Roman Empire (along with other things).

>The Church's view of the family makes me laugh and cry.  Priests!!!  They wear
>their frocks and pretty dresses for holidays, don't get married, are
>*supposedlycelibate???.....and DARE tell others how to raise their families!!>

I guess that Church wants to be 'the Catholic Church', as the protestant
priests are not *supposedlycelibate*, nor the orthodox ones necessary do, not
to mention the rabbies if we want to leave Christianity. Their views about
family values however pretty much coincide sometimes.

J.Zs

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