Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Szeretni kell a massagot (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Free speech on Hungary and 'Szucs' (mind)  1 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind)  59 sor     (cikkei)
4 A question (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: The truth (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (Szucs) (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
8 Szucsmo (mind)  73 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Weores S (mind)  11 sor     (cikkei)
10 Horthy (mind)  54 sor     (cikkei)
11 The FORUM's mix (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: A question (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
13 Petofi Radio from Budapest on the Internet (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
14 Szucs. (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
15 Policie minister (mind)  42 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: Hungarians in the Pacific (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
17 Who brings up the subject again? (mind)  55 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Weores S (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
19 Mea culpa (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: J. Edgar Kuncze (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
22 The Oscar goes to..........hungary @ gwu. (mind)  48 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind)  287 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: Banking question - Gyor (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: Weores S (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
26 To Szucs (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
27 Weores S (mind)  48 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Szeretni kell a massagot (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Do I detect a certain hostility in tone? It looks like I am almost
"marginalized" and/or "excommunicated" from The Group,
because I beg to differ a tad. Where is the fondness for the
different ("hol itt a massag szeretete")?

Sure there was "massag" (NOT freedomfighters) in 1956, as
well. Not everybody was SZABADSAGHARCOS. Oh well,
that is quite true. Horn Gyula, for one, wasn't. It is a fact that
there were Hungarians fighting on BOTH sides of the barricades!

I am sorry IF your Father wasn't SZABADSAGHARCOS,
but I forgive you for that -- since that was his sin IF he shot
freedomfighters, not yours, Dear Aniko.  (Before using up
all your yearly supply of exlamation marks, mistakenly again,
please note the BIG IF-s in the previous sentence...)

Suppose I am the "little massag" in this Lovely Group, a tiny
minority nobody agrees with (except those who expressed
admiration to the Hungarian Freedom Fighters for over four
decades by now, all over the World, see http://www.siliconvalley.
com/magyar.html). Isn't that a great chance for all of You, to
exercise your famous "Democratism, the Year of Tolerance,
The Love for the Different, The superiority of Uberkadarjugend?"
How about respecting -maybe for a second- the right of a
"minority of one" to freely express his differing views?

Or have I strayed into a hate-mongering intolerant nazi
party cell, under Kapo Tamas Gaspar Miklos, who under the
disguise of abusing the name "Hungary" violently hate
Hungarians, "Hitler utolso csatlosa", "Bunos nemzet",
"Freedomfighters" or younameit?

Oh, tell me "NO"! Oh, tell me, I am, the "endangered species", the
SZABADSAGHARCOS of minority of one, I am surrounded by
Tender Loving Tolerants who are proud of their "little massag",
and special privileges are voted for me, right now as we speak.
+ - Re: Free speech on Hungary and 'Szucs' (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I second the motion.
+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

There are many types of debate where the burden of proof is unevenly
distributed among the parties.  I claimed that arguments about rights
in general, and freedom of speech in particular, fall in this category.
Most of the burden of proof in this case falls on the side arguing for
restrictions on free speech.  George Antony took exception to this:

> Not really.  Just because you prefer it that way, it doesn't mean that
> this is the default solution.

My preferences are neither here nor there.  The starting assumption is
that freedom has an inherent value, and should not be taken away
without good reason.  In other words, you and I have a right to do X
until and unless proven otherwise.  This is not an earthshaking claim.
There are many things a civilized society can and should prohibit.
Practicing your trumpet after midnight and dumping raw sewage in a
stream are good examples.  All I am saying that in every instance a
convincing reason must be given.  Free speech is just a special case.

> Civilized behaviour is just as much within the definition of civilized
> society as not shooting people full of holes.  So, stomping on the
> grave of victims of an outrage fits well within the definition of
> uncouth behaviour.

Neither Kis nor Tamas show the slightest sympathy toward the proponents
of Nazi views.  The point at issue is whether the legal machinery of the
state should be used against them, or whether society can withstand this
kind of assault without resorting to policemen, jails, prosecutors, and
the courts.  Of course, we are talking about speech, not overt acts of
violence by Nazi mobs.  The latter is amply covered by existing laws.

There are many ways a society can enforce its standards of civilized
behavior, from going tsk-tsk to ostracism, ridicule, or just keeping
one's distance from boors, jerks, and sociopaths.  Then there are
sit-ins, letters to the editor, vigils, marches, Op-Ed pieces, and
acts of civil disobedience.  If the civil society is too weak to fight
the infection on its own, then using the overwhelming power of the state
is justified.  Otherwise, it is not.  Which is why I thought the argument
turned on one's views about the likelihood of an extremist takeover in

> Allow me to be slightly skeptical about the glorification of the US
> social experiment.  I happen to think that the largesse in  personal
> freedom, be it unrestricted free speech or the legal cult of carrying
> assault rifles, did not lead to Nirvana in the US.

This has no logical relationship with anything I said.  My views on the
"US social experiment" are irrelevant to the argument.  I used the
example of the US as a shorthand, to simplify the description.  The U.S.
Constitution assumes an underlying layer of common law that is not spelled
out anywhere within the document itself.  Since Hungary has no such body
of legal tradition, the U.S. Constitution could not possibly be adapted
to Hungary, even if such a thing were desirable.  Constitutional
principles ought to be adopted or rejected on their merits.  Foreign
examples should be studied and discussed, but I don't think the United
States could or should serve as a "model" for Hungarians or anyone else.

