In article >,
 (Gabor J.Toth) writes:
>This reorganizing business made me think. It seems to me  that if we want
>people come  over from, say HIX,  to Usenet, we  should create  space for
>them. The first thing  is clearly to have  a newsgroup for Hungarians, in
>Hungarian. Thus I  would strongly support creating soc.culture.hungarian,
>so  that the traffic  from s.c.m could be moved  to there. Dividing s.c.m
>into fourth level hierarchies can be done afterwards,  if there is enough
>traffic on s.c.m.
>
>Comments?

Kedves Gabor es Hala'sz :-) tarsaim ,
a netikett nem tiltja, bar nem is ajanlja a magyar nyelv hasznalatat a
soc.culture.magyar USENET csoportban. Ez leginkabb a temara es a hozzaszolok
diszkreciojara van bizva. A csoprt nyelve vegyes - magyar es angol.
Azt az otletedet, hogy a soc.culture.magyar csoportot atkereszteljuk
soc.culture.hungarian-ra , hogy  -
"clearly to have  a newsgroup for Hungarians, in Hungarian "
- nem tartom logikusnak, ellenkezoleg, ha mar egy tisztan magyar nyelvu
csoportot
szeretnel letrehozni magyarok szamara, a jelenlegi elnevezes lenne esszeru.
Errol, es a valoszinu technikai problemakrol ezzel kapcsolatosan nezd meg
Fekete Zoli hozzaszolasait.

Jelenleg egyebkent rengeteg hely van a ket, fokeppen magyar temakkal foglalkozo
ujsag csoportban - bit.listserv.hungary, soc.culture.magyar . Egy uj csoport
letrehozasa, vagy egy csoport kettevalasztasa alatalaban akkor javasolt, ha a
napi
posta eleri a kb 200-as szamot. Jelenleg ez egyik magyar csoportban sincs igy.
En ugy erzem, ha boviteni szeretnenk a USENET magyar csoportjait, a bovitesnek
joval altalanosabbnak kellene lennie, mint egy soc.culture.hungarian.hix
letrehozasa.
A magyar informacios halozat most van felfutoban, tovabbi informacios
szolgalatoknak is
helyet kellene biztositani egy csoportban, ami a "magyar" nevet viseli.
A csoport feldarabolasa helyett, egyeb javaslatokat is figyelembe kellene
venni, pl.
- egy hu.* nemzeti halozat letrehozasat, ahogy Fekete Zoli javasolta ,
- soc.history.magyar lenne egy masik lehetoseg, tekintve a nagy szamu
tortenelemmel
  foglalkozo hozzaszolast,
- talk.politics.magyar ,stb.

Szemely szerint en barmilyen formalis vagy tenyleges cenzura ellen vagyok
barmelyik
magyar ujsag csoportban.
Varom tovabbi javaslataitokat a temaban,
Gotthard

Sorry, this part got left out due to my error editing what I
thought was going to be a complete reply to Gotthard's piece -
as a technical aside I note that I've got to scrape around for posts
crossposted to b.l.h. Please be aware that, possibly related to b.l.h's
awfully low propagation, these often fail to get here even though s.c.m
is supposed to be carried well!

> > In any case, this is sidetracking the discussion whether to have .hix
> >newsgroup. If you don't like HIX (or just don't want to read it for any
> >reason) but want to have it "out" on Usenet then the logical position
> >would be for a separate group, not against as yours has been.
>
> No Zoli,
> that would be the logical approach only if I thought, my oppinion is the
> only and most important. I guess, HIX should be wherever it is, on the most
> propagated Hungarian group, because
 The proposed .hix subgroup would have about the same propagation as
s.c.m does. The difference would be actual two-way communication with
Usenet, placing HIX really *in* a newsgroup rather than merely dumping its
traffic *on* top of one the way it's going now.

> - its information gets to the most people,
 actually HIX is already available to much more people via email (and
finger, gopher, WWW) then the smallish subset with Usenet access.

> - and probably, this way , less misuse of moderating power can accur.
 I don't know what you mean, but I can't understand why so seem so
determined to defeat the solution that would provide Usenet readers with
the ability to follow up HIX posts directly (instead of having to
figure the submission address and compose email separately if they want
to react) thus to join the flow of information on HIX. Easier access
would mean better feedback to the list supervisor and moderators as well,
isn't that what you want?!

