At 09:31 PM 7/30/96 GMT, you wrote:
>There are many of Americans who are equally disgusted at
>the NBC coverage.  It is the subject of discussion on many
>radio talk shows - how viewers don't want to see just
>Americans in the Olympics.
>
>The coverage is sad and amateurish.  And NBC has won the
>bid for the next 3 Olympics, hasn't it?
>
>Sad.
>J. Rice


Dear Group:

I just caught a commentary on TSN, regarding the NBC coverage.  They were
highlighting incidents such as Clinton being over 20 minutes late for a
Gymnastics Competition - keeping the entire competition on hold awaiting his
arrival.  Also they complained about NBC's coverage as being so
nationalistic that it is embarrasing to the country. Then the commentary
switched to a recent Gymnastic competition where the top gymnast in the
world was barely recognized by the entire audience - let alone the reporters
(sorry, did not catch the name).  A Danish reporter summed it up with an
interesting statement which basically said that "of all the countries being
represented in  Atlanta, it's a real shame that for the first time only one
is in the highlight".  He then went on to compare previously hosting
countries with the US.

I cannot comment personally on NBC, since I have been following CBC - and I
have to add, that the coverage is about as good as it can ever get.  While
CBC naturally concentrates it's efforts on the Canadian competitor - they
have shown an amazing level of respect for all the competitors; and are
providing information on them, regardless of their nationality - at least in
the events which I have watched.  Big bouquet to CBC - big time!!!  If you
can, tune in!  I think that you'll enjoy the competitions, rather than being
aggrevated.  And, might I suggest that if you are so upset that you are
writing letters to NBC, don't just stop there.  Send copies to the
International Olympic Organizing Committee also.

Regards,
Aniko Dunford

Yea! Like we all speak and understand fluent French.
Come again S'il vous plait.

Peter Soltesz

 [Canada] wrote:

>Dear Anna:
>
>Superb question - could well start a "spicy" new thread or 3rd world war?
>For sure though, a picture of a limp celery stick does not come to mind when
>trying to define Hungarians.  (Passionate, intelligent, hot blooded,
>tempermental and opinionated does though... whoops, not to leave out great
>looking, dedicated, romantic and most capable....must be all that paprika
>garlic and hot peppers - or is it the mushrooms and goose fat....and of
>course, not at all biased?
>
>On the more serious side, if you really look into the Hungarian Cuisine, you
>will find that consumption of vegetables in general and meatless dishes are
>far more widely used than are in North America.  In fact, several vegetarian
>friends have become elated to have discovered the extremely varied and
>imaginative methods of the Hungarian Cuisine to suit their lifestyles. In
>addition, if you've been following this thread, it began with people's
>recollections from eons ago.  Like anywhere in the world things have changed
>dramatically - but as you can see for yourself, memories built around food
>are still vivid.
>
>Regards,
>Aniko.

Thanks Aniko,

Well I too grew up eating lecso, fozelek and cucumber salad for the most
part. There wasn't much else pre 1956, perhaps an occasional szalonna (bacon
slab) or szalami. Instead of the *zsiros kenyer* (lard spread bread) we ate
*vajas kenyer* (buttered bread, sometimes with a slice of fresh green pepper
on top),  when available.

 We also raised chickens and rabbits for our survival, whom I regarded as
friends and eventually they were sacrificed for meals. Also, I'll NEVER
forget the sound of one of our neighbor's unfortunate pigs chased around a
yard being killed (I can still hear it!). I think that these memories
finally convinced me that I should not eat my fellow being. By the way, as a
student in France I had the misfortune to eat horsemeat at the student
cafeteria.

When I lived in Hungary from 1989-1993, I found it next to impossible to eat
in a restaurant. Only thing I could order was stuffed mushrooms and fried
cheese, and of course mostly fried in lard. I remember eating dessert at a
restaurant on the Nagy Korut in 1989, I think the name was Erdelyi Kunyho or
something, and discovering that the *cream* part tasted like lard!! Yes, I
know now there are some vegetrian restaurants and I have tried some (so,so).
Maybe next time there I won't have such a hard time, and people won't think
me weird for not eating flesh.

