In article >, SMF User >
wrote:

> Why can't Jews accept criticism?  
> 
>I have never known a Jew who could take 
> criticism, personal or otherwise.  (Neither 
> have I ever heard a Jew criticize another Jew).  

I'm going to stay out of most of this but I thought this one thought deserved
comment. A former Mayor of New York City is an outspoken jew named Edward
Koch who currently is a commentator on WABC radio New York. Koch frequently
criticizes jews when he thinks that they are doing something immoral or they
screw up in other ways. I may not agree with Mayor Koch all the time but
you have to respect the man for not being soft on his own people. Honesty
is a precious commodity in any community and Koch serves his well.

DB

-- 
Romanian Political Pages now are available
http://haven.ios.com/~dbrutus

In article >,
 (S. Duchnowski) wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Mar 1996 15:09:16 -0600,  (Jason Silverman
)
> wrote:
> 
> >In article >, SMF User >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> What is the moral question relevant to Jewish issues?  
> >
> >[bunch of vomit snipped]
> >
> >Wow, "Karl,"  you are without a doubt the least self-aware bigot I've ever
> >seen.  You preach peace and love in the same breath as talking about the
> >"Jewish problem."  Some facts you need to be aware of:
> >
> >1.  Yes, you are a bigot and an anti-Semite
> >2.  Yes, you are a moron
> >3.  No, I will not listen to your thinly veiled spewings of hate
> >4.  No, you will not work in academia again
> >5.  Yes, in a few days, with any luck, you'll be making news in the
Daily Texan.
> >
> >Man, if you think a few "harrassing" phone calls are annoying now, just
> >wait until:
> >
> >1.  The whole city of Austin eggs your house, and
> >2.  Dr. Wolitz asks to have a word with you tomorrow.
> >
> >I look forward to updates, ol' buddy
> >
> >Shalom,
> >Jason
> 
> That what goes as a freedom of speech now, and what Jason aren't you going to
> send SS men to shoot him on the spot?
> Didn't history teach you anything?

Slawek,

If I get a little confrontational in this post, don't take it personally. 
However, I am quite tired of bigots (not you) whining about how their
freedom of speech is being violated.  Some clarifications need to be made
regarding freedom of speech as it is understood in jurisprudence (as I
understand it).

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.  It states that "Congress shall make no law abridging ...
the freedom of speech."  That's all.  

Now, this assumes that persons have a natural right to speak freely, and
this amendment guarantees that this right will not be infringed upon by an
act of congress.  

Of course, it does not take too long to find out that, in order to
maintain a civilized society, we can't allow people so simply say anything
they please.  So there have been numerous Supreme Court decisions which
have gradually defined this very general right, and have ascribed quite
liberal limits to it.  I am quite agreeable to those limits.  

Now, there are some people who wish to have legal restrictions imposed on
certain forms of permissable speech because they find it disagreeable.  As
a firm believer in the Constitution, I think this is a load of crap.  Of
course, neither of these last 2 paragraphs have anything to do with the
case at hand, since I am not advocating the passage of laws to criminalize
Mr. Hannon's speech.  

The U.S. Constitution and the S.C.'s opinions on it say nothing about the
dissemination of public speech, nor do they say how persons (friends,
employers, internet service providers, etc) ought to choose to associate
with persons whose speech is abominable.  I am not violating Mr. Hannon's
right to free speech if I choose to distribute his public postings on this
newsgroup to his employer, ISP, or campus newspaper.  Nor is Mr. Hannon's
employer violating his right if he chooses to fire Mr. Hannon; nor is his
ISP violating his right if it chooses to terminate Mr. Hannon's account;
nor are the good citizens of Austin violating his right if they choose to
ostracize him from the community for his hateful speech.  Mr. Hannon has
exercised his right to free speech by posting his hateful messages about
Jews.  The other side of that right, however, is responsibility.  Mr.
Hannon must now accept the responsibility for his words.  That
responsibility, arising (hopefully) in a community populated by persons
more reasonable than Mr. Hannon himself, may well consist in the
termination of his employment and his being ostracized from his
community.  

So, in conclusion, I am not advocating that Mr. Hannon's right to free
speech be violated.  Nor am I suggesting that an SS guard go and shoot him
-- an inane inference on your part.  I am simply acting within my rights
to ensure that his employer and community are aware of his unacceptable
statements.  