Gabor Fencsik

+ - A question (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

List members:

Please excuse me as I am new to this list and am not sure if this
question is appropriate to ask here but I'm in need of information and am
hoping that someone could give it to me.  Please let me know if I am
being inappropriate via private e-mail.

My question is this:  Is anyone aware of any branches of Budapest Bank
being located in the city of Gyor?  If so, is there any ATM access?  I
would also like to know if ATMs in Hungary require 4 or 5
digits/characters for a personal identification number?  I am getting
ready to travel to Hungary as well as other areas of Europe and would
like to know how the ATMs operate there.

Thank you for any help you may be able to offer.

Toman, Enike
+ - Re: Szucs' Toxic Contamination (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, George Antony
> semaphores from Oz:

>And never will.  If you still think that you can actually have a dialogue
>with him then I have a cheap bridge for you around here.

And I'd love to show you this nice beach-front property I have.

>Apart from a standard disclaimer along the lines of 'this person's
>rantings do not represent Hungarian public opinion' there is not much one
>can do.

That's a pretty good start. Some of our list members have already started
to do just that.

>Besides, he is doing a useful public service, by so thoroughly
>his own political line of 'thought'.  The worry is when such Neanderthals
>get kitted out in a neat suit and find electoral respectability.

That suit would be brown in color, wouldn't it? With extra room in the
shoulder so when he gives that little Hitler salute, the jacket doesn't
bunch up in the back? Just because you're goose-stepping doesn't mean you
can't look fashionable.
>George Antony
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: The truth (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Aniko Dunford
> writes:

>Hi Sam:
>I've been trying to digest Amos's message for a couple of days now.  Is
>possible that his message was filled with ironies?  At least, that is
>my thoughpattern is leading me.  Comments welcome.
Oh, great. Now where did I leave that copy of Eco's "Theory of Semiotics"?
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (Szucs) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,
Janos Zsargo > writes:

>There is no problem if the distrubution of the 'nutwing'-s is izotrop
>same in all direction, left, right,etc), it does not even have to be
>homogeneous just a smooth well-behaiving function (no singularity
>The average, and all the statistical parameter of such a distribution
>is quite acceptable.

Janos, you do realize there's a doctorate dissertation idea lurking in
there somewhere, don't you?
Sam Stowe
+ - Szucsmo (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article <v01510104ada2e651cd3e@[]>, Andras Szucs
> writes:

>The latest "change of subject" is a whole lot more subtle (and more
>intelligent) than the knee-jerk ("fasisztazo") reflexes of those who
>turn to "Hitler" and "antisemitism" whenever they encounter an
>argument they cannot rationally defeat.
>What transpires from my simple objection to Eva Balogh's lies
>that "in Hungarian we do not call 1956 "Szabadsagharc"?
>Clearly, the whole affair has nothing to do with Jews. The issue
>is not Jewish at all. And Eva Balogh not once stated that she has no
>Jewish ancestry whatsoever.
Interesting -- you bring up the question of whether Eva Balogh has any
Jewish ancestry or not. Never even entered my mind to wonder whether she
was or not. I figured you were afraid of her simply because she's a woman
and she's also a whole lot smarter than you are. I bet you're a homophobe,

>A lie is a lie is a lie. Eva Balogh and her lowly grupies would
>have been much better off by just admitting "oh well, it was just
>another stupid mistake by Eva, just like her adding non-additive
>percentages". They did not - and thus painted themselves into
>a tight corner. To cover it up, tried to abuse *their definition*
>of free speech -- that any undesirable speech has to be
>snowed under "more speech". Since the right to "more speech"
>is clearly reversible, however, (I just held up a mirror to them)
>this coverup failed miserably, too. Their whole mess escalated
>into their blatant extremism, invoking "antisemitism", "Hitler"
>and their usual garbage.
Look, there's "groupies" and there's "guppies", but no "grupies." Eva
herself admitted right up front to her mistake in calculating percentages.
That's what a scholar does. You persist in character assassination and
lies. That's what a goofball extremist does. The right to free speech is
only reversible by means of violence -- do you realize what a complete
idiot you come off as when you betray your real beliefs over and over and
over again in your posts? By the way, I read your post in a thick Ricky
Ricardo Cuban accent when I first got it. I bet you really sound like
that: "Looocy, come here! I wann to talk wid chew."
>All Hungarians know that 1956 was SZABADSAGHARC.
>Stupid statement of BE grupies that "no one agrees with Andras
>Szucs" is nothing but self-delusion. Should they know (e.g.
>by breaking into computers as intolerant liberal Gabor
>Elek did...) the vast support of "silent majority" that I
>have received, they would be scared wittless. They are petrified
>of "Forum" and "Moka" already, which  lacking a strong but
>moderate conservative voice (since "siliconvalley" was censored
>out of HIX in collective punishment), deteriorated lately into a
>Szalasi-shrine and wholesale supplier of antisemitic racial jokes).
Notice, gentle readers, that he's more concerned with form than function
here. And the unquantified claims of support from the silent majority.
(Hey, does this mean Louis Elteto is a fictional creation of the
Abominable Dr. P as well?) Shabby rhetorical devices from the nutwing
"debatting" playbook.

