Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: The Compromise of 1867 (mind)  38 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: [Homo]Sexuality and Politics (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: HL-Action: Collective Human Rights (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: The Compromise of 1867 (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: [Homo]Sexuality and Politics (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Galbraight and Soros (mind)  120 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Soros / Capitalism Debate (mind)  100 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind)  111 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind)  111 sor     (cikkei)
11 Egy kis lecke Novak Ferencnek (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: The Compromise of 1867 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article <l03010d00af0d9b5606ab@[]>, "Peter I. Hidas"
> writes:

>To call the Hungarian units "rebels" is a condemnation of their
>You are using a highly subjective term that was used by the imperial
>at the time. Americans use the term "rebs" with  hostility and contempt.
>The Honved Army and the Kossuth government represented more than just a
>rebellious group. If you do not wish to use the terms "revolutionaries"
>"freedom fighters" you should apply the more neutral term "insurgents".

For your information, doc, I happen to be descended from "rebs." There are
large parts of the U.S. where the word "rebel" is not quite the pejorative
term you deem it. Just for that, if you ever set foot in North Carolina,
I'm going to insist on taking you out and feeding you some of the best
barbecue, fried chicken, hush puppies, cole slaw and Brunswick stew you'll
ever have the great fortune to wrap your lips around.

And your insistence on which terms to use smacks of the old "shall we call
it it a forradalom or szabadsagharc?" I fail to see how calling them
revolutionaries somehow lends more of an air of nobility to their efforts
than calling them rebels. Too bad I don't have a copy of the "Handy-Dandy
Habsburg/Hungarian History and Romance Writer's Handbook." ("Erzebet's
bodice heaved with barely-concealed desire as the proud, fiery Petofi
stroked her hair, his muscles rippling under his linen shirt. 'Tell me
again, what are you rebelling against?' The words leaped from her mouth in
passionate bursts. Petofi's chiseled Sumerian features darkened, a red
flush tinging his cheeks. 'Darling, how many times must I tell you?' he
murmurred. 'I'm not rebelling. I'm simply revolting.'")
Sam Stowe

"Those who serve the revolution
plow the sea..."
-- Simon Bolivar
+ - Re: [Homo]Sexuality and Politics (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:37 AM 1/24/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>What is this about "you all"?  Speaking for me personally, I have no
>feelings of guilt, fear or shame or hatred, for that matter.  I just find
>homosexuality disgusting.  Please don't take it personally.  I believe we
>should still be able to maintain a civilized discourse on other, more
>important topics.
>Can't we just practice "don't ask, don't tell" as in the (US) army?

No, we can't, Ferenc.

You've got a nice political philosophy there, mister.  Besides
homosexuality, what else would you like to suppress?

Joe Szalai

"Absolute justice is achieved by the suppression of all contradiction:
therefore it destroys freedom."
                 Albert Camus
+ - Re: HL-Action: Collective Human Rights (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Listers:

If someone is going to offer a model letter to be used by many others
care should be taken that it NOT contain glaring grammatical errors.
"The alternative to cultural autonomy ARE mass graves and cultural
genocides" should have read "The alternative to cultural autonomy
IS mass graves and cultural genocide." The antecedent of IS is
"alternative," which is singular. In other words "[t]he alternative . . . IS"
not ARE! And the very next sentence contains a comma splice. The
phrase "the United States was forced three times" is NOT parenthetic
so it shouldn't be enclosed with commas. The sentence in question
should have read: "In this century the United States was forced to
intervene three times in Europe . . . "

Now I know that netiquette dictates that we not correct each other's
grammar, but surely a case such as this is an exception to the rule.
If someone is going to ask others to use a text such as this, that
person should really have the text in question double-checked to make
sure it doesn't contain embarrassing errors . . . I happen to be a
professor of English with 25 years teaching experience and a Ph.D.
in English from the Johns Hopkins University, so please don't try to
defend the errors I have pointed out. I know whereof I speak. And
don't flame me, either. I really and truly mean well. If we are going to
create representative texts, we should make sure that the texts in
question are correct in every way . . .