--Jason

On Sun, 31 Mar 1996 15:09:16 -0600,  (Jason Silverman)
wrote:

>In article >, SMF User >
>wrote:
>
>> What is the moral question relevant to Jewish issues?  
>
>[bunch of vomit snipped]
>
>Wow, "Karl,"  you are without a doubt the least self-aware bigot I've ever
>seen.  You preach peace and love in the same breath as talking about the
>"Jewish problem."  Some facts you need to be aware of:
>
>1.  Yes, you are a bigot and an anti-Semite
>2.  Yes, you are a moron
>3.  No, I will not listen to your thinly veiled spewings of hate
>4.  No, you will not work in academia again
>5.  Yes, in a few days, with any luck, you'll be making news in the Daily Texa
n.
>
>Man, if you think a few "harrassing" phone calls are annoying now, just
>wait until:
>
>1.  The whole city of Austin eggs your house, and
>2.  Dr. Wolitz asks to have a word with you tomorrow.
>
>I look forward to updates, ol' buddy
>
>Shalom,
>Jason

That what goes as a freedom of speech now, and what Jason aren't you going to
send SS men to shoot him on the spot?
Didn't history teach you anything?

__Slawek Duchnowski


___("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
___`6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.`)  
___(_Y_.)'  ._   )  `._  `. ``-..-'   
____`--'_..-_/  /--'_.'  ,'            
__(!!).-' ((().'  ((((.-'  
> -------------------------------------------

In article >,
FreshAgain > wrote:

>Kevin Hannon.

>Dept. of Slavic LAnguage and Literature.

>PLEASE verify that it's him doing the posting and not some student who he
>flunked.

That's easy.  Any newspaper, academic committee, etc., would have to make
sure of this before taking action.  I guess someone there on the ground
at U Texas ought to ask him to make a public statement on whether or not
he wrote the stuff.  That statement should be posted to the various
newsgroups where the articles appeared.  If he believes what he says as much
as he claims to, then he should have no problem fessing up.  If he denies
it, and it cannot be proven, then we'll just have to move on.  And finally,
if he really did write it but he will lie by denying it, then he is a 
rather sick man and will likely self-destruct in some other way pretty
soon.

The onus is really on U Texas.  This stuff is coming from their university --
or it is being forged as if it is.  It is up to them to clear up their name
by taking the appropriate action.  Unless and until I get a damn good
explanation, UT is on my watch list for tolerating vicious hate.

I am trying to find an ORIGINAL AUDIO recording from the HUNGARIAN cast of
the musical
Les Miserables, which I believe was showing in Budapest for quite some
time.
I would appreciate any information of its exsistence, and / or where to
obtain it and how much.
I emphasize ORIGINAL AUDIO because I do NOT want a copy, but a comercial
product.
                                                                        
                                              Nagyon kosomom/ Many thanks,
        

In article >,
 > wrote:
| Istvan Szucs > wrote:
| >
| >Ezt kulonbozo formaban sokszor hallottam, es ket problemam
| >van vele. 1) Valakit csak a sajat tetteiert lehet
| >felelos.
| 
| Ez mellebeszeles, mivel senki sem beszelt a "fiuk" felelossegerol.
| Pusztan arrol van szo, hogy sokunknak rossz szajize van attol a
| mohosagtol, ahogy ezek a csemetek ravetettek magukat a hatalomra,
| annak ellenere, hogy csaladi hatteruk miatt tobb szerenyseget varna el
| az ember toluk.  Megha szemely szerint nem is felelosek szuleik viselt
| dolgaiert, azert az elegge vilagos, hogy szuleik privilegiumai
| juttattak oket abba a helyzeti elonybe, amiben vannak.

Nezd...  eloszor is ha rossz a szajized akkor szopogass
cukorkat. Attol hogy rossz a szad ize valakitol meg nem
biztos hogy o tehet rola. Ha nem tehet rola -nem felelos -
akkor viszont nem marad mas mint a cukorszopogatas.