>I have nothing but sympathy to the "Andy Kozma"-type - just
>wish that they were a little more clever, *not* falling for
>mistaken campaigns.
Andy Kozma has more humanity and common sense in one of his little fingers
than you do in the entire pathetic tragedy you pass off as an existence,
oh cretinous one.

>My points are more than proven, thank you.
You have proven once more that you are a whacko who eminently deserves to
be stripped of either his American citizenship or his green card and
repatriated to Romania where, if there is any divine justice at all, you
will be one of the first victims of sexually-transmitted Mad Sheep
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Weores S (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Dr Doepp,

        This is the same result I came up with.
        Thank you.

        I guess this is a very good example where the
        meaning is lost during translation.  In this case,
        part of it seems to the complex syllabication of
        the hungarian text.

+ - Horthy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear George,

>forgive me if I've got it wrong, but it seems that Ms Balogh (and others)
>are denouncing Horthy as an enemy of the people of Hungary, whilst A. Szucs
>is claiming Horthy to be a great hero. Is this right?

        Yes, you are wrong. I didn't denounce Horthy. Horthy was denounced
on the Forum by an extreme right winger as a traitor to the Hungarian cause.
Reason: belatedly but Horthy tried to get Hungary out of the war!

>If so, from what
>little I know, this outright denunciation of Horthy seems a little bit

        It would have been if it was ever made.

>Wasn't he just trying his best for Hungary (under very trying
>circumstances in the overpowering shadow of Nazi Germany) in the only way
>he knew how, as a right-wing aristocrat?

        First of all, he wasn't an aristocrat. He came from a gentry family
with a few hundred acres. Second, yes, he tried he best, but basically he
was an extremely weak man, who was easily influenced. He agreed with both
sides. If the militaristic pro-German generals visited him: he agreed with
them. If he was visited by Kallay or Bethlen, he agreed with them also. One
day he was sure that the Germans would lose, next day, he could be persuaded
by one of the pro-German generals that the Germans would conquer the world.

>According to one book I still have
>(I had many more than a decade ago, but that's another story), namely,
>Hungarian Premier Kallay's memoirs of Hungary in WWII, Horthy was basically
>an honourable man with a powerful sense of duty. He wasn't a hero, made
>mistakes, etc, but was he really the out and out fascist that some would
>have us believe, whether canonized by the right or denounced by the Balogh
>kangaroo court?

        Where on earth did you get the idea that any responsible historian
would call Horthy a fascist? That was only fashionable under the stalinist
Rakosi regime. That kind of distortion of history was abandoned by the
1960s. No history book of the last thirty years would claim that Horthy was
a nazi, or that the Horthy regime was a fascist regime. No one says such
stupid things, especially not Eva Balogh, kangaroo court or not.

        No, Eva Balogh got into a little argument with a man who claimed
that Ferenc Szalasi, the Hungarian nazi, fascist, hungarist, take your pick,
was trying to save what could be saved after October 15, 1944 while Horthy
"wanted to betray the honor of the Hungarian soldier." This was a direct
quote from the unnamed correspondent from the Forum. So, you completely
misunderstood the whole thing. And in case you are a bit fuzzy on that
period of Hungarian history: At the time of Szalasi's "reign" Horthy was in
German captivity. Ha hallgattal volna, bolcs maradtal volna.

        Eva Balogh
+ - The FORUM's mix (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 09:32 AM 4/24/96 +1000, George Antony wrote:
>Luis Elteto wrote:
>> Mr. Stowe: We are not talking about fascists in general, nor  about
>> Csurka, but specifically about postings to a list of some 140 addresses
>> by a person with whom, it seems, no-one agrees,
>If only this were so simple.  There ARE people agreeing with him all right,
>just look at the Hungarian-language FORUM.
>George Antony

Indeed, if it were that simple. He is not unique, unfortunately. Perhaps the
craziest but not unique. The FORUM is crawling with them. A young cousin of
mine (he is 21 and, after the year in the United States, he is a third-year
college student in Hungary) signed up for the FORUM because he had heard so
much about it from me. He can't believe his eyes! Just a couple of days ago
he wrote to me how distressed he is by all the antisemitism and extremism.
But, at the same time, there are a few people who politely but persistently
express moderate and democratic views. Thank God for all of them.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: A question (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)


You ask:
> List members:
> Please excuse me as I am new to this list and am not sure if this
> question is appropriate to ask here but I'm in need of information and am
> hoping that someone could give it to me.  Please let me know if I am
> being inappropriate via private e-mail.
> My question is this:  Is anyone aware of any branches of Budapest Bank
> being located in the city of Gyor?  If so, is there any ATM access?  I
> would also like to know if ATMs in Hungary require 4 or 5
> digits/characters for a personal identification number?  I am getting
> ready to travel to Hungary as well as other areas of Europe and would
> like to know how the ATMs operate there.

I think your question is appropriate.  I don't have the answer though.
If you can read and write Hungarian anb maybe even if not, you might have
better luck if you inquire at , a list dedicated to precisely
these sorts of questions.  Send message to  with no
subject and no message, then send message with your question to
, prefferably in hungarian, but you might get an answer to an
english query too.

good luck,
Tibor Benke
+ - Petofi Radio from Budapest on the Internet (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Subscribers and Readers,

        The local Budapest Petofi Radio (one of the three state-owned radios
in Hungary) is on the Internet. You can listen to live programing with the
help of a software called "Realaudio." When you first call up the website
you will be asked (in Hungarian) to download "Realaudio." Once you do that
you can have the pleasure of listening to all the programs. Moreover, it
seems that a program guide is also available, although yesterday I was
unsuccessful at getting to the site: apparent server failure.