Thanks for listening,
Steven C. Scheer
+ - Re: The Compromise of 1867 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:19 AM 1/24/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>E.Balogh wrote:
>>by Hungarians. Therefore there was no "nationality issue" to exploit. The
>>court, by and large, accepted the Hungarian demands for a representative
>So if Kossuth had presented those demands during the fall of 1847 just before
>the turmoil all over Europe (spring of 1848), then the court, by and large,
>would have accepted them? And with cooler head they would have worked out the
>differences. 'Hogy ez miert nem jutott Kossuth eszebe!'

        I really don't understand how your mind works. Very strangely. Why
are you picking dates like "fall of 1847" out of the bag. No one was talking
about the fall of 1847, before the turmoil all over Europe. But may I remind
you that the Hungarian revolution was bloodless, by and large, and yes,
under the gun or not, Vienna accepted the April Laws with all its faults. In
my humble opinion the April Laws as they stood were unworkable. You cannot
have even a personal union without some cohesion of finances, army, and
foreign policy. (And before you jump on me: there was no foreign minister in
the cabinet but the Hungarian government was sending its own representatives
to foreign powers.)

        In brief, the Hungarian government may have exploited that
particular gun under which the Crown labored. And that gun later backfired.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: [Homo]Sexuality and Politics (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:19 PM 1/24/97 +0100, Miklos Hoffmann wrote:

>Hey! someebody used the term "civilized discourse", for a change. Please
>do not lynch him ( nor me for this remark ).

Welcome to the list, Miklos.

No one's getting lynched here but, you may have noticed, the debates
sometimes get overheated.  And there's nothing wrong with that, per se.
However, it helps if you have a thick skin and a quick wit.  Unfortunately,
some, like Ferenc ("I just find homosexuality disgusting") Novak, are just
thick, and dim-witted.  But that's their problem.

Joe Szalai

"The queers of the sixties, like those since, have connived with their
repression under a veneer of respectability. Good mannered city queens in
suits and pinstripes, so busy establishing themselves, were useless at
changing anything."
             Derek Jarman
+ - Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In my previous reply to Eva Balogh's attack (regarding a Hungarian-language
 article I had sent to Hungary by mistake) I vented my frustration over Eva's
behavior and neglected to explain the issue to those who don't read
Hungarian.  Since Eva didn't explain it either, some of you may be puzzled
over what it is about.

In the article -- intended for FORUM (now SZABAD) -- I responded to one of
Eva's posts in which she related how she had translated an offensive post
into English and showed her friends as  a typical example of what appears in
the Hungarian language lists (and, by implication, how Hungarians debate).

In my post I asked her why she would libel a community (FORUM in this case)
when she only had problems with a certain individual and raised the question
whether she thought it fair, proper, even intelligent to level vile
accusations at an entire group of which she herself is a member.

+ - Re: Galbraight and Soros (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> So you were a peon and you still carry water for this bunch. Hey, whaddaya
> know? I've met my first Hungarian masochist. I guess we can assume that
> you're not going to answer my questions.

Beeing a worker inthe 80s is Hungary was not a lot different, that
being a worker in the UK in the 70s or in the 90s. Remember, we
went to live in Hungary due to redundancy. If you like, I send - just
for you - a comparative  essay on working conditions - also as far
as freedom to criticise the boss, freedom to just leave and get
another job.
that capitalism doesn't provide the FREEDOM for WORKERS
NEITHER, that you are keep lecturing me about. Voting for the
opposition still means the same conditions, for the last 30 years,
the "more socially conscious" opposition, even when calls itself
socialist, doesn't change the economical structure, and CANNOT
offer the better social conditions, because at this stage the
"market system" cannot afford them, as it could in the 60s.
> Hey, imitating me! That's the first concrete step I've seen you take
> toward thinking for yourself. Keep this up and I may have to send you
> roses. And it is official, gentles -- Eva D. won't answer my questions!