Masodszro szo sincs mellebeszelesrol. A tema az volt hogy
mitol bolsevikok OK. Erre nem valasz az hogy kik a szuleik. 
A helyzeti elonyrol lehet beszelni, de nem latom hogy a
hatalom kesztyus kezzel bant volna veluk (az a hatalom
amelynek parttitkara volt Palffy es puszipajtasa Csurka.. sorolhatnam.

| 
| > 2) Nem latom hogy barmelyik part vezeteseben ne
| >lennenek olyanok akik az elozo rendszerben nem eppen karakan
| >ellenzeki viselkedesukrol lettek volna hiresek. A MIEPes
| >Csurka peldaul haveri alapon allt Aczel GYorggyel, sot kerek (60?)
| >szuletesnapjara o irta az unneplo (es unnepi) beszedet,
| >arrol nem is beszelve hogy besugokent a neve is megjelent a
| >nyilvantartasokon, amit nem is tagadott. (annyit tagadott
| >hogy beszervezese utan besugott volna. Ugy latszik nem
| >kenyszeritetek ra (?!), es nemcsak hogy nem zaklattak, de
| >ami alatt o a titkos szolgalattal "nem kooperalt" annak
| >ellenere hogy be volt szervezve Aczel dijakat kapott.
| 
| Tudod mit? Majd, ha a Demszky es tarsai kartotekjai is nyilvanossagra
| kerulnek, akkor beszelhetunk errol erdemlegesen.  Vagy ha netan az
| alairason kivul, valaki jelentkezik, hogy Csurka artott
| neki.
| Addig az egesz alairas ugyet (ami egyebkent elegge nyomas alatt volt
| "elkovetve", ugye?) nem tudom sokkal tobbnek tekinteni, mint a jo
| egyetemi jegyekert elkovetett 5-os TudSzoc irasbeliket.  Azokat sem
| gondoltuk komolyan, ugyebar?

Nezd.. nekem halistennek tudszoc meg dialektikus
materializmus targyaim mar nem voltak. Az viszont  erosen
meglep hogy ilyen lazan veszed azt hogy valaki
titkosugynoke volt az elnyomo hatalomnak. Elhiszem hogy
nyomas volt rajta eppugy mint mindenki mason - ezek szerint
most minden 3/3as beszervezettet felmentenel? Ha kiderulne
egy SZDSZ-esrol, vagy MSZPsrol azt is igy elintezned?
Masreszt meg nem is csak errol van szo. Csurka nem csak
alairt hanem aktiv puszipajtasa volt Aczel Gyorgynek. Azt is
kenyszer alatt tette? Azt sem azert mert elvtelen
karrierista %$#^&%@#? Megis, - ha senkinek sem artott- hogy
lehet az hogy egyre masra jottek ki a darabjai (Tamogatott!)
szinhazakaban es kapta a dijakat mikozben truccolt a
titkosszolgalattal miutan alairt nekik.

| >3) Ma is allamszocialisztikus intezkedeseket tamogat magas allami
| >beleszolassal es tamogatassal. Kulturalis elkepzelesei
| >szinte mar a harom T-re emlekeztetnek - jo baratjatol sok
| >mindent eltanult.
| 
| Ezert irtam mar tobbszor is, hogy Csurka jovokepevel nem tudok
| egyeterteni.  Viszont a Gondolatokban leirt diagnozisa, egy-ket
| kiteteltol eltekinteve, szerintem talalt.  Ezert is tamadtak ot
| a "talaltak".

Lehet hogy megsem latsz vesebe.. lehet hogy nem ezert
tamadtak. Lehet hogy azert tamadtak mert demagog, gyulolet
kelto ketszinu koponyegforgato.

| 
| > 4) Nem latom hogy az SZDSZ atlepte volna
| >a parlamentarizmus hatarait.
| 
| Az SZDSZ igazi hatalma a kulfoldi kapcsolataikban van, amivel zsarolni
| tudtak az Antall kormanyt. 

Ezt ugye a masik oldalnal Magyar Lobbynak hivjak. Nezd,
eloszor is nem lattam ilyen zsarolasnak jelet, masodszor  is
a lobbizast mindket oldal alkalmazza amennyire csak tudja.

| De azert a taxisblokadban vallat szerepuk
| sem volt kutya.  Igaz, ezt ugy csinaltak, hogy semmit nem lehet
| rajuk bizonyitani, ami a birosagi tesztet is kibirna.  No de a
| politikaban ez mar gyakran igy szokott lenni.  Tehat marad a
| "circumstantial evidence"-re hagyatkozas.