        By the way, "downloading" seems to be "leto:lte's" in Hungarian
which I find a most unfortunate translation. However, that is what they came
up with!

        Here are the sites:

        Petofi Radio: http://www.petofi.enet.hu/
        Petofi Radio: http://wwwpetofi.datanet.hu/petofi/
                (This seems to be an alternate site)
        program guide: http://www.radio.hu/

        The quality of the audio is very good but, of course, the six-hour
difference makes life a bit difficult. I found news at 19:00 and at 21:00
hours Hungarian time. Last night after midnight there was an interesting
interview on organized crime. Sunday afternoon there was a long interview
with Gyo:rgy Moldova, a writer.

        Good listening,

        Eva Balogh
+ - Szucs. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

How can you call this a mistakeb campaign?
How many Szabadsagharcos died?
How many other paople died in that mistaken campaign.
I have my life here,not thank's to you and your predecesesors.
I can say this now,wich I tried to say many years ago:shut your mouth,and
shame on you.
By the way you never awnserd the question where you were in 56?
Andy Kozma.
+ - Policie minister (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Let me try to defend my choice of the phrase `police minister' in translating
`belu2gyminiszter'. As Ga1bor Fencsik quite correctly notes, the literal
translation `minister (or secretary) of the interior (affairs)' brings to the
mind of the US reader national parks, forests, the spotted owl, and the the
whorled pogonia, as well as the image of a "political lightweight who is not
yet ready for prime time". Ga1bor then goes on to draw an analogy between the
British Home Office and the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior, noting, again
quite correctly, that the latter is also involved with
> wide-ranging responsibilities in public administration, supervision of local
> governments, and legislative support of parliament

Unfortunately, the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior is not modelled on the
British institution but rather on the French tradition of police ministry. The
power concentrated in the hand of the individual leading this ministry is
simply enormous, and I'm afraid the imagery conjured up by the term `police
minister', with Joseph Fouche1 reading reports of his informers present in all
strata of society, is the right one. American readers should imagine not a
carreer bureaucrat, but rather a political activist like J. Edgar Hoover,
except it's not only the FBI that falls under his control but also the border
guard, the Bureau of Alcohol Firearms and Tobacco, the CIA, the DEA, the NSA,
and all local and state law enforcement agencies.

> Police Ministry would have been a fitting name during the Communist era,
> but with a return to more normal government structures the relative weight
> of police matters is declining.  The place is becoming more of a department
> of domestic affairs, with police matters playing a less prominent role.
The roots of the institution are much deeper. Hungarians are well aware of the
pivotal role the Ministry of the Interior, with La1szlo1 Rajk Sr.  at the
helm, played in the postwar communist takeover, but of course such a role
would not have been possible without the Ministry concentrating such enormous
powers in the first place. I'm not sure how much of the picture Ga1bor paints
is wishful thinking (certainly the Ministry of the Interior lost a lot of its
`in your face' quality even under Ka1da1r) but still, Mr. Kuncze is not likely
to devote a lot of his time to the whorled pogonia and the marbled murrelet.

Notice that I'm not addressing the normative issues here (*should* any one
Ministry concentrate so much power) because I think we are in complete
agreement over that with Ga1bor (his wishful thinking is my wishful thinking
too), I'm only addressing the issue from a descriptive standpoint. As long as
the setup is the way it is, `police minister' is the correct descriptive term.

Andra1s Kornai
+ - Re: Hungarians in the Pacific (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Does anyone on this list live in Guam or Micronesia?
I am moving to Micronesia next month and would like some information.
PLease send a personal e-mail to:

Nora Conroy

+ - Who brings up the subject again? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

One can actually find a statement in Stowe's latest filthy hate-speech
worth responding to. (Now, that HE IS stupid enough to re-raise the
issue of "Balogh Eva is a pathological liar"):

Stowe writes:
"Eva herself admitted right up front to her mistake in calculating percentages.
That's what a scholar does. You persist in character assassination and
lies. That's what a goofball extremist does."

I beg to disagree, though it is beneath my dignity to respond to
Stowe's hateful diatribe in kind.

I don't wish to dwell on that a "scholar" does not make such a stupid
error in elementary-school mathematics in calculating percentages.
Much more important is, that once that YOU brought the issue up, I can
document -again- that Eva Balogh is a LIAR, showing it at this time with
the "percentages" issue. (Her another LIE that "we don't call 1956 a
SZABADSAGHARC in Hungarian" has been amply refuted).

Readers should know that I myself was curious about her "innocent
mistake" and PUBLICLY warned the audience that she was likely to
pull some crazy "excuse" for it.

Boy, did she! (And this was NOT what a scholar would do, either).
Moreover, that served as an absolute proof, again, that she LIED:

She brought up the lame "excuse" that her Library is to blame for her
error, because it did not have the numbers of voters for various parties!

Now, any reader with reasonable elementary school math knows
that this is a BLATANT LIE. Readers don't have to believe ME,

The error in her calculation of her "percentages" IS INDEPENDENT
Mathematics leaves just NO WAY for her to result in the error
she made - no missing (or even wrong) numbers on voters could
possibly result in the error (46%) she came up with!  WRONG
(missing) NUMBER OF VOTERS could only result in erroneous
result between the lowest and highest given percentage (I think it
was 4% minimum and 12% maximum, or so).