But you didn't get the idea - capitalism is not immune from
undemocratic deformations, fascism, apartheid, Somoza,
Papa Doc, just to list some of the most obvious ones.

You seem to think that democratic capitalism is great.
I think, that democratic socialism has a good chance to be greater.
Your point, that all the structures of socialism were so far undemocratic,
doesn't mean that there couldn't be a different version put in
practice.   Your argument would have meant, that liberal versions
of capitalism  should not exist, because before  there were
only non-liberal types of capitalism. Socialism is still to evolve to
its most practical form.

> >
> >BAD.  When did I last dispute this?  However,  totalitarian capitalism is
> >bad.
> Totalitarianism means the political system is structured to admit no
> opposition. That's a far cry from the position of most Western European
> and North American nations, although the influence of money on politics is
> a worrisome factor in those nations. Your statement shows absolute
> ignorance: a) of the political system you live in and b) why you can't get
> many people to take your political views seriously.

Have you any guarantee against a deformation into totalitarianism?
It happend in Spain, Greece not so long ago, not to mention Hitler,
and these just in Europe.
UK wasn't far from it a few times. And as I described earlier,
having an opposition that doesn't pose an alternative in any way
is nearly as democratic, as not having an opposition at all.
All of these "democratic" states have a few nasty episodes of shooting
at democratically/peacefully protesting citizens on the rare occasion
when these were anti-status-quo.
Labour/liberal in the UK won't change an iota the way the country is
run, same in the US, Clinton couldn't even deliver the
health-reforms, on which platform he was elected originally.
Having an inadequate government, that hasn't even got the power to
govern and has been elected by a minority is not my idea of
democracy, I think we could do much better.
>                                   A democratic version of socialism? Doesn't
> "democratic" imply a political system where decision-making is devolved as
> much as possible to the individual level?

Well, yes! Shaw me any sign of this in a capitalist country.
What political decisions are you allowed - besides the meaningless
election exercise?  Even personal freedom is conditional on your
material standing, less money, less freedom - even to accomplish
the meaning of life - to be a consumer with free choice.

>                                      The point is that any ideology
> driven to even its logical extremes, be it "socialist" or "capitalist,"
> can be a powerful engine for individual human misery.

Here we agree, Soros said in his essay for the "open society",
that nobody should claim  to own The Truth, everyone should admit to
be fallable.

>The difference is
> that most of us have been convinced of this for Marxism-Leninism because
> of empirical experience. Given that, I wouldn't brag about having lived in
> such a society if I were you, because it's apparent that you didn't notice
> the barbarities it was inflicting on everyone around you.

I only had a chance to live in a deformed Marxist-Leninism.
Marx's definition of socialism is, that it is more democratic, than
any other society before, including capitalism. Even Lenin
re-iterates these themes in the April Thesis.
I am sorry to say, but I experienced as much barbarity in the UK,
as I had in Hungary, first hand.  I've grown up in the sixties, when the worst
excesses of stalinism were over in Hungary.

> It will become
> very apparent sooner rather than later to most everyone that laissez-faire
> capitalism is no better in this regard. You will still, however, be
> thoroughly dissatisfied with what takes its place.
> Darth Vader

Not, if it will be an advancement on the present primitive, chaotic
economic and political structure. If it provides more meaningful
democracy, it cannot be anything else but improvement.
I would be most surprised if it happens based on the "market
economy", but, as I admit to be fallable, I would welcome it.

Unfortunately, I cannot see the signs of any such developments,
I wish I did, It is much more comfortable to conform to the
majority view, I am getting too old to be a revolutionary, it's
bloody tiring.

+ - Re: Soros / Capitalism Debate (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> Status:
> Hi all,

I seem to remember, that I promised to give a more detailed
answer to new listmember, Ted.