Nem tagadom hogy valoszinuleg tamogattak a taxis
blokadot. Amikor otthon voltam nem lattam semmi jelet annak
hogy akar ok inditottak volna, akar hogy barmifele
torvenytelenseget kovettek volna el vele kapcsolatban.

| 
| > 5) Mas partokat emlitve, Boross
| >"vendeglatos" multjat, Palffy parttitkari multjat, Chrudinak
| >ujsagiroi multjat es tanulmanyait ma mar mindenki ismeri.  
| 
| Mi az a bizonyos ujsagiroi mult Chrudinaknal?  Azutan meg miert nem
| beszelsz az SZDSZ kulcsemberek multjarol is?  Egyebkent az itteni
| (Internetes) SZDSZ-szimpatizansoknal is szinte feltuno a "multnelkuliseg".
| Ugy latszik multjuk csak a jobboldaliaknak van.

Nem.. Csakhogy keves embertol hallottam bolsevikozast a jobb
oldallal kapcsolatban!! Mindket partban van olyan aki az
elozo rendszerben nem antikommunistakent viselkedett, a
kulonbseg az hogy sok jobboldali szemelyiseg szerint ez
felhatalmaz az egyoldalu bolsizasra. En viszont a
konzervatobolsevik kifejezest meg nem hallottam. A helyzet
tenyleg szimmetrikus, sem az SZDSZ sem az MDF lebolsizasa
nem jogos (nem is mondtam hogy az!).

| 
| >Szoval mitol bolsevik a  bolsevik? Mit tett Peto, Magyar
| >Balint, Demszky, hogy kierdemelje a bolsevik jelzot?
| 
| Gondolom a multjuk es az abbol orokolt taktikajuk.  (Hint:
szalami.)

A multjuk? Mindharmukat kegyetlenul megvertek (nem helyi birsagot kaptak
ami elleni fellebezesuket helyben hagytak), terrorban
tartottak, bevittek "prevenciora". Meg mindig nem latom hol
volt NEKIK bolsevik multjuk. 
Azt sem latom hogy   mestersegesen krealtak volna szakadast
az MDFben, de a szalami nem igazan bolsevik taktika. Semmi
bolsevikot nem latok abban sem ha valaki a szimpatizansait
(ill. azokat akikkel rokonok az elveik, politikai
elkepzeleseik) a maguk oldalara allitjak. A szalami taktika
is a vilagon mindenhol alkalmazva van. Az USAban is, mindket
part reszerol. (Clinton peldaul -egyesek szerint- igy
osztotta meg a Republikanus partot. Sokan nem szeretik
Clintont, de hogy valaki bolseviknak hivta volna ezert azt
meg nem hallottam. 

Istvan

84 m2, 2-bedroom condo overlooking the Buda Hills in a beautiful, 
small apartment house of Budapest'’s exclusive Rozsadomb disrict
(Nagybanyai Street) is for immediate sale. It features telephone, 
garage, hardwood floor and gas central heating. Easy access to the
city: downtown is just a short, convenient 15-minute ride by public 
transportation. If you are interested, please send an E-mail to 
.

Karl

You seem to have become obsessed that Jews are taking over the world. Far
from it. If we indeed control the world, do you think we would have let
you to send out your intial posting to the newsgroup, no way! 

Have you actually ever talked to a Jew?

I suspect if you did, then you would find that Jews are like everyone else
- black, white, blue green, whatever.

But if you really think us Jews control the media and control everything,
that's fine for me.

No stop crying about how the Jews are taking over the world, because if
you don't we'll be out to cirumsize you! And force you to eat chopped
liver!


LBunder

In article >,
Laslo Zvekan > wrote:
>In article >,
>    (Gabor Barsai) wrote:
>>
>>Are there any chicks reading this newsgroup? (Beside Marina...)
>>
>>Gabor
>
>No chicks here, ladys yes and pricks for sure...
>
>Laszlo Z.
>
Hey! The part about the ladies is my line! :-)
Gyuri

ussian,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.jewish
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.austria,soc.culture.balti
cs,soc.culture.intercultural,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.mag
yar,soc.culture.polish,soc.culture.romanian,soc.culture.german,soc.culture.ukra
inian,soc.culture.

russian,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.jewish
References: >
Distribution: 

SMF User ) wrote:
: Why can't Jews accept criticism?  

: criticism, personal or otherwise.  (Neither 
: have I ever heard a Jew criticize another Jew).  