Not only SHE LIED with her crazy "excuse" -- she also documented
that she has absolutely no concept of the difference of algorithmic
error (that she made, by adding non-additive parameters) and
arithmetic error (that she claims, that she used erroneous data).

There is one thing worse than a LIE -- and that is a STUPID LIE.

(A reverse -but equally stupid- double falsehood would be, another
insult to injury,  making an arithmetical mistake and blaming it
on an algorithmic error: e.g:

Oops, I used addition; 2+2, this is how I came up with 5)
+ - Re: Weores S (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:23 PM 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>        The following poem by Weores Sandor seems to be beyond my
>        grammar comprehension.  I can make sense of the word meanings,
>        but the grammar seems to be very precise and subtle.
>        Perhaps we can have fun with it, as we did with the last
>        'tre'fa' translation...
>        Tana'rikari karika
>        papiripari paripa
>        karika tana'ri kara
>        paripa papiripara
>        Anyone who can say it very fast is as equally talented..
>        Misi
        Maybe I am simple-minded but I think this is just good-sound
gibberish. However, it is always possible that these four lines have some
deep meaning I am incapable of discovering.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Mea culpa (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:03:31
>To: Hungary
>From: "Eva S. Balogh" >
>Subject: Mea culpa
>This was stupid. It would have been better to think a little bit before
writing it down. I should have weighted the parties; i.e., the MSZP and the
SZDSZ had a larger share of the votes than the other parties. Unfortunately,
in my own library I can't find the exact figures on voters, only the
percentages in parliament. In any case, the figure is a great deal lower
than 46% but I would say still high enough.
>        Eva Balogh

        I wrote. For sake of those who are not familiar with the Hungarian
electoral system, the system as it stands distorts the results. For example,
the MSZP got 54 percent of the parliamentary seats, but only 30 some percent
of the actual votes! In order to calculate the average one ought to weigh
the parties' share according to the number of actual voters. I was hoping
that I would find the number of those voters who actually voted for X or Y
party and then calculate their share in the voting population, but in my own
home library I was unable come up with these figures. Therefore, I was
unable to provide the accurate statistics once I discovered my error.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Who brings up the subject again? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

This guy just cannot stop. I am sure if we could hear his voice, it would be
interesting to hear his screams, screams that he substitutes with all those
capital letters.

Someone should teach him some netiquette, which among other things makes
typing in capital letters a no-no.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: J. Edgar Kuncze (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Andras Kornai on the awesome powers of a Hungarian Minister of the

> American readers should imagine not a carreer bureaucrat, but rather a
> political activist like J. Edgar Hoover, except it's not only the FBI
> that falls under his control but also the border guard, the Bureau of
> Alcohol Firearms and Tobacco, the CIA, the DEA, the NSA, and all local
> and state law enforcement agencies.

Not to speak of all the fire departments in the country.  But I still
think Andras is exaggerating.  It is true that the Minister of the
Interior controls all municipal police departments down to the smallest
village, but the equivalent of the ATF is, I think, under the Ministry
of Finance, isn't it?  (Penzugyorseg, I believe.)  As for the
equivalents of the CIA and the NSA, I am quite sure you are mistaken.
The infamous departments of the Communist era (III/1, III/2, etc.)
dealing with domestic spying, foreign intelligence, and counter-
intelligence have either been eliminated or transferred out of the
Ministry of the Interior.  Department III/3, the core of the secret
police apparatus, has been abolished, with most of its archives shredded
and incinerated sometime in 1989.  The rest of the Department III
subdivisions have been transferred to the National Security Office
(Nemzetbiztonsagi Hivatal) which does not report to the Minister of the
Interior.  So the J. Edgar Hoover image does not fit any more.  But we
should not feel sorry for the poor Minister of the Interior.  He still
got all those traffic cops to boss around.

Gabor Fencsik

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


This, truly, is the BEST all-around acting I've ever SEEN. What a
performance!!! When are you folks going to do the talk show circuit??

I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this thing develop (not really the
appropriate word. Fester is more closer.) for a couple months into a cesspool
of nonsense. Both sides have totally lost control of this. It was interesting
for a few weeks , but now, once again you've all proven to me, again, that the
saying "Hungarians can't get together or unify for anything." is 100% true.

What I enjoy the most about all of you is that you finally decide that NOW is
the time to "clean house" way after the fact. You could've stopped the "Scourge
of Szucs" and the like, at any point of this long, tiring, boring, thoughtless,
unstructured, pointless, argument, but instead of dealing with it in the
beginning; you all let it get out of hand and participated in the back and
forth volley of personal attacks on each other, which doesn't make any of you
better than the next person. You're all just like bratty little kids. Remember
what they did in school when you were caught fighting with someone else?? The
both of you were suspended. It didn't matter who swung the first punch. The
fact that you lashed back was reason enough to suspend you. If you didn't lash
back and let the other beat you, then only the aggressor was suspended. Those
rules apply in daily life, today, too.