> Capitalism only makes sense within the framework
> of "liberalism", in the proper old-fashioned sense of the word. A respect
> for the individual, the rights of the individual, and some form of
> democratic rule are necessary co-requisites for capitalism to work
> properly, and the nature of capitalism is to constantly seek to work
> properly.

What do you mean working properly? Having  a better growth-rate,
than others? Than Malaysia, Thailand, Singapure, even Vietnam and
China (!!) are good capitalist countries.
Without particularily good democratic rule.

I feel more and more, that the establishment thinks in our western
"democracies", that democracy and welfare is a costly nuicance, they
would be happy to part with. Victorian values of family (no divorce
and taking back all women emancipation), hard working
and no complaints what would suit them fine...

> The desire to make money automatically leads to the pursuit of customers,
> which means the customers must be offered what they want.

Or more likely, things they didn't know they wanted.
An other enourmous waste of resources, the advertising/marketing
industry. And left short of elementary stuff, such as good
healthcare, even in rich countries, not to mention the poor ones.
There are an awful lot of capitalist poor countries.

>If they are not
> given what they want -- if their demand is not respected -- no money is
> made, and the capitalist system can be said not to be working properly.
> With a working capitalist system, people learn they don't have to "take
> what they get" anymore. This lesson moves rapidly into other areas of
> life, especially the political. Once this basic instinct takes hold, no
> authoritarian regime will last once people realize they have power, and
> an important part of that power is their power on the marketplace.

But they have to take what they get, if they are lucky enough to get it.
I think you are a lee bit naive and idealistic here, aren't you?
What people are realising is, that they haven't got the power, and
that voting for the opposition ever so often doesn't make any
difference.  I do hope that people do realise if the establishment is
taking away from them too many of the freedom they thought they had.
I do hope, they wont' let it happen.

But here in the UK, they were not educated to question and to be
critical, they just at the point of being distrustful and annoyed
with politicians. They don't know, that at the moment -
with the cooperation of the opposition, unheard-of extra
police-powers are legislated, by the time they wake up, saving
democracy could be quite a task.

What people want, the market is not able to provide.
Decent housing, healthcare, security, a feeling of belonging,
of being creative and useful - a feeling of security for the present
and the future. I think, if people felt they had power, they'd use
it, to start with, they would be interested in political ideas.

> We are free to
> knock the system, and we have the liberal-capitalist-democratic "iron
> triangle," if I may so call it, to thank for that right. So, far from
> being morally empty, there is some very deep moral content in capitalism
> that we often forget because we have the INCREDIBLE LUXURY (!) to take it
> for granted.

That is news to me. What is the deep moral content of capitalism?
As I mentioned in another post, it works beautifully in a
totalitarian environment, such as say - Saudi Arabia. It has no
clame to one-to one correspondence with democracy or even liberalism.
If there is a crisis and there are, inspite of the efforts of
international financial organisations and national financial
interventions, democracy and peace is in instant danger..

> This is, or at least can and should be if done properly, an
> uplifting and inspiring ideology. It is human nature to look at the bad
> side, but the good side of the capitalist system and the political system
> it must create in the long run to support itself are very impressive
> indeed.

Human nature is to use critical thinking, point out inconsistancies,
and always - to search for a better solution. I think  -
especially looking globally - capitalism is not impressive,
it is far from being in syncron with technical development.
Depending on the chaotic whims of the markets, that are totally
separated from human needs is primitive and outdated.

> Ted Fisher
> Kaposvar

+ - Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

(Aniko D.)
>  I
> am confused.  Are you, or are you not, advocating that Private Ownership
> be not a minority?

Well, I think it would be  a bit difficult for the majority of the
population to own a 3+ employee business... If you can arrange it,
I am a convert for capitalism straightaway...

> -your definition of private ownership has drastically changed through
> this post
> -that you advocate private ownership, but show next to zero respect for
> that entity
> -you advocate private ownership but know precious little at all about
> private ownership

I still can't see where I advocated private ownership, sorry, but you
did confuse sg. Private ownership means capitalism, and I try to
avoid advocating that particular system....

