At 07:21 PM 6/23/97 -0400, Novak Ferenc wrote:

>I don't see any problem, big or small.  I simply meant to say that conditions
>in the two cities cannot be extrapolated to the territories of the respective
>countries.  No more, no less.  Statistics (sample size, etc.) don't have
>anything to do with what I was trying to say.

Maybe that's what you meant. However, what you said was different:

>In my experience one can no more draw generalized conclusions about life in
>Hungary from a brief stay in Budapest  than trying to understand the USA on
>the basis of having seen New York.  Visiting other cities or the countryside
>can yield a much more valid picture of the present-day Hungarian reality.

I still maintain, that a place where 20% of the population of a country
lives cannot be ignored when creating a picture of the present-day reality
of that country.

Gabor D. Farkas

E.Balogh wrote:

>        In any case, in one of my letters to him I said something to the
>effect that I simply couldn't understand the Munkaspart's strategy: they
>attack the current coalition parties (the socialists and the liberals) and
>their verbiage is practically indistinguishable from the verbiage of the far
>right. I claimed that the Munkaspart actually is helping the far right (a
>szelsojobboldal malmara hajtjak a vizet) and such a strategy might work
>against their own party. Let's assume, I continued, that Jozsef Torgyan wins
>the elections: surely this shouldn't cheer a left-wing party like themselves.

What is so difficult to understand? Of course they prefer the far-right over
the moderate parties. The working, stabil democracy is the worst thing that can
happen with them. If Hungary has a system like most of the West-Europian
countries, the Munkaspart and its alikes will disappear within 10-20 years.
While if a fellow like Torgyan get the power then the economical situation
get worse the 'osztalyharc elezodik', etc.

J.Zs

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
 normal

Background:
  In spite of several requests of the Csangos (the Hungarian minority
in Moldova, Romania) the Roman Catholic Curch is still not offering
them the Holy Masses in their native tongue (the responsible bishop is
Petru Gherghel).
  Since neither the e-mail address nor the fax # of the Pope is
available we should send our protest to Radio Vatican, l'Osservatore
Romano (a Vatican weekly) and the Vatican Information Service. It is
important to act NOW, as the Pope will probably visit Romania around
June 15.

What to do:
  Please write a letter to the editors of Radio Vatican,
l'Osservatore Romano and the Vatican Information service and protest
against the current situation. Feel free to use the attached form
letters. Please do even inform the local media about the problems of
the Csangos.
  PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO SEND A LETTER EVERY DAY!!

E-mail of Radio Vatican:


E-mail of l'Osservatore Romano:


Fax # of Vatican Information Service:
+39-6-69883053

**************************************************************

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to Radio Vatican:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


The Vatican Radio
00120 Cittŕ del Vaticano
(e-mail: )

RE: Please help the most neglected Catholics of the World: the Csangos


Dear Editor:

I would like to turn your attention to the cultural survival of the
Csangos, the only Catholics east of the Carpathians, living in the
Northeastern part of Romania.

The Csangos are of Hungarian descent. They settled their villages in
today's Moldova, in the 13th century, when they were invited there by
the local ruler, the Kuman king Barsz.

These simple farmers are the most devout Catholics. They have kept
their faith, their ancient language (based on an archaic form of
Hungarian), and maintained their folk customs,  dresses and music.

For many years, the Csango congregations of Cleja, Pustina and Lazped
have been asking, that the Holy Mass be offered in their archaic
native language. Up to now their bishop, Petru Gherghel has refused
this request. This denial is contrary to the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church besides being a denial of their most basic human
rights. Furthermore it promotes the deculturization of  a unique
people.

You could do a great service by calling on the Church and on the
Catholic community to assist the cultural survival of the Csangos by
permitting the use of their native thongue.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title.>


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to l'Osservatore Romano:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


l'Osservatore Romano
00120 Cittŕ del Vaticano
(e-mail )

RE: Please help the most neglected Catholics of the World: the Csangos


Dear Editor:

I would like to turn your attention to the cultural survival of the
Csangos, the only Catholics east of the Carpathians, living in the
Northeastern part of Romania.

The Csangos are of Hungarian descent. They settled their villages in
today's Moldova, in the 13th century, when they were invited there by
the local ruler, the Kuman king Barsz.

These simple farmers are the most devout Catholics. They have kept
their faith, their ancient language (based on an archaic form of
Hungarian), and maintained their folk customs,  dresses and music.