-- Zoli

I have compiled an E-Mail Directory of Lesbigay Scholars, with now more
than 400 persons listed.  To be included, fill out the form below and
return it to me:

              

Do NOT send by snail mail.

The E-Directory helps lesbigay scholars connect regarding on-going
manuscripts, conferences, and other scholarly projects.   I send
the Directory to all who agree to be listed, with updates individual
by individual.

I also make available to one e-mail address by which those listed
can post announcements of interest to the entire group.  But this is
not a discussion list per se--rather, a resource list.

Please share this announcement with any friends who might be interested
and with any other e-networks where forthright lesbigay scholars might
assemble qua scholars.

Thank you.

Louie Crew
Author/editor of _The Gay Academic_ and 1,060+ others
Co-founder of the Lesgay Caucus of the National Council of Teachers of
   English
Founder of Integrity, the lesbigay justice ministry of the Episcopal Church
English Department, Rutgers University/Newark
(Snail mail:   P. O. Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101)
> ============================================================================

                 Entry Form for E-Directory of Lesbigay Scholars

Name:

Institutional affiliation:
       Department:
       Position:
E-mail address(es):
Snail mail:
Phone(s)
FAX:

Citations of a sample of yr. previous lesbigay scholarly projects:

List/description of yr. on-going lesbigay scholarly projects:



Indicate your preference: I understand that the directory itself
goes only to listed persons.  Other persons listed in this directory


   ___DO      have my permission to share my entry with others
              for scholarly purposes,

              and if they do, they may share my entry

              ___at their discretion.

              ___only if they query me first.

   ___DO NOT  have my permission to share my entry.
--
 Louie Crew, Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101  201-485-4503.  English Dept, Rutgers
 "God is perfect, but She's no perfectionist: She made (& loves!) me"--HRHQL

First of, the definitive document on the topic is not the technical
guide Gotthard quoted but
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/moderator-list/part1 which
describes the concept in some detail (for reference I include that at the
end of this post below my signature). Our case is covered there as:

5) Groups which are gatewayed into the Usenet from an Internet
   mailing list.  These groups are moderated by someone on the Internet
   side but are shared with the Usenet population.  Submissions mailed
   to the proper addresses [...] will appear in both the group
   on Usenet, and the Internet list.
[end quote]
 What is not mentioned above but important: the Usenet handling software
takes care of mailing so the poster doesn't need to submit any differently
from regular posting (or following up).
 Again, the .hix group would be only formally moderated (with the
exception of its moderated lists) to ensure smooth connection between
the Usenet and email sides. Postings to the non-moderated lists would be
forwarded automatically by the server without moderation.

 Or simply and shortly, as can be read in
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.admin.misc/What_is_Usenet%3F :

Some newsgroups are "moderated"; in these newsgroups, the articles are
first sent to a moderator for approval before appearing in the newsgroup.
[end quote]
 Except in case of the .hix not a moderator but the HIX server receives the
articles, and distributes them to the email list as well as to the newsgroup.

On 23 Feb 1995, Gotthard Saghi-Szabo wrote:
> >list traffic. The s.c.{m|h}.hix group would be formally moderated,
>                                                 ===================
> For those of you, who might not be familiar with moderation on USENET.
> From  Usenet_Newsgroup_Creation_Companion on ftp://rtfm.mit.edu:/
>       pub/usenet/news.groups/
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Q: Who should moderate a group, if it is moderated?
> > A: It should be someone respected, who has a fast news connection (no
> >    leaf nodes), and has the time to do a good job of it.  The moderator
> >    kills or nurtures the moderated group, so choose wisely.   =========
> >    =====================================
> > [...] Q: How about getting rid of the moderator?
> > A: There is _no_ official way to get rid of a moderator without their
> >    ==================================================================
> >    consent!  Even if they turn out to be a bum who never does anything,
> >    =======
> >    you can't easily replace them.  Thus, take great care with your
> >    moderation guidelines.
 Notice that the above-mentioned is dealing with the technical aspect of
moderation: it should trusted to someone who could be expected to forward
the posts reliably to the group (or it'd be killed in effect). In our
case the forwarding is to be done by the software that has handled the
task well for more than 5 years now...