> -you show no qualms, about upbraiding private owners; as evidenced by
> your outrageous assumptions of their beings

Would you quote my stuff - what did you find outrageous?
I don't remember attacking any individual "private owners" they
are asmuch the slave of their circumstances, as everybody else.

> -you're statistically driven
> -you highly object to others' point of view especially if not fitting L&M
> ideals

I am ready to change my mind - I long for it (!!!) - I have
only rational attachment to my ideas, unfortunately you haven't
supplied any good reasons - statistical or otherwise -
to convince me.

> -when asked straight out, to create, make it work rather than complain
> ... well?

I explained my reasons, for not providing a blueprint, any person,
who is serious about democratic conditions for change would
understand. I have plenty ideas, no blueprint. I am not complaining,
I am pointing out major shortfalls in the economic and democratic
departments of your favoured system. You avoid even accepting them.
I would be happy to hear your ideas/opinions on how these will be
solved in the present framework of the market system.

> For about a year (that I've been around), you have sang the same old
> songs.  I asked you, to give us all an exact, blueprint of your ideals.
> You decline - and ... suggest that I have a motive in asking.  I do not.
> Really.

I did not decline. I have outlined my ideas a few times - not a
blueprint. I explained, that I think it is practical to have a
society, where not only the production, but the distribution is also
democratically organised, so that human needs are in total syncron
with production and distribution, with no waste of resourses.
So that we can collectively control not only technology/science, that
is the natural environment as far it is not doing any more damage,
but also the social environment, avoiding all tho chaotic chance of
crash, disaster and war, that is still probable now.
I think if we are lucky and people don't get too desparate/frustrated
before the change, so that it would happen in a democratic and
controlled way, it would happen starting at every home and workplace,
people taking over together, and reorganising the structures, so that
with the available technology they can assess capacities/abilities
and needs. The germs of such action did show in cooperatives, general
strikes - even the workers' councils of '56.  I could go on...

> -  No, I was not referring to just profs or senior lecturers ... In fact,
> as some *isolated* examples; a group of laid off miners are thriving very
> well, by offering their consulting services internationally (in their
> late 40's, some late 50's) ; yet another, have re-opened, under a joint
> ownership of 10, an abandoned gold mine; ex power corp employees
> embarking on consulting internationally; bankrupt software company's five
> employees, staring their own nominated and won export award; part time
> university students, running thriving businesses on the side; ex
> fishermen, building ships and thriving; crystal products, Canadian being
> sold internationally,  - just from a teeny weeny province of Canada ...
> of course, I could continue ....
> - Hungarian content:  GWU Hungary!! (sorry gang .... best I could dream
> up).

So everything is beautiful, all those people who have to work
long hours in souldestroying jobs for a bare living, when
there is overproduction of everything, and the trend for the gap
between rich and poor to widen, constant threat of war, less and less
resources for health and education, more and more for military
hardware etc, etc is fine with you?  Sorry, I hope for something
better for my children.

+ - Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:55 PM 1/25/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>In my previous reply to Eva Balogh's attack (regarding a Hungarian-language
> article I had sent to Hungary by mistake) I vented my frustration over Eva's
>behavior and neglected to explain the issue to those who don't read
>Hungarian.  Since Eva didn't explain it either, some of you may be puzzled
>over what it is about.

        I didn't attack anybody. I simply answered an attack in a sarcastic
manner. It is rather interesting that those who attack first never remember
their own attacks, only the counterattacks. Please read what you had to say
about my knowledge of Hungarian history and my marxist-leninist professors!!

>In the article -- intended for FORUM (now SZABAD) -- I responded to one of
>Eva's posts in which she related how she had translated an offensive post
>into English and showed her friends as  a typical example of what appears in
>the Hungarian language lists (and, by implication, how Hungarians debate).