In any case I have modified my *Hungarian* diet and am eating happily ever
after.....

Anna

Peter soltesz writes:
> Yea! Like we all speak and understand fluent French.
> Come again S'il vous plait.

Presumably those to whom it was addressed would understand it.
As we would say it: Nesze Pa?

Regards,Jeliko

Gabor Farkas wrote:

>Ferenc Novak disagreed with my personal attacks against Nemenyi.
>I would accept his criticism had I seen similar concerns when
>Nemeny attacked me in a similar manner.

It is quite amusing, when the one who started to snoop around one
of his opponents in political arguments, argues in a funny matter:
Sob, sob..."when I hit him, this bad NPA. hit back to me"..sob, sob.

>Novak also writes:

>>When I sent in my original post
>>"Who denounced NPA?" I never envisioned a situation where the
>>average size of a Hungary file would grow to be in the neighbor-
>>hood of 80 kbytes, and most of it dealing with this topic!
>>Enough already!

>Why then this new posting on the topic?   Gabor D. Farkas

Is it possible Mr. Novak wouldn't post anymore of the subject, if
Gabor Farkas wouldn't want to have the last word? ;-)

NPA.

Eva Balogh wrote:


>I am not talking about you; I am taking in general. I have heard
>incredible interpretations of 1956 from some quarters.


So did I.

NPA.

At 08:09 AM 8/1/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>At 08:48 AM 8/1/96 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:
>
>>By saying this I do not mean to excuse the anti-Semitism of any country,
>>including the history of anti-Semitism in Hungary, but to deny the kind
>>of national narcissism that considers it specifically Hungary-bashing to
>>decry it.  It is part of the nation's past, it must be subject to that
>>process of "coming to terms with history" that we all face.
>
>        This is exactly what some people refuse to do: "coming to terms with
>history," or looking at ourselves honestly in the face.
>
>        Eva Balogh

If that would be possible, all war and conflict would cease.

Joe Szalai

At 05:30 PM 8/1/96 -0700, Gabor D. Farkas wrote:

>At 08:13 PM 7/31/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
>>My favorites are German Spatlese and Auslese wines.  Spatlese wines go well
>>with chicken, frog legs, mild cheeses and cold meats.
>
>I suggest you try Beerenauslese. Only Tokay beats it (ot puttonyos).
>
>Gabor D. Farkas

I've tried Beerenauslese once.  It's a great wine but it's out of my price
range, just like Trockenbeerenauslese, which I've never tried.  While Tokaji
Aszu is a very good wine, I prefer to drink a Spatlese because it tastes
less sweet, less heavy.

Joe Szalai

"This wine is too good for toast-drinking, my dear. You don't want to mix
emotions up with a wine like that. You lose the taste."
                 Ernest Hemingway

At 09:17 AM 8/2/96 PDT, Jeliko wrote:

>Peter soltesz writes:
>> Yea! Like we all speak and understand fluent French.
>> Come again S'il vous plait.
>
>Presumably those to whom it was addressed would understand it.
>As we would say it: Nesze Pa?
>
>Regards,Jeliko

Peter Soltesz just likes to rage at anyone, and anything, that is different
from his world.  He's going to be a very bitter old man if he lives that long.

Joe Szalai

Gabor Farkas lies again:

>P. S. Interesting, how nobody ever writes: Petofi (Petrovics) Sandor.

I wonder why is that urge on Mr. Farkas's part, to always cite things,
foolishly?

In the early stage of Forum, Petofi was called by his original names
"Petrovics" by liberals as well as Nazi Scumbags. :-)

I can go as far back as Forum # 315[1991] (Breznay Peter) or Forum # 655
[1992](Csanyi Gabor, or Forum # 873 [1993] (Bimbo Kati) or Forum # 14447,
1838 (Zimanyi Magda) or the most favorite of Farkas's gang, Mr. Pellionisz
who wrote about (Petrovics-Petofi) in Forum # 1653 stating, that there were
hints in his poems about "RED FLAGS" and mentioned TGM.'s research for
Petofi's poems with a twist = Balra Matyar hulye haza.