> In other words - cenzorship. In my oppinion, no moderated group should bear
> the soc.culture.magyar/hungarian name, even if it is a fourth level group.
 No, cenzorship is not "in other words", it's a different thing
altogether: it means preventing writers to reach readers in any way, while
moderation serves the set of readers of a particular forum who chose
someone to sift what they read there.
 The group as such would not actually be moderated, only those few HIX lists
that are already moderated. That traffic is already on s.c.m - by denying
the creation of .hix subgroup you are in effect voting to keep it in the
third-level group and thus making *that* a "moderated group" according to
your interpretation, just like the proposed .hix you object to!

> Did not we have enough of cenzorship, moderation during the past years?
 Nice rhetoric, but the roots of moderation are to be found around the
beginnings of the Net as we know it, the antithesis of cenzorship:

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.admin.misc/
Usenet_Software%3A_History_and_Sources

Rick Adams, at the Center for Seismic Studies, took over coordination
of the maintenance and enhancement of the B News software with the
2.10.2 release in 1984.  By this time, the increasing volume of news
was becoming a concern, and the mechanism for moderated groups was
added to the software at 2.10.2.  Moderated groups were inspired by
ARPA mailing lists and experience with other bulletin board systems.
[end quote]
 Moderation is not cenzorship, and with the explosive growth of
information it's becoming a more and more needed tool for many to keep from
drowning in an unmanagable flood of posts. Witness the many successful
Usenet examples, or the VITA spinoff from the TIPP list. In any case,
don't participate in it if you don't like it, but to fight establishing
the group that would benefit both users and non-users of HIX just because
you disapprove its operation doesn't fit well with the anti-cenzorship
tone, now does it?!

-- Zoli 

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/moderator-list/part1

A number of moderated groups exist on the net.  These are groups which
usually have one or more individuals (acting as editors and/or
moderators) who must approve articles before they are published to the
net.  In general, these groups fall into one of five categories:

1) Groups with postings of an informative nature not suited to
   discussion and always originating from the same (very small) group
   of posters.  Groups within this category include news.lists,
   news.announce.newusers, and comp.mail.maps.

2) Groups derived from regular groups with such a high volume that
   it is hard for the average reader to keep up.  The moderated
   versions of these groups are an attempt to provide a lower volume
   and higher quality version of the same forum.  An example of
   this category is news.announce.newgroups (a reduced form of
   news.groups).

3) Groups derived from regular groups that have often been abused.
   That is, the regular groups often received postings of items that
   were not germane to the stated topic of the group (or sometimes even
   within the realm of politeness for the net).  This also includes
   groups suffering from an annoying number of duplicate postings and
   inappropriate followups.  Moderated groups in this category include
   comp.sources.unix.

4) Groups designed to serve also as direct feedback to an off-the-net
   group.  The discussion in comp.std.mumps is an example of this.

5) Groups which are gatewayed into the Usenet from an Internet
   mailing list.  These groups are moderated by someone on the Internet
   side but are shared with the Usenet population.  Submissions mailed
   to the proper addresses, given below, will appear in both the group
   on Usenet, and the Internet list.  This includes some groups in
   the "inet" distribution which are listed here for completeness:
   comp.ai.vision and comp.std.announce.

[list of groups flushed]

LA and San Francisco team up to bring a fun-filled Hungarian
            weekend of eating, drinking and general carousing at Harwood
                   Lodge on scenic Mt. Baldy east of Los Angeles.

                                   May 5-7, 1995


   Featuring: Istvan Szabo (Kovacs) and Tibor Toth, both formerly of the
                    Hungarian State Ensemble in Budapest &
              The Forgatos Ensemble of the San Francisco Bay Area


    Teaching to include Gypsy dances from Szatmar and dances from Gyimes
    with evening parties Friday and Saturday nights. Price includes food
    Saturday and Sunday, lodging, dance instruction, and parties.