        In order to have it straight, let me include here what I said in the
original, not the abbreviated version which was given by Ferenc Novak, and
translate it into English:


       Hollosi Jozsi:

>A FORUM olyan ujsag, ahol minden velemeny elhangozhat. Sajnalatos modon
>e tag lehetoseg esetenkent meg is valosul, es igy neha egeszen szelsoseges,
>becsuletben vagy emberi meltosagban serto levelekkel is lehet talalkozni.

        Valoban, minden szelsoseges gondolatot meg lehet fogalmazni es le is
lehet kozolni irasban, ha ugy tetszik. Buszkenek is lehet ra lenni. De
ugyanakkor nem lehet "eliminalni," "megsemmisiteni" azokat, akikkel nem
ertunk egyet. Nem lehet kivenni "a tollat a kezukbol."  A szolasszabadsag
legnagyobb hivei ugy latszik a szolasszabadsagot teljesen egyoldaluan
ertelmezik: mindossze rajuk vonatkozik a szolasszabadsag. Az "idegenul
gondolkodokra" nem. Azok "aljas, destruktiv szemelyek," "bohocok," akiknek
nincs "letjogosultsaguk." Az angol nyelvu lista szerintuk "celtalan es
tarthatatlan." Mig sajat "szelsoseges, becsuletben vagy emberi meltosagban
serto" leveleik--hogy Hollosi Jozsit idezzem--oregbitik Magyarorszag
hirnevet (;)).
        Amikor egy amerikai ismerosomnek elmeseltem, hogy a Forum egyik
becses tagja "eliminalni" ohajtja az enfajtamat, tagranyitott szemmel nezett
ram es megkerdezte: "And in what way is he planning to kill them?" Talan
tole kellene megkerdezni. Ga'zzal, injekcioval, akasztofaval, vagy pedig
egyszeruen csak puskatussal?

         Balogh Eva

        [To quote Jozsi Hollosi:

>The FORUM such a newspaper, where all sorts of opinions can be seen.
>Unfortunately such an unrestricted forum occasionally allows the
publication of >really extreme, slanderous, and offensive letters.

        Indeed, all sorts of extreme thought can be entertained and put down
on paper, if you like. You can be even proud of it. But, at the same time,
one cannot "eliminate," or "anniliate" those one disagrees with. One cannot
take the "pen out of their hands." The greatest proponents of free speech,
it seems, interpret the freedom of speech in an entirely one-sided manner:
it is applicable only to them. But it is not applicable to those "who think
differently." Those are "vile, destructive persons," "clowns," who "have no
reason to exist." The English-language list, according to them, is "without
purpose and untenable."  All this while their own letters which are
"extreme, offensive, and slanderous"--to quote Jozsi Hollosi--`enhance
Hungary's reputation' (;)).
        When I told an American friend that one of the illustrious members
of the Forum wants to "eliminate" my kind, she looked at me with eyes wide
open and asked: "And in what way is he planning to kill them?" One perhaps
ought to ask him: with gas, with injection, with hanging or simply just with
the butt of a rifle? Eva Balogh]

To which Ferenc Novak answered thus:

>Ugy latszik, Balogh Eva ugyancsak igyekszik azzal az "oregbitessel".  A
>legerdekesebb az, hogy meltatlankodik ha egyesek felhanytorgatjak, hogy
>angolnyelvu kozegben pocskondiazza a FORUMOT (most mar SZABADOT).  A
>meltanyos (es tisztesseges) eljaras az lett volna, ha az illetorol mint
>egyenrol, nem pedig mint a FORUM tagjarol nyilatkozott volna.  Kulonben sem
>tul intelligens dolog kivulallok elott elitelni egy olyan kozosseget,
>amelynek maga is tagja.

[It seems that Eva Balogh is also hard at work at "enhancing that
reputation" {of Hungary}. The most interesting part of it is that she is
most upset when some people bring to her attention the fact that the Forum
(nowadays called Szabad) is being dragged into the mud in an
English-language environment. The fair (and decent) procedure would have
been if she had mentioned the individual by name instead of as a member of
the Forum. In any case, it is not too intelligent a move to condemn a
community of which one is a member.]