NPA.

At 05:37 PM 8/1/96 -0700, Gabor wrote:
>At 08:03 AM 8/1/96 EDT, Hugh  Agnew wrote:
>
>A posting that I agree with completely.
>
>>Just a few idle thoughts...
>
>Not as far as I am concerned.
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>P. S. Interesting, how nobody ever writes: Petofi (Petrovics) Sandor.

        This is a very good example. One might add that they are simply
millions of people whose ancestors changed their names from some
foreign-sounding ones to Hungarian-sounding. And they were not Jewish
either. Our neighbor was called Mader but became Ma'ndoki; another
acquaintance became Tibor from Trauber and so on and so forth. If I recall
properly in the forties, civil servants *had* to change their names. But
even after 1948, for example, the armed forces didn't like officers with
German-sounding names. Someone I knew had to change his name from Klein. He
picked his mother's name which sounded properly Hungarian.

        Eva Balogh

Eva Balogh wrote:

>>Patient Eva. Hold your horses. Why are you so nervous ? I know the real
>>facts, and it is satisfying me. :-) In due time, everybody will learn
>>the facts.

>No, I am not nervous but I'm afraid that while I'm guarding the
>horses you will accuse innocent people of causing your forced
>resignation.

Ok. Then I reprhase...Don't be afraid either. :-) You just tend your
horses, and stay put. If I realy start to accuse, nothing you can do,
other than handle your horses gently. So relax!

NPA.

At 06:45 PM 8/1/96 -0700, Barna Bihari wrote:

>First of all, the latter of the following two sentences: "Utananeztem a
>dolgoknak, amirol kerdezett. Ugy nez ki, hogy a hir igaz." does not
>translate into "rumor has it."  Rather: "Apparently, the news are true."

        I quoted from memory but this case just shows how people can
interpret the same sentence and how that message settles in someone's brain.
"Ugy nez ki, hogy a hir igaz," in English means, "It seems that the news is
true." That doesn't mean, at least to me, that it IS true. It simply means,
that people at Argonne also heard the same story. Just as Andras Kornai
couldn't get a straight answer from Argonne, it is unlikely that my "mole"
could get to the bottom of this thing. Because those who know are not
talking. Therefore, in my mind this amounts to "rumor," although the word
may not have been uttered.

>And sorry Eva, the "possible scenario" depicted by you there holds no
>water whatsoever.

        But why not? Most rumors start this way.

>I must admit, however, that publishing your "mole's"
>letter here was commendable(although you stopped short of translating it).

        Thank you. As I reported I don't know how many times, I am a person
who is always and absolutely above board. If I had denounced Nemenyi I would
have said so openly and publicly, and with head high. But I didn't. His
antisemitic views have nothing to do with his performance at his workplace.
If the laboratory was dissatisfied with his work it is their prerogative to
fire him. If he did something which is against the rules and regulations of
the organization, he should be investigated.

        What I object to is Nemenyi's half-baked, pseudo-scientific ideas on
history: world as well as Hungarian. He manages to influence a goodly number
of people on the Internet who take his ideas as gospel truths. This is what
I object to. This is the last thing the Hungarian public needs. What the
Hungarian public needs is at last a balanced view of history: not the kind
the Kadar regime taught in the schools and not the kind of far-right is
propagating.

        Eva Balogh

At 10:02 AM 8/2/96 -0500, "Peter A. Nemenyi" > wrote:

>Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>>Patient Eva. Hold your horses. Why are you so nervous ? I know the real
>>>facts, and it is satisfying me. :-) In due time, everybody will learn
>>>the facts.
>
>>No, I am not nervous but I'm afraid that while I'm guarding the
>>horses you will accuse innocent people of causing your forced
>>resignation.
>
>Ok. Then I reprhase...Don't be afraid either. :-) You just tend your
>horses, and stay put. If I realy start to accuse, nothing you can do,
>other than handle your horses gently. So relax!
>
>NPA.