Well thsi just proves you're full of shit.  If you read SCJ even one
day you'll see nothing but Jews criticizing other Jews.  As for
your suggestion that we don't know what others' perceptions of
us are, impossible.  We're constantly being told what people think
of us--there's no end to the assholes that feel the need to share
their opinions of us (oh, wait--that would be you, wouldn't it?).

 (LBunder) writes:
>Karl
>
>You seem to have become obsessed that Jews are taking over the world.
[...]

Karl's paranoia reminded me of a joke that I found in "Jewish 
humor: what the best Jewish jokes say about the Jews" by rabbi 
Joseph Telushkin (ISBN 0-688-11027-4).  

Germany, 1930's, two Jews travel in a train compartment.  One 
is reading a Jewish paper, the other - some Nazi propaganda stuff.  
The first one is outraged:
  "Why are you reading this scum?!".
The other says:
  "Well, what can you find in your paper?  Anti-Semitism is growing, 
   our people are beaten, our businesses are demolished...  It IS 
   depressing.  Now, look at this - we control all the banks, we 
   control the world's politics...  THIS sounds GREAT!" 

:-)
Take care,
___
Grzegorz Ciach, posting from <soc.culture.polish>
PO Box 3053, Iowa City, IA 52244; tel:(319)337-4961

In article >,
SMF User  > wrote:
>What is the moral question relevant to contemporary
>Jewish issues?  

[ paranoia deleted ] 


oooooooohhhh very brave little with boy hiding behind 
an anonymous Mac inside some lab in texas  , verry 
brave indeed.
 
NNTP posting host smf-a9.facsmf.utexas.edu
>
>May we restore freedom of speech in this country so that some of 
>these issues can be discussed publicly in a civil manner.
>

bubba, freedom os speech does not include racist rants and raves

unless for course it is freedom for you to do as you please which
is not freedom for the rest of us.

In article >  (LBunder) writes:


>Karl
>You seem to have become obsessed that Jews are taking over the world. Far
>from it. If we indeed control the world, do you think we would have let
>you to send out your intial posting to the newsgroup, no way! 


I do not think that you are taking over the world, but could you stop 
crossposting this stuff to the groups that are not related to this topic?

Krzysztof Wroblewski

In article > Nagy Peter, snark@ writes:
>_Ez_ a mellebeszeles.  Vagy felelosek a szuleik dolgaiert, vagy nem. 

Szerintem felelosek es semmi helyuk nincs a mai magyar politikai
eletben.

Nem mondom, hogy hetediziglen ki kell vegezni oket, vagy mint az
orosz car csaladjat halomraloni, mert ez ma mar sajnos nem sza-
lonkepes megoldas. Elment a hajo, elmult '88.

Ha valaki nyomoreknak szuletik, nagy valoszinuseggel elete vegeig 
nyomorek marad es nyomorekkent is hal meg. Pech. Ha valaki egy avos
hoher csaladjaba szuletik, azt egy avos hoher neveli fel, potenci-
alis avos hoherra, ugyanis nem esik az alma messze a fajatol.  Vi-
selniuk kell aszarmazas  kovetkezmenyet. Pech. Az osszerabolt
vagyon, kapcsolatok ugyis megmaradnak, legalabb ne kelljen az on-
telt pofajukat a teveben, ujsagban bamulni.

Nem en szabtam meg a jatekszabalyokat. De ha a magyar nemzetre
uton-utfelen bocsanatkereseket eroltetnek, megnemtortent II vh-s
dolgokert, akkor az avosfattyuk se paradezzanak, mintha mi sem
tortent volna az elmult 50 evben. Olyan nincs, hogy egyreszt a kol-
lektiv felelossegtudat, a bunos nemzet bunkojaval  hadonaszunk,
kozben a sokkal konkretabban lokalizalhato  csaladi felelossegrol
meg nem akarunk hallani. Kulonosen, ha az utolso pillanatig vigan
elveztek a szarmazasuk elonyeit. 

Tamas

Hello,
  I will be traveling to Cleveland, Ohio this summer and would like
to know the names of any good Hungarian resturants in or near the
downtown Cleveland area.
  Thank you very much for your time.
                                          Cynthia Miller

SMF User wrote:
> 
> Why can't Jews accept criticism?
> 
>                                         I have never known a Jew who could ta
ke
> criticism, personal or otherwise.  (Neither
> have I ever heard a Jew criticize another Jew).