      $62.00-Sierra Club members  $68.00 non-members if paid by April 15
                          After April 15, add $10.00



  To register- Send your name, address and phone number with a check for
  the full amount and a stamped self-addressed envelope (include your
  Sierra Club number, if applicable) payable to:

                           Debby Rand
                           10631 Youngworth Rd.
                           Culver City, CA.  90230

More information: Debbie Rand (310) 202-9024, David Skuse (510) 528-0884

>them. The first thing  is clearly to have  a newsgroup for Hungarians, in
>Hungarian. Thus I  would strongly support creating soc.culture.hungarian,
>so  that the traffic  from s.c.m could be moved  to there. Dividing s.c.m

The only thing I see wrong with the choices of names is that not hungarian
speaker, especially those who are not hungarian themselves, might look at
s.c.h. and determine that all hungarian-topic discussion on the net is in
the hungarian language, and probably wouldn't post a request looking for
an english language on a hungarian language list.  Only hungarians would think
to look for the word 'magyar'.  I propose naming the english lang list s.c.h
and the hungarian lang list s.c.m.

Paul Gelencser

Since the discussion returned to the original Usenet reorganization
issue, and in our native tongue, I cut the followup down to s.c.m. Please
do not crosspost further s.c.m threads to b.l.h unless you feel it's
absuletely necessary! Something, perhaps the dismally low propagation of
b.l.h on Usenet seems to cause such cross-traffic delayed a lot (or
occasionally not to get here at all).
 The formal discussion on proposed Usenet groups must be conducted on
news.groups. Sometime during the next week I am going to post the formal
Request for Discussion needed to there as well as s.c.m and the lists
concerned, HUNGARY included.
 There seems to be a news-to-mail gateway that can enable
anyone interested to participite without Usenet access. I will let you
know when I confirmed that it works. Unfortunately, s.c.magyar is not
among the groups available that way. For those who can telnet
BBS.OIT.UNC.EDU provides free public access to Usenet!

-- Zoli 

Eva Balogh wrote:

>There has been decades of indoctrination against foreign investment describing
 it
>in terms of loss of nationa sovereignty. Xenophobia is not unique to Hungary

What does Xenophobia have to do with not wanting foreigners (people with not
interest in the well being of your society, just of his own pocket) to
control major parts of a economy?  Was it a good thing that foreigners
 controlled
the production of oil in the middle-eastern countries in the early part of this
century (Hess-British, Shell-British, Standard Oil-US, etc)?  In that case it
 was
demonstrated that foreign dominance could result in a mass exidus of capital an
d
especially of profit, when foreigners control an industry.

Cautiousness against foreigners is not xenophobia.  Xenophobia is a deep dislik
e
 of
foreigners; prejudice.  realising the real risks introduced by foriegners is
 only
wise.

I think that foreign investment is not the most important thing to develop the
Hungarian economy.  Freedom is.  The US developed in a very short time not
 because
of foreign investment, but because of the freedom to start a business.  All
 major US
companies developed from small companies (AT&T, IBM, Boeing, etc) without
 foreign
investment.  I think the economy would do better with a small amount of foreign
investment, and the freedom of the people to make their lives better through
 their
own initiative.  The role of foreign investment would serve as a catalist for
other companies by doing business with other Hungarian companies, in a similar
way that the defense dept in the US has served as the catalist for many small
companies, also the major car manufacturer do this as well.  Ford/GM/Chrysler
buy door handles, tail light covers, seat covers, headlights, floor mats, paint
,
rubber weather stripping, etc from small companies.  In a similar way, a few
 large
compnaies in Hungary would serve the same function.  If a factory in Hungary
 made
seat apolstry for a Ford plant in Hungary, they could then enter the export
 market
in that field, for example. The same with other low tech industries - hi-tech
 would
not allow this since it would require too great of a start-up investment from
the small company.

>United States. In Hungary, for example, historians in the 1960s and 1970s
>talked about a possible French purchase of the Hungarian railways
>(contemplated in 1920) as the practical abdication of Hungarian independence.

Foreign control does not mean a problem must result.  Just that it can.
If the French did control the Hungarian railways
they could exploit their position, but that will not always happen.  Some
 foreign
control of a countries economy is fine, total control could lead to a disaster.
Remember, none of the colonies of Britian and France were happy with their
 status,
and we are talking here about another form of colonialism.

Paul Gelencser