For many years, the Csango congregations of Cleja, Pustina and Lazped
have been asking, that the Holy Mass be offered in their archaic
native language. Up to now their bishop, Petru Gherghel has refused
this request. This denial is contrary to the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church besides being a denial of their most basic human
rights. Furthermore it promotes the deculturization of  a unique
people.

You could do a great service by calling on the Church and on the
Catholic community to assist the cultural survival of the Csangos by
permitting the use of their native thongue.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title.>


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to Vatican Information Service:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Vatican Information Service
00120 Vatican City
Fax : +39-6-69883053

RE: Please help the most neglected Catholics of the World: the Csangos


Dear Editor:

I would like to turn your attention to the cultural survival of the
Csangos, the only Catholics east of the Carpathians, living in the
Northeastern part of Romania.

The Csangos are of Hungarian descent. They settled their villages in
today's Moldova, in the 13th century, when they were invited there by
the local ruler, the Kuman king Barsz.

These simple farmers are the most devout Catholics. They have kept
their faith, their ancient language (based on an archaic form of
Hungarian), and maintained their folk customs,  dresses and music.

For many years, the Csango congregations of Cleja, Pustina and Lazped
have been asking, that the Holy Mass be offered in their archaic
native language. Up to now their bishop, Petru Gherghel has refused
this request. This denial is contrary to the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church besides being a denial of their most basic human
rights. Furthermore it promotes the deculturization of  a unique
people.

You could do a great service by calling on the Church and on the
Catholic community to assist the cultural survival of the Csangos by
permitting the use of their native thongue.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title.>

You know what Szalai, there is always a point when I no longer have
the will to continue. I got to this point with your letter below. ESB


>>        There is nothing wrong with my political sophistication. Don't tell
>>me that you haven't noticed that the right and the left have a lot in
>>common. Or, perhaps you don't want to notice it. You shouldn't forget that
>>Hitler's party was "national socialist." The socialism is not that far from
>>the thinking of the right. ESB
>
>Well, if the above is the level of your political sophistication, then I
>may as well say something you'll understand.  (Amos and Aniko will benefit
>from this also.)
>
>Hitler was also a Christian.  His Christianity was not that different from
>the Pope's.  They had a lot in common.
>
>Now, aren't you glad we're talking the same sophisticated language?
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>"The Fuhrer is always quite cheerful, cheerful with all his heart, when he
>is having tea with his friends during the night, or when he is training his
>dogs!"
>         --- Martin Bormann
>
>

At 08:37 PM 6/22/97 -0400, Amos underlined a few sentences in Eva Durant's
expose' of Hitler's socialism:

>Durant wrote:
>>
>>          There is nothing wrong with my political sophistication. Don't tell
>> > me that you haven't noticed that the right and the left have a lot in
>> > common. Or, perhaps you don't want to notice it. You shouldn't forget that
>> > Hitler's party was "national socialist." The socialism is not that far fro
m
>> > the thinking of the right. ESB
>> >
>> >
>> the only problem being that he had nothing common with
>> socialism as a democratic and non-capitalist entity.
>  ----------------------------------------------------
>> He in fact did not have a consistent political theory;
>                            ----------------------------
>> he was a demagogue, produced and made powerful by
>  ---------========================================
>> a decaying capitalist system, when the labour movement failed, as a
>  -----------=================-----------=======================
>> consequense of the  non-democratic and demagogue
>                      ============================
>> though non-capitalist ergo in a deformed way, socialist USSR.
>  =============================================================
>> When capitalism is too week, and the socialist movement gets
>       ======================          =======================
>> defeated, a totalitarian bonapartist regime fills the powervacuum.
>  =========----------------===========------------------------------

        Yes, I think Amos is right. Janos Zsargo is too kind. And while we
are at it, let me add something about Hitler being a demagogue.
        One of the vice-presidents of the Munkaspart was very active on the
former HIX Forum at one time and he was especially fascinated with me and my
views. Thus, he took up a brisk private correspondence with me which I
eventually terminated because I simply didn't have time to write whole
treatises two or three times a day. Besides, he couldn't convince me and I
coouldn't convince him.
        In any case, in one of my letters to him I said something to the
effect that I simply couldn't understand the Munkaspart's strategy: they
attack the current coalition parties (the socialists and the liberals) and
their verbiage is practically indistinguishable from the verbiage of the far
right. I claimed that the Munkaspart actually is helping the far right (a
szelsojobboldal malmara hajtjak a vizet) and such a strategy might work
against their own party. Let's assume, I continued, that Jozsef Torgyan wins
the elections: surely this shouldn't cheer a left-wing party like themselves.
        The vice-president being an intelligent and agreeable fellow
admitted that their and the far right's slogans are practically
indistinguishable but, he added, the Munkaspart means them while the right
doesn't!!! Torgyan-Csurka-Giczy are simple demagogues while the Munkaspart's
leaders are earnest and honest folks.
        Well, this is what Durant is saying about Hitler. Hitler or
Mussolini didn't really mean any of their socialist slogans. They were just
demagogues but the left-wing parties' socialism has as good as gold. ESB