        My answer to this was as follows:

        "I have friends and family members with whom I discuss the comings
and goings of the internet lists related to Hungary. Yes, on daily basis. It
is entirely up to me what I decide to do with the information I receive from
these lists, or the opinions I form on the basis of their contents. If
Ferenc Novak doesn't like "others," meaning non-Hungarians, to hear that one
of the illustrious members of the nation threatened "to eliminate" those
people who disagree with him and who in his opinion do great harm to the
Hungary, then perhaps both Ferenc Novak and his illustrious friend should
think twice before they speak or write, and don't write things which reflect
badly on the Hungarian nation. But as long as they do and their utterances
reflect badly on Hungary, I cannot report otherwise."

        To that I cannot add anything new. Except to call attention to the
fact that in my original letters words in quotation marks are direct
quotations from not one but two illustrious members of the Forum (pardon,
Szabad) as well as of the nation.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Egy kis lecke Novak Ferencnek (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:55 PM 1/25/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak in, Re: Egy kis lecke a
szabadsagrol, wrote:

>In the article -- intended for FORUM (now SZABAD) -- I responded to one of
>Eva's posts in which she related how she had translated an offensive post
>into English and showed her friends as  a typical example of what appears
>in the Hungarian language lists (and, by implication, how Hungarians >debate).

The implication is yours.  You've already revealed your disgust of
homosexuality, and now you reveal your frustration at not being able to
control Eva Balogh's "behaviour".  You're afraid of what others might say or
think about how Hungarians debate?  And why do you care?  Who are Hungarians
debating for if not for ourselves?  Some imaginary audience?  Are we on a
stage?  I don't think so.  However, with your talents, you should be.  And
one leaves in half an hour.

>In my post I asked her why she would libel a community (FORUM in this case)
>when she only had problems with a certain individual and raised the
>question whether she thought it fair, proper, even intelligent to level
>vile accusations at an entire group of which she herself is a member.

And why would you libel a community (homosexuals in this case) when you just
don't like the idea of "homosexuality".  And do you think it is fair,
proper, even intelligent to level vile accusations at an entire group of
which you yourself are, apparently, not a member?

OK, Ferenc.  I hope you don't mind, but, as you keep revealing yourself,
I'll keep adding to the following list.

1)finds homosexuality disgusting
2)finds it frustrating not being able to control other people's "behaviour"
3)worries about what others may think of the group he belongs to
etc., etc.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

 on Jan 22 20:56:59 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #892:

>        I am not sure what Ferenc Novak is planning to do with this
>Hungarian-language letter on the HUNGARY list but I am quite ready to answer
>him in English.

I just discovered that I had posted it here by mistake and was about to write
an apology when I saw the EB attack as above.  Ironically, I spoke out
against unwarranted cross-postings and here I am, doing just that.  Sorry!

>        I have friends and family members with whom I discuss the comings
>and goings of the internet lists related to Hungary. Yes, on daily basis. It
>is entirely up to me what I decide to do with the information I receive from
>these lists, or the opinions I form on the basis of their contents. If
>Ferenc Novak doesn't like "others," meaning non-Hungarians, to hear that one
>of the illustrious members of the nation threatened "to eliminate" those
>people who disagree with him and who in his opinion do great harm to the
>Hungary, then perhaps both Ferenc Novak and his illustrious friend should
>think twice before they speak or write, and don't write things which reflect
>badly on the Hungarian nation. But as long as they do and their utterances
>reflect badly on Hungary, I cannot report otherwise.
>        Eva Balogh

Eva, I am sorry your condition has once again overcome your judgement.
 Really, you should practice moderation, lest you lose control and write more
nonsense.  I have no idea what "illustrious friend" you have in mind in the
above paragraph, but I find your ravings rather pathetic.

If you wish, you can respond to my original post in SZABAD (formerly: FORUM)
where I resubmitted it.

Hoping you feel better,