If I were list manager, all those involved in this "brawl" should be booted off
for awhile. It's the only fair thing to do in this situation, isn't it?? No one
on this list  should get "preferred treatment" because they happen to be in the
"in crowd" or in the majority. It doesn't work that way. This way the "Internet
air" would be a little bit cleaner and maybe some REAL discussion and exchange
of ideas by ALL sides can be done in a more peaceful manner and maybe those
parties involved will conduct themselves better on this list the next time.
This list is nothing more than a soap opera more than anything else. "What will
Szucs say next?", "What will Eva say??", "Is this person a JEW or a NAZI or a
COMMIE??" and so on and so on and so on. I could care less who's a "NAZI",
"JEW", "COMMUNIST", "PATHALOGICAL LIAR", or what political leanings anyone has.
That's not why I subscribed to this list. I do know that each of you are very
smart individuals and have lots to say, but the way you all have been carrying
on makes you all look like WACK JOBS to the rest of us.

I know the list manager would hate to "police" anyone on here. The task would
be Herculean at best, but that may be the only viable plan, unless you all can
just STOP THE BULLSHIT!!!!! It's just, way too, simple to label (brand) someone
and have that person banished because you don't agree with him/her. Don't rely
on labeling as your crutch, you'll bust your ass, eventually.

Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com
+ - Re: Free Speech in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I have now had the luxury of reading Gabor Fencsik's comments
regarding free speech in Hungary, along with approximately a
half-dozen responses/replies to those comments.  I would like to
react to some of them individually, and, if this is too long for
anyone, perhaps you can pick and choose.

First, a caveat - I am an American-born, and American-educated former
journalist and now journalism professor with specialties in broadcast
journalism and media law.  I am currently an associate professor of
journalism and mass communication at an American university in
Bulgaria.  I have been a guest lecturer at the former American
Journalism Center in Budapest, where I lectured twice on the American
legal system, and various aspect of media law.  All this to say, my
view is an American view, but I am not totally without some knowledge
of the situation in countries in Central Europe.

Now - I, too, appreciate Gabor's comments and wish the best for
Hungary.  It, to me, is quite understandable that there would be
differing opinions on the "best" way to deal with the question of
free speech.  George Antony is right - American is unique in its
approach to establishing freedom of speech and freedom of the press -
that, however, does not disqualify the American approach as an
acceptable way of conducting affairs relating to freedom of speech.

The American approach, although, it seems so to others, is not
absolute.  The American approach essentially divides speech into two
categories - public speech and private speech.  Public speech is
speech of a civic nature - discussion of government and government
officials, criticism of government actions, even hate speech which is
directed at groups of people, rather than at individuals singled out,
unless the individual is a government official of some type and the
comments are regarding his/her official position.  In addition,
public speech includes people who are of a public nature - movie
stars, professional athletes in high-profile sports, etc.  In these
situations, protection of freedom of speech is quite extensive
(though not absolute), and the courts have erected extremely high
barriers to restrictions on those freedoms.

It is not the same for private speech.  Private speech is between
persons, a media outlet and a person (who is not in the public
limelight, either through government service or a high-profile
position), and the ability to receive compensation for injury in
decidedly easier.  For instance, on another listserv, one member
referred to another member in the subject heading (and therefore, of
a public nature) as a "piece of s***."  A second incident, on this
list had one member refer to another as "a pathological liar" (I
believe those were the exact words).  Let me point out, that for a
libel to occur, the statement must be a lie, damaging to the victim's
reputation, published in some form, and as few as three people must
have seen it - the publisher, the victim, and ONE other person.

This long beginning is to provide some background to the American
system regarding freedom of speech and the various type of speech and
their protections.

Now, may I turn to Hungary.

> This is how the debate is shaping up so far.  One side is pushing for
> unrestricted free speech along the lines of the First Amendment, with
> only the standard exceptions for libel, slander, incitement to riot,
> fighting words, fraud, obscenity, etc.  This is essentially the
> "American" model, with no legal restrictions whatever on any form of
> hate speech, including Nazi propaganda sheets, Nazi symbols, or Nazi
> Internet sites.  This is the position advocated by J. Kis and G. M.
> Tamas -- both founding members of SZDSZ, long retired from day-to-day
> politicking to concentrate on teaching and research.

This is a reasonable explanation of the American system for public
speech, but let me point out that there is protection for even
incitement to riot, UNTIL it becomes obvious that immediate action
will result from the words.  In fact, some Supreme Court justices
would have you, even in this type of situation, punish the action
following the speech, not the speech itself.

> The other side would like to have a category of political speech remain
> unprotected under the constitution, along the lines of German and
> Austrian law.  The prohibited types of speech would include racist
> and/or totalitarian propaganda, including publications, symbols, and
> the like.  The reasons advanced for this view are similar to the German
> and Austrian case: the memories of totalitarian regimes are too fresh,
> and the dangers of totalitarian revival too great to allow racist hate
> speech to flourish.  To the proponents of this view, totalitarian
> propaganda represents a clear and present danger, like shouting fire in
> a crowded theater.  This seems to be the more popular position, judging
> by the number of articles published in the Hungarian papers attacking
> Kis and Tamas.  In the hallowed tradition of Hungarian political
> arguments, some of the attacks were quite vicious and personal: a fact
> that is unlikely to surprise readers of this list.

Let me make one correction first - the phrase in Gabor's above
paragraph "shouting fire in a crowded theater" should read "falsely
shouting fire in a crowded theater."  It is the falsity of the shout
that causes the "clear and present danger" the Oliver Wendell Holmes
described in SCHENCK v. U.S. (1919).  However, Holmes himself
believed such restrictions should only apply to time of extreme
emergencies, such as war, said as much in his majority opinion in
SCHENCK (I can quote the passages for anyone who would like them),
and argued against the use of the clear and present danger for any
situation other than such times of extreme emergency.