At 12:28 PM 6/23/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>E.Balogh wrote:
>
>>        In any case, in one of my letters to him I said something to the
>>effect that I simply couldn't understand the Munkaspart's strategy:

>What is so difficult to understand? Of course they prefer the far-right over
>the moderate parties. The working, stabil democracy is the worst thing that ca
n
>happen with them. If Hungary has a system like most of the West-Europian
>countries, the Munkaspart and its alikes will disappear within 10-20 years.
>While if a fellow like Torgyan get the power then the economical situation
>get worse the 'osztalyharc elezodik', etc.

        You have a point. ESB

At 09:33 PM 6/23/97 GMT, Evqa Durant wrote:
>>
>>         You know what Szalai, there is always a point when I no longer have
>> the will to continue. I got to this point with your letter below. ESB
>>
>
>Whenever anyone make a valid point, you declare you'd had enough.

        Valid point? No, he didn't make a valid point. This time he sounds
stupider than he is. After such stupid answer there is no reason to argue.

>Hitler claimed to be a (national) socialist, but Joe is right, he
>also claimed to be a christian.

        What do you mean "he meant to be a Christian"? Hitler and the
National Socialists were against the Church. It is another matter that that
Catholic church didn't stand up to Hitler.

>The problem is you dont discuss points, you just try to
>put down the people when you run out of arguments.

        I try to put people down? You two put yourselves down without any
help from me. Everybody on this list think that you two are real loonies.
I'm not sure which one of you is the greater looney. But perhaps you! Joe
Szalai is close second though. ESB

About right and left being the same.
Compare the anti-EU fractions in the UK.
The tory rightwing is against the EU for totally
opposing reasons, than the anti-EU fraction of the
labour party. Would you say they are "the same"?

Hitler/Mussolini and Franco was murdering socialists
much more enthusiastically, than capitalists -
though I have to admit the capitalist opposition to them
in their countries was not exactly numerous.
I wonder how you explain Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union,
if he was such a good socialist.

Funny you should say that, the CPs of France and Italy are doing very
nicely, even in their not particularily  democratic organisation and
programme. They are as stabil and democratic systems as you can get
these days...

> What is so difficult to understand? Of course they prefer the far-right over
> the moderate parties. The working, stabil democracy is the worst thing that
 can
> happen with them. If Hungary has a system like most of the West-Europian
> countries, the Munkaspart and its alikes will disappear within 10-20 years.
> While if a fellow like Torgyan get the power then the economical situation
> get worse the 'osztalyharc elezodik', etc.
>
> J.Zs
>

>
>         You know what Szalai, there is always a point when I no longer have
> the will to continue. I got to this point with your letter below. ESB
>

Whenever anyone make a valid point, you declare you'd had enough.
Hitler claimed to be a (national) socialist, but Joe is right, he
also claimed to be a christian.  Your argument, that if he claimed to
be a socialist, than he was a socialist should be carried on by your
logic to this further claim.
The problem is you dont discuss points, you just try to
put down the people when you run out of arguments.

Aniko and Amos just couldn't wait to get self-righteous when I wrote that
"I almost never give money to charities."

It's well known that giving to charities is really giving to yourself.  It
makes you feel good.  It buys you status.  It's an activity that's promotod
by the church, the well-to-do, and the Queen Mother.  And, considering the
politics you support, you'll be able to 'give' to charities for a long,
long, time.  Just once, I'd wish you'd ask the recipients of your charity
if they wouldn't rather be able to take care of their own needs.  But you
won't ask because the answer seems obvious.  Of course they'd rather take
care of themselves!  The only problem is, it's going to take social change,
not charity, which will enable them to do that.  And social change, you
reject, if for no other reason then that it will put you out of the charity
business.  And if that happens, who'll respect you?

Joe Szalai

"Charity creates a multitude of sins."
         --- Oscar Wilde

At 03:03 PM 6/22/97 -0400, Eva Balogh wrote:

<snip>
>        There is nothing wrong with my political sophistication. Don't tell
>me that you haven't noticed that the right and the left have a lot in
>common. Or, perhaps you don't want to notice it. You shouldn't forget that
>Hitler's party was "national socialist." The socialism is not that far from
>the thinking of the right. ESB

Well, if the above is the level of your political sophistication, then I
may as well say something you'll understand.  (Amos and Aniko will benefit
from this also.)