Are we going to "learn the facts" before or after Christmas, 1996?  I'm
getting impatient.  The excitement and anticipation are overwhelming.  I'm
losing control of my bowel movements!

Joe Szalai

As typical "crazy jose" has poot his foot in in again.
There is no rage....in fact someone complained vehemently when
I posted a Hungarian only text. Obviously, all I was doing is
making an observation.

Perhaps Jose's youth allow him to be superman know-it-all
and has yet to learn that he too was born human (perhaps not?)
Peter Soltesz

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Joe Szalai wrote:

> At 09:17 AM 8/2/96 PDT, Jeliko wrote:
>
> >Peter soltesz writes:
> >> Yea! Like we all speak and understand fluent French.
> >> Come again S'il vous plait.
> >
> >Presumably those to whom it was addressed would understand it.
> >As we would say it: Nesze Pa?
> >
> >Regards,Jeliko
>
> Peter Soltesz just likes to rage at anyone, and anything, that is different
> from his world.  He's going to be a very bitter old man if he lives that long
.
>
> Joe Szalai
>

At 12:00 PM 8/2/96 -0400, "Peter A. Soltesz" > wrote:

>As typical "crazy jose" has poot his foot in in again.
>There is no rage....in fact someone complained vehemently when
>I posted a Hungarian only text. Obviously, all I was doing is
>making an observation.
>
>Perhaps Jose's youth allow him to be superman know-it-all
>and has yet to learn that he too was born human (perhaps not?)
>Peter Soltesz

Embrasse mon 'ti cu, mon chum!

Joe Szalai

P.S. Excusez mon francais et mon e'pellation.

Liviu Iordache writes:

Liviu, we are talking at times of interpretations of what was written and
what Porphyrogentus meant when he wrote something. It is difficult to come to
complete agreement on those issues, without talking to him and I have a lot
of difficulty with seances.
> _JELIKO > wrote:

> >> " ...and beyond [i.e. above the these landmarks] lies megale Moravia,
> >> the unbaptized, which the Turks have blotted out, but over which in
> >> former days Sphendoplokos used to rule. Such are the landmarks along
> >> the Ister river."

> >OK but let's add the continuation of the sentence "but the regions above
> >these,

I am sorry but from the Byzantine direction, "beyond" to me means that it is
north of the area which was previously described. I know that in Chapter 31
he states that of the Turks "on the south side megale Moravia, the country of
Sphendoplokos (Svatopluk), whic now has been totally devastated by these
Turks." So in Chapter 40 Moravia is "beyond" (i.e. north) of the Hungarians
while in Chapter 13 it is south. Chapter 40 which is about Moravia does not
give any geographical reference or description as megale or other.



> Constantine never said that the Moravians were north of the Turks.

See Chapter 40 as discribed above.

> > but forgets them by page 179 when he lists the neighbors of the
> >Turks.

> See chapter 13, " These nations are adjacent to the Turks: on the
> western side, Francia; on their northern, the Pechenegs, on the south
> side, megale Moravia, the country of Sphendoplokos, which has now been
> totally devastated by these Turks and occupied by them. On the side of
> the mountains the Croats are adjacent to the Turks."

> Has he forgotten anybody?

By the time he got to Chapter 40, he did.

My interpretation is that either the first part or the second part of the DAI
was copied from other sources and the editor did not catch the conflicts.

Additionally, he describes the Croats in Chapter 31 as Croats in the south
who are apparently baptized as descendents of the white Croats who live
north of the Turks and are "unbaptized" and live in megale Croatia. In
Chapter 32 he discusses the Serbs in the south who are baptized andd are
descendents of the white Serbs who live beyond Turkey and are unbaptized.
In my opinion, the writer of the DAI in the 940-950 timeframe remembered
about Moravia and knowing that they were Slavs, decided to have a baptized
and an unbaptized version of them too, along the Croat, Serb Lines with the
appropriate megale adjectives mixed in.