The largest concern of having laws against hate speech, symbols of
past regimes, publications of organizations that are considered
noxious to the general public, etc., is that governments enjoy the
power to define such laws in expansive ways.  For instance, why could
not the party in power decide under a law outlawing hate speech
decide that any speech that is critical of its government decisions
be hate speech under the law?  It certainly would be (in a sense)
anti-government.  You can make the argument that such would never
happen, but what about the recent law passed by the Slovakian
government, or, for that matter, the views of the Soviet Union to
dissident voices.  I am too young to remember 1956 (I was two at the
time), but from what I have read on this list, there are many of you
who do remember.  Freedom of speech must include those voices of the
fringe - to pass laws to limit or eliminate one kind of fringe voice
surely WILL limit other fringe voices essential to an open society.
In the case NEW YORK TIMES v. U.S, the famous Pentagon Papers case,
Justice Black made the argument that the remedy for bad speech is more
speech.  In the public arena, I must say, I agree with him.
> It stands to reason that the side arguing for restrictions on free speech
> has a heavier burden of proof to meet.  So far, the articles I have read
> failed to make the case for limiting personal freedoms in such a radical
> way.  Lots of rhetorical appeals to emotion, but too little in the way
> of convincing arguments.

That is because such LOGICAL arguments are extremely hard to come by,
and often, can be defeated easily.  What's left then is emotion and
rhetoric, both smoke screens.
> It seems that the debate turns on one's views about the danger of an
> extremist takeover in Hungary.  The opponents of Kis and Tamas say that
> US-style free speech is fine for Americans, living as they do in a
> country with a 200-odd year old tradition of free speech, and no
> history of totalitarian takeovers.  (The idea that there might be a
> causal relationship between these two facts of American life does not
> seem to enter the argument.)  Hungary is different, they say: closer to
> Germany in this respect than to the U.S.  They say the state cannot
> remain neutral when the constitutional order is threatened.  With the
> mass media magnifying every demonstration by every tiny extremist
> group, they feel the danger of sudden destabilization is real.

There is a great difference between honest protest, even of an
extremist type and having constitutional order "threatened."  You
threaten constitutional order by the ballot or by a revolution.
Parades, marches, and demonstrations do not qualify.  The concerns of
the opponents of Kis and Tamas suggest the type of widespread use of
laws outlawing hate speech that can get out of hand.  Who defines
when "constitutional order is threatened"?  The government, of
course, which provides such power as I would not like to give any
government, let alone the one to which I elect.  In the U.S.
Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that people (I'm
updating here from his use of the word "Men") have inalienable rights
to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - rights that
supercede the government.  It has been and can be argued that freedom
of speech is fundamental to those inalienable rights.

Let me now leave Gabor's comments and address some of the replies.
Some I have already addressed - others I will include here.

Sam Stowe writes:

>Yeah, and you see that dynamic on this very NG today. Let a nutwing like
>Szucs appear with his babble and a sizable portion of the readers
>immediately want the whole ugly thing to just go away. If Hungarians
>aren't ready for American-style freedom of speech, it is in the sense that
>they're neither ready nor willing to use it for the purposes for which it
>is intended -- to stop extremism by challenging it in the public square.

(Rest deleted)

I must agree with Sam, assuming that the writings of Szucs are of a
public nature and not of a private one.  When the message is private
speech, then even I would suggest remedies for anyone harmed by the
speech.  However, I would opt for some form of remedy for the
publication rather than for censoring beforehand of the offending
work.  Further, a distinction must be drawn between statements of
fact and statements of opinion.  Opinions, according to the courts,
are like noses - everybody has one - and the "court of public
opinion" (Milton's "marketplace of ideas") is where such should be
taken for remedy.  On that Sam and I both agree.

Let me also respond to George Antony who says:

>Just to put my money where my mouth is in the free speech debate,
>I formally suggest that we apply the more restrictive concept of
>free speech in this little club of ours, the HUNGARY list, once again.

>Many readers and participants will recall that the list owner, at
>my suggestion, has barred a previous reincarnation of Dr Pellionisz,
>then called 'Jozsef Toth' from the list, for personal attacks on
>another person.

>As I see it, Dr Pellionisz has done it again, this time with his
>persistent personal attacks on Eva Balogh.

>Just to recap the argument used before: this is a club, not a public
>forum.  To be here is not a natural personal right but a privilege,
>for the satisfaction of all members.  In any case, the list owner
>OWNS the list, so he is well within his rights to select the members,
>even without consulting anybody.

Let me ask first if this is a moderated list - if so, then fine.  If
not, then, in essence, this list does become a public forum, open to
anyone who wishes to voice an opinion or state a fact.  It is not a
club - there are no membership dues, no handshakes, no constitutions
or by-laws, etc., other than to sign up for the list.  There are
other remedies that can be applied to vitriolic writings, at least if
one resides in the U.S. or the perpetrator of the writings resides in
the U.S. (remember Ariel Sharon sued TIME magazine in U.S. courts),
some of which I have alluded to in this piece.  By giving a list
owner carte blanche to restrict writings not acceptable to the owner
would certainly be damaging to the list as a whole.  For example, Eva
Durant and I probably don't see eye-to-eye on much of anything, but I
would never want to be in a position where I had the right and the
power (and there is a difference) to reject her writings merely based
upon the fact that I didn't like them or rejected them for myself.