Hitler was also a Christian.  His Christianity was not that different from
the Pope's.  They had a lot in common.

Now, aren't you glad we're talking the same sophisticated language?

Joe Szalai

"The Fuhrer is always quite cheerful, cheerful with all his heart, when he
is having tea with his friends during the night, or when he is training his
dogs!"
         --- Martin Bormann

At 09:33 PM 6/23/97 GMT, Eva Durant wrote:

>>Eva Balogh wrote:

>>   You know what Szalai, there is always a point when I no longer have
>> the will to continue. I got to this point with your letter below. ESB


>Whenever anyone make a valid point, you declare you'd had enough.
>Hitler claimed to be a (national) socialist, but Joe is right, he
>also claimed to be a christian.  Your argument, that if he claimed to
>be a socialist, than he was a socialist should be carried on by your
>logic to this further claim.
>The problem is you dont discuss points, you just try to
>put down the people when you run out of arguments.

Well stated.  Thank you, Eva.

Joe Szalai

At 08:04 PM 6/23/97 -0400, Eva Balogh, arguing with Eva Durant wrote:

>        Valid point? No, he didn't make a valid point. This time he sounds
>stupider than he is. After such stupid answer there is no reason to argue.

My "stupid" response was to your stupid comment that the political left and
the political right have much in common.  When I read that, I realized that
there was no point in arguing with you if that's the level of your
political savvy.

<snip>
>        I try to put people down? You two put yourselves down without any
>help from me. Everybody on this list think that you two are real loonies.
>I'm not sure which one of you is the greater looney. But perhaps you! Joe
>Szalai is close second though. ESB

Well, I know I can't speak for everybody on this list the way Eva Balogh
can, but if Eva Balogh represents the non-loonies,  I'll proudly take my
place amongst the loonies.   For some reason I've always felt more at home
with the outcast.  And a good thing, too, because I always end up there.

Joe Szalai

"What a life! True life is elsewhere. We are not in the world."
            --- Arthur Rimbaud

Amos - At 09:05 PM 22/06/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I must come to the defense of Eva Durant here. The different approach to
>charity may be the result of cultural differences.  Europeans  (and Joe)
>think very differently of charity, they believe it is demeaning. Here in
>the States, we see it as a temporary help until a more permanent one can
>be devised.
[...]
You're extending too much credit Amos.  She simply does not have the
ability differentiate between non-profit and chartered charitable
organizations, between royalty and commoners' practices, or the
intelligence to ask questions prior to mouthing off.  I think that she
reads about her royal subjects annually held gala nights in aid of several
of their favoured chartered charitable organizations and thinks that to be
the "having big parties where I can flaunt my goodness and my wealth...",
along with the royals appointments to the  boards of these upscale global
organizations.  I can see her reading this enough that eventually she has
concluded that charity=gala nights rubbing shoulders with the elite,
holding fancy titles on cushy boards....
Best. Aniko

At 07:24 AM 6/23/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Aniko and Amos just couldn't wait to get self-righteous when I wrote that
>"I almost never give money to charities."
<snip>
>
>The only problem is, it's going to take social change,
>not charity, which will enable them to do that.  And social change, you
>reject, if for no other reason then that it will put you out of the charity
>business.  And if that happens, who'll respect you?

I may not be able to read well enough for your liking Joe, but it is clear
that we're on different wavelenghts and I think that both you and Eva seem
to be confusing "chartered charitable organizations" with "non profit".
Social change(s) btw...*are* happening today.  Read the article I told you
about.  It gives an excellent overview, and reflect that the changes are not
happenning in a way you'd like to see them.  Problems resultant are realized
"today".  Some of us, are happy to dream, wish and wait for paradisical
global change(s) to arrive.  Others are identifying needs, and extending
energy in those areas towards making changes "today", in their backyards.
Establishing criterias, implementing proceedures and forming structures that
can be utilized in the future also,  ... just in case your paradise never
arrives.  As for the respect ... you are joking, right?  If not, it would
mean perhaps that it is you who cannot read or worse.  Regarding self
righteous?  - If, you choose to interpret some well known facts, my sharing
just some of what a handful of teeny non-profit organizations in one of
Canada's smallest provinces are accomplishing, as 'self righteousness'., so
be it.  I think the group(s) have alot to be self righteous about!
Best, Aniko

Bravo, Aniko'!  Well said -- and, more importantly -- well done!  Good look
with your many projects.  You are the kind of person society needs more of.