                                 xxxxxxsnipxxxxxx

I am extremely tolerant of other people's views and do not believe in polititca
l 
correctness per se, but your intellectually cloaked polemical diatribes of hate
 
are starting to really tick me off. This is precisely the sort of perfectly 
rationalized hate propaganda which provided the national socialistic regime in 
Germany with the *moral* means to exterminate 6 million Jews. 

Without wishing to stoop so low as to argue against any the points you set fort
h 
in this and other posts, I put it to you that you might want to try exercising 
your apparently capacious intellectual powers in asking yourself, humbly and 
sincerely, just why you are so consumed with hate and have such a compulsive ur
ge 
to drag others down into the dank hole you dwell in. 

Regards, 

-- 
Oliver Whisonant
   INTERSOFT
+1 619 459 6433

In article >,
T. Kocsis  > wrote:
| In article > Nagy Peter, snark@ writes:
| >_Ez_ a mellebeszeles.  Vagy felelosek a szuleik dolgaiert, vagy nem. 
| 
| Szerintem felelosek es semmi helyuk nincs a mai magyar politikai

Tehat lehet alaki felelos olyanert amit nem befolyasolhatott?


| 
| Nem mondom, hogy hetediziglen ki kell vegezni oket, vagy mint az
| orosz car csaladjat halomraloni, mert ez ma mar sajnos nem sza-
| lonkepes megoldas. Elment a hajo, elmult '88.

Ma mar... sajnos... [a bolsevik megtorlas modszerei nem
szalonkepesek] ne haragudj de kit itt a bolsevik?

| Ha valaki nyomoreknak szuletik, nagy valoszinuseggel elete vegeig 
| nyomorek marad es nyomorekkent is hal meg. Pech. Ha valaki egy avos
| hoher csaladjaba szuletik, azt egy avos hoher neveli fel, potenci-
| alis avos hoherra, ugyanis nem esik az alma messze a
| fajatol.  

Ez tehat eleg ahhoz hogy valakit megfossz allampolgari
jogaitol, anelkul hogy barmilyen bunt elkovetett volna?  


| Vi-
| selniuk kell aszarmazas  kovetkezmenyet. Pech. Az osszerabolt
| vagyon, kapcsolatok ugyis megmaradnak, legalabb ne kelljen az on-
| telt pofajukat a teveben, ujsagban bamulni.

Ertem... b-lista szarmazas alapjaMegint csak.. ki itt a bolsevik?

| 
| Nem en szabtam meg a jatekszabalyokat. De ha a magyar nemzetre
| uton-utfelen bocsanatkereseket eroltetnek, megnemtortent II vh-s
| dolgokert,

Melyik meg nem tortent dologrol beszelsz?

 akkor az avosfattyuk se paradezzanak, mintha mi sem
| tortent volna az elmult 50 evben. Olyan nincs, hogy egyreszt a kol-
| lektiv felelossegtudat, a bunos nemzet bunkojaval  hadonaszunk,
| kozben a sokkal konkretabban lokalizalhato  csaladi felelossegrol
| meg nem akarunk hallani. Kulonosen, ha az utolso pillanatig vigan
| elveztek a szarmazasuk elonyeit. 


Egyebkent en ebben es abban a kollektiv bunossegben sem
hiszek.  Irasod alapjan viszont ont te hiszel a koolektiv
bunossegben, abban hogy aki nem kovetett el bunt is lehet
buntetheto. Annyi mindenben ertesz egyet a bolsevikokkal a
demokratikus jatekszabalyuok elleneben hogy nem csodalom
hogy ennyire elesen iteled el oket. Kulonben nehez
lennetiteket megkulonboztetni ;)

Istvan

Gyorgy Kovacs ) wrote:
> In article >,
> Laslo Zvekan > wrote:
> >In article >,
> >    (Gabor Barsai) wrote:
> >>
> >>Are there any chicks reading this newsgroup? (Beside Marina...)
> >>
> >>Gabor
> >
> >No chicks here, ladys yes and pricks for sure...
> >
> >Laszlo Z.
> >
> Hey! The part about the ladies is my line! :-)
> Gyuri

Just want to clear something up for you guys, ya there are chicks,
females, women, ladies, or what ever you want to call us reading the
articles in this section.  But we respond to make sure that guys like you
realize that we too are interested in computers and the things written
about Hungary and its not only guys who are scoping the newsgroups! 
Personaly I think this discussion is getting out of hand.
Christina Magyar