If Moravia was in fact in the south of the Turks, why did he not have the
extensive information on them as he has for the Croats and Serbs. He does not
say a word about Moimir, Rastislav etc., or the wars of the Moravians. The
power was gone by then anyway one could say, so the story is not important.
But then lets not take only one of inconsistent descriptions at face value.

Now, at the same time it is possible that there were tribes of Slavs of the
Moravian branch also who came south with the Croats and Serbs, if such
migration is any other than the split by the Avars of their auxilliary Slav
folks into northern and southern groups. (I think possibly the river names
are maybe an indication of this, unless Morava has a different root also,
than the name of the people). I also give some credence to the refences
citing Nitra in relation to the Moravians and to the name of Moravia which is
slightly north of the Belgrade region. That the Hungarians were only in the
southern parts of the Carpathian basin is difficult to accept based on the
wars well described in the chronicles as an example the big one at Pozsony
(Bratislava) and the Bavarian/Hungarian border region along the Enns river.

> Get rid of the traditional interpretation and you will see that the
> text is not confusing and Constantine knew his geography.

I am very unconventional and use a great rock of salt with all of the
records.

> >But I just plain believe based on the
> >same sources, that Porphyrogenitus (or whoever he was copying or whoever
> >wrote parts of his text) was rather confused in this aspect.

> I don't think so. Constantine had the most reliable source in his
> Kabaroi guests.

Yes, in some areas he had first hand info, the derived part is where the
problems set in.


> The Emperor said that [chapter 40] "megale Moravia" of **his time**
> [not  a Moravia under Sventopolk's rule] was deprived of baptism
> [a-baptistos], which is true if you remember that in 900 AD, the
> Bavarian bishops complained to the Pope that the Moravians shaved
> their heads in Hungarian fashion, lost their church organization and
> become "pseudochristians."

Yes, but as cited above that reference says that the Moravia was "beyond" the
Turks.


> There is plenty of space south and south-east of Kocel's realm.
> Moreover, Constantine uses the adjective "megale" only when referring
> to Moravia occupied by the Hungarians, so the meaning is "old" or
> "former" not "great," neither "large."Let's stress here that
> Constantine consecvently uses this meaning throughout his work.

I agree partly, I think he used it as "upper" or "original", and only recent
nationalism  turned into "great".


> Sure, DAI contains detectable factual mistakes, mainly chronological,
> but there is no confusion or contradiction regarding the geographic
> position of megale Moravia.

> >At the
> >time when the DAI states that where the "Turks live today" there was no
> >longer any megali or non-megali Moravia.

> That is the only time for which the expression "megale Moravia" makes
> sense. Moreover, in De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae," Constantine
> mentioned his correspondence with the "Archons of Moravia," who are
> listed next to the archons of the Serbs, Zachlumians, and other South
> Slavic tribal formations.  They were probably refugees from
> Sventopolk's Moravia. Had his realm being north, in Slovakia, one
> would expect they would flee to Poland, Bohemia, even to Frankish
> Bavaria.

Considering that the Hungarians were called in by the Franks to fight the
Moravians, it would be unlikely, that they would escape to there. In my
opinion Porphyrogenitus would not have the foggiest idea about their possible
escapes to Poland, Bohemia or any northern area. It is well known that both
Svatopluk and Pribina/Kotzilis played the Byzantine/Frankish games, thus
there is no surprise in them corresponding with the Byzantines, although I
have great problems with that correspondance taking place with
Porphyrogenitus himself who according to my memory was born in 906.

> >Thus on p173 ""came and inturn
> >expelled the inhabitants of great Moravia and settled in their land, in
> >which the Turks live to this day"  on page 177 he gives your above quote
> >for the location of the unbaptized great Moravia to the north of the
Turks,

> This is incorrect. Nowhere puts Constantine "megale Moravia" north of
> the Turks, because "megale Moravia[...], over which Sphendoplokos used
> to rule" is the same areal with the one "where the Turks now live."

Chapter 40 clearly states "and beyond (the Turks) lies megale Moravia, the
unbaptized, which the Turks have blotted out, but over which in former days
Sphendoklopos used to rule."