Ferenc

 wrote:

>At 06:09 AM 6/19/97 -0400, Ferenc Novak wrote:
>
>>In my experience one can no more draw generalized conclusions about life in
>>Hungary from a brief stay in Budapest  than trying to understand the USA on
>>the basis of having seen New York.  Visiting other cities or the
countryside
>>can yield a much more valid picture of the present-day Hungarian reality.
>
>There is a big problem with this statement: the population of Budapest is 2
>million, about 20% of Hungary's population. The population of New York City
>is about 8 million, less than 4% of the US population. If New York's
>population were 50 million (to match proportions), understanding New York or
>the US would not be that far from each other.
>
>Gabor D. Farkas

I don't see any problem, big or small.  I simply meant to say that conditions
in the two cities cannot be extrapolated to the territories of the respective
countries.  No more, no less.  Statistics (sample size, etc.) don't have
anything to do with what I was trying to say.

Ferenc

I have decided a long time ago that I don't give a hoot what others
think about me. There goes one  of your so called  argument out the
window.

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> Aniko and Amos just couldn't wait to get self-righteous when I wrote that
> "I almost never give money to charities."
>
> It's well known that giving to charities is really giving to yourself.  It
  ===============
      Wow!!

> makes you feel good.  It buys you status.  It's an activity that's promotod
> by the church, the well-to-do, and the Queen Mother.  And, considering the

Wow! That's really news to me. Either you are  on something, Joe, or
you have (by accident) forgotten which county I am living in.  I did
not realize that the US has a Queen Mom.I usually avoid celebrities,
but I really would like to meet her  -  but only the  American Queen
Mom.

> politics you support, you'll be able to 'give' to charities for a long,
> long, time.  Just once, I'd wish you'd ask the recipients of your charity
> if they wouldn't rather be able to take care of their own needs.  But you
> won't ask because the answer seems obvious.  Of course they'd rather take
> care of themselves!  The only problem is, it's going to take social change,
> not charity, which will enable them to do that.  And social change, you
> reject, if for no other reason then that it will put you out of the charity
> business.  And if that happens, who'll respect you?

I have wondered for some time now why you like to make a fool of your-
self publicly? Everything you say (write) is embarrassingly wrong, but
this doesn't seem to faze you.  You pretend to know  so much about the
States, but every word of yours proves otherwise. In most cases giving
is done anonymously in this country.
As for respect, I have nothing to worry about. You, however, may go on
and worry about such things.
This is the last I will say  re. these issues.  I have wasted  way too
much time on the two of you.
                              Amos

Dear Colleagues,

The meeting of the 60 heads of state at the UN gives us an excellent
opportunity to incorporate the Danube Lawsuit into the general discussion of
environmental degredation. An attached  sample letter, which I sent to the
New York Times illustrates the approach I would propose. Please do write such
letters to the major papers in your area (WITHOUT copying mine).

Best regards: Bela Liptak

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The New York Times
229 W. 43rd St.
NYC 10036

To The Ediror,

Mr. Chirac is right that the American per capita greenhouse gas emission is
three times that of France, but the planet's worst nuclear polluter has
little right to criticize anybody. The advanced nations are right in accusing
the third world countries for subsidizing obsolete and harmful industries and
for making water, electricity and fertilizers artificially inexpensive and
thereby foster overirrigation, chemical pollution, deforestation and
overfishing. Yet, it is hard for these nations to worry about the future,
when their present already borders on disaster. In short, fingerpointing does
not solve anything.

The main cause of our problems is not any one nation, but the present state
of our institutions, which are only partially globalized. One of the major
conflicts is between our almost fully globalized trade and our almost
completely "nation-based" environmental laws and regulations. The World Court
in The Hague (in the process of ruling on the first international
environmental lawsuit), can only accept nation states as interested paries to
that lawsuit, because their charter does not recognize mankind as an
"interested party" to the planet's environment.

Besides reforming our legal system, our approach to R&D must also be
globalized. Tasks, - such as the development of the electric or Hydrogen car,
or the building of solar islands around the Equator, so that solar energy can
convert sea water into our next, inexhaustible and non-polluting fuel:
Hydrogen, - should also be supported by globalized efforts.

Bela Liptak, Adjunct professor at Yale University and editor of Environmental
Engineers' Handbook.
June 23, 1997, Stamford, CT. Tel: 203-357-7614