George also wrote:

(previous edited - from original comments of Gabor Fencsik)

>A strawman argument.  If we live in a society, personal freedoms cannot
>be totally unrestricted.  The question is only where to draw the line,
>not whether there is a line to be drawn.

You are correct and therein lies the problem.

>Civilized behaviour is just as much within the definition of civilized
>society as not shooting people full of holes.  So, stomping on the grave
>of victims of an outrage fits well within the definition of uncouth

Wrong.  If such is done as a political statement, there is not
difference between stomping on the grave, burning a flag, marching in
the street, or voting for a fringe, extremist candidate.  They are
all political statements and should be protected as such, lest we
arrest Catholics for stomping on the graves of Baptists, Methodists
for walking on Jewish graves, Democrat outlawing Republican
primaries, and everybody outlawing Perot.  If you are going to live
in a free society, where YOUR rights are respected, then you have to
take the good with the bad.  You pass laws to outlaw the bad, and
pretty soon, you will find your own rights limited or outlawed by
those who do not share your views.

(previous deleted - originals comments from Gabor Fencsik)

>Allow me to be slightly skeptical about the glorification of the US
>social experiment.  I happen to think that the largesse in  personal
>freedom, be it unrestricted free speech or the legal cult of carrying
>assault rifles, did not lead to Nirvana in the US.  If anything, I find
>US society less appealing than the alternative European model with its
>more widespread restriction of personal freedoms.  Needless to say that
>I see the latter as a more desirable model for other countries, including

I don't think even Americans would call America "Nirvana," nor would
they like for others to consider it that way.  I will simply say that
it seems a more mature approach for a country to provide more freedom
to its citizenry than less.  The more a government is given the power
the restrict freedoms, the more it is likely to take extreme
advantage of it.

>I am more worried about the whackoes of Waco and the Freemen of Montana
>setting up local chapters in Hungary (or Australia) than about the above
>ridiculous examples.  Not having a sense of absolute free for all pervading
>society seems to me as a line of defence against such occurrences.

George, I hate to tell you this, but, according to the organization
Klanwatch, a citizen group in the U.S. begun to keep tabs on the Ku
Klux Klan, skinheads, and other right-wing, extremist groups, such
groups are probably operating in both countries as we speak.
Wherever there are economic and social problems and there are
immigrant populations in countries competing for jobs with the
indigenous population, there will be disenfranchised people ready to
listen to the siren song of such groups.  As a reporter I've covered
these groups - they are scary.  But I would rather having them in the
open, marching and spewing their rhetoric on camera than to have them
working in the dark, secretly.  To me secrecy is more dangerous to
civil life.

Thank you for your time and your comments.  I appreciate this list,
even if I write seldom.

Frank A. Aycock, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication
American University in Bulgaria
+ - Re: Banking question - Gyor (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tibor Benke suggested to a reader to send the question to HIX.  I agree
that it is a good starting point, *if* another reader from HUNGARY cannot be
found to provide an answer.

However, IMHO, it is not necessary to subscibe in order to post.  One
could state that a reply should be sent to the private e-mail address,
(in English, if possible,) since the person is not a subscriber.  HIX is too
voluminous, especially for someone who doesn't read Hungarian!!!

Just my 2 cents worth.  Rebuttals are accepted.  ;-)

Good luck!
+ - Re: Weores S (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

My only contribution to the exchanges about Weores' ditty is to note that
"steed" is not perhaps the best translation of "paripa," which I understand
to be an exceptionally fine show horse.  But I admit that that longish phrase
hardly fits the demands of Weores' prosody.  Also, this kind of "tone-poem"
seems to be very popular with Hungarians, and is much used in advanced courses
on Hungarian language in Hungary.

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

Szucs, you are slipping!  Couldn't you find an excuse to advertise your
group's address *somehow* in your last posting?

Kindly get off this list.  We are sick and tired of your rantings.  There
is a limit to our tolerance and our patience and this is IT.

Please do not bother to write me.  I do not intend to answer and make
this another unending, boring dialog.

Thank you,

Martha S. Bihari
+ - Weores S (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Michael D Shafer > wrote

>         The following poem by Weores Sandor seems to be beyond my
>         grammar comprehension.  I can make sense of the word meanings,
>         but the grammar seems to be very precise and subtle.
>         Perhaps we can have fun with it, as we did with the last
>         'tre'fa' translation...
>         Tana'rikari karika
>         papiripari paripa
>         karika tana'ri kara
>         paripa papiripara
>         Anyone who can say it very fast is as equally talented..
>         Misi

How's this:

Teaching staff circle
Paper industry steed
Teaching staff of the circle
Paper industry of the steed.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

James D. Doepp
Department of Economic Theory
University of Miskolc (Hungary)

  By meanes whereof, they became lazie and slothfull in their dayly
endevours, even like to our Citizens; not minding or medling with
their wonted affaires: but, as a waiting for death every houre,
imployed all their paines, not in caring any way for themselves, their
cattle, or gathering the fruits of the earth, or any of their
accustomed labours; but rather wasted and consumed, even such as
were for their instant sustenance.

Boccaccio, _The Decameron_

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/