> >by page 179 he forgot that previously he had a
> >Moravian neighbor for them

> Yes, the southern neighbor, megale Moravia, was occupied by the Turks.
> Is nothing unclear here.

Based on the above quoted section how did they get to the south?

> The Bavarian bishops were saying the same thing, that some Moravians
> joined the Hungarians for raids in Frankish Pannonia, which confirms
> Constantine's assertion that the Moravians fled to their immediate
> neighbors (the Bulgars and the Croats) or joined the Hungarians.

The records are confusing with the names, at times all are called sclaveni,
so it would be obvios also, if the raids into the Pannoinan region (i.e
Pribina and Kotsilis territory (who remember was expelled by Rastislav
to beyond the Danube in this case with a strong southern connotation and
thus related to the Moravians)  resulted in Moravians escaping to the Croats
and the Bulgars who were near the Danube (just check the records of the
Bulgarian/Serb and Bulgarian/Croat wars of the times) and yes probably some
joined the Hungarians. Here it is important to remember that the Avars were
not exterminated, but probably many of them were merging into the Slav ic
population and it is plausible that those folks may have been the most
amenable to come under the mixed Hungarian/Khabar confederation.

> >and on page 183 he has the Turks living at and just
> >above the Danube where Moravia used to be.

> Correct. All I missed was your previous comment on Anonymus' legends.

Sorry, for the confusion. but Anonymus put the described Temes and
nearby territories (and several others) under his invented non-Hungarian
rulers under a Bulgar/Cuman ruler.

> >I am sorry but it reads like a
> >US highschool students description of central European geography.

> The central European geography during Constantine times was different
> from the present day geography, so I can see very easily how a US
> highschool student might get confused.

Well, here I tend to agree, based on the DAI, what is north now was south
then and vice versa. :-)

> He did not guess anything. Read Macartney for details regarding the
> Kabaroi  visit to Constantine's court. Moreover, there are plenty of
> other sources confirming Porphyrogenitus' image. If you know of any
> relevant source speaking for the contrary let me know.

Oh lets leave the Khabars to another posting. Even this one is getting long
and I do have to work for my pay also. This is lots of fun but nobody wants
to pay me for historical discussions. I have to get a report out on the
respirable fraction of a liquid spray release from nuclear waste transport.

> >How come the Byzantine historians were not aware of this
> >event, it was taking place in their backyard, or was it?

> That's a good question! How come none of the  Byzantine chroniclers
> ever refers to the mission of Cyril and Methodius?

I think the same answer applies to both, it did not take place in their
backyard. The backyard was closer to the Bulgarians and the Franks, based on
the Moravian wars, the concern with the intent of the Pope, etc.

 Regards,Jeliko.

Liviu Iordache writes:

> >> The ability of Hungarian archaeologists to identify one Hungarian
> >> grave among other 1,700 Bulgarian graves is as good as the ability of
> >> Romanian archaeologists to identify several Daco-Roman graves within a
> >> sea of purely Dacian ones ;-)

> >Well, next to the Slavic (Bulgarian ?) cemetery, there is a 500 grave
> >Hungarian cemetery also so one grave does not have bring resolution.
> >However, when a grave is sunk into the remnants of a dwelling, it does
> >assist in timing the grave and the dwelling.

> Sure, is telling you that probably the dwelling is older than the
> grave, but this relationship has little bearing on the ethnicity of
> the deceased. The funeral rite is typical of nomads, but where the
> Hungarians of Arpad the only nomads roaming around Ba~lgrad in the
> firs half of the 10th century? The isolated position with respect to
> the other 500 Hungarian graves speaks for the contrary.

No, because the 500 Hungarian graves are also from approximately the same
period. Yes, there were other nomads (but not too many in the same region
at that time) who also used similar burial customs. They could have been
leftover Avars (of either wave) or cohort Khabars. While it is a single
grave, he probably did not bury himself, so even a single grave indicates
others of similar ilk in the neighborhood.


> Let's leave the Apponyi laws aside for the moment, and focus on this
> Gyula---Gelou derivation. Was Anonymus the first Romanizing agent or
> the interpretation of his work, by Hungarian historians, a clear case
> of forced, but unconvincing, Magyarization? ;-)

As by now you are probably aware of, while I do prefer the original
sources, I do not take them at face value. Historians, then as well as now,
do write stuff that they obtained from unverified sources. A lot of
cribbing went on in those days also. And once a rumour was in writing
somebody else jsut copied it as holy writ. Anyway, the Anonymus story, in
whole contains useful material, but he was apparently dead set to account
for all of the folks who were in the region in his time. He was also
influenced by the branch of the Arpads he served who were not keen on
discussing some of internecine Arpad house mistreatment of each other. The
manuscript itself is suspiciously jumping around and some of the same
events are discussed twice, but slightly differently. He also probably used
a now lost older chronicle, because fragments of his are also similar
(although at times with different nuances) to other Hungarian related
chronicles (Annales Posonienses, Zagreb Chronicle, etc.) At the same time
it is obvious that he did not use most of the then extant western annales
(with a possible exception of Regino and some later French works) as
sources. Please rememeber that it reads like a gesta of the nobles on its
main sections. I have difficulty with your (as I read it) remark that he
was involved in "magyarization"  or "romanization" one way or an other.
His work at least by Hungarian historians (that I am familiar with) is
treated in a number of different ways.


 Regards, Jeliko

>Andy Kozma wrote:
>
>
>>>But we don't know what Eva did before & during the  revolution  and
>>>"szabadsagharc". We only know what she says she did, and we do know
>>>what she did after. ;-)
>
>>and You?
>
>That is a secret, Andy! Do you want to get me in trouble? ;-)
>
>NPA.
>
>No NPA.this the farthest for me.To tell you the truth i am sory you are or
were in trouble.If this wouldn't have happened we would miss all this soap
opera.
It would be a good idea to offer it to NBC,probaly it would bring less
critism,then there coverage of the olympics.Lucky for us we have CBC wich is
less nationalistic as most of us are in Canada.
I doubt that it would bring out   such interrest as in the States your case.
Anyway what I would like to clear up with you is:why do some people call
this thread anti Hungarian?Please let me know.I admire people who has the
strenght and passion of reading and all professionals,but that does not mean
they are in any way shape or form superior to anyone else,should that be
race religion,schooling and so forth.
I remember I lost jobs in my life,but I got on my feet,and worked more,and
harder to support myself and my family.I never accused anybody on my bad
fortune (wich turned out to be the good one),only got muself together and
looked for the future.
I am not anty Hungarian,I am just concerned of the language and hatred
comming from some of them.
Good luck:Andy.
 PS.When anyone find mistakes in grammer or and spelling please send it to
the Editor for correction.

In article >, Gabor Fencsik
> writes:

> hate to jump in and spoil the fun, but I think the premises of this
>argument are backwards.  The Convention of 1787 deliberated in secret,
but
>the names of the participants were known, and extensively discussed in
the
>Philadelphia press.  It is the public discussion afterwards that was
>conducted largely under pseudonyms.  The most famous collection of
campaign
>propaganda pieces (collectively known as The Federalist) was produced
under
>the pseudonym Publius by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison.  We can safely
assume
>that their reasons for using a pseudonymous identity were honorable.
>Whatever their reasons might have been, they surely did not do it in
order
>to "avoid public scrutiny of public acts", to quote Sam.  Why did they do
it?
>Why did Joe Klein write pseudonymously?

I mentioned the Federalist papers at first, but decided to whack that
section out because the post was already too long. I think it's debatable
how much secrecy "Publius" (Madison most of the time, but Jay also
published under this psuedonym. Can't remember if Hamilton did or not.)
actually enjoyed. There weren't all that many people in the States at that
time and most of the major political players at the state and national
level knew each other. Isaac Kramnick has this to say in his introduction
to "The Federalist Papers" (Penguin, 1987, p. 77):

"Readers of the Federalist were not surprised to find the essays signed
`Publius.' Using classical pseudonyms was a familiar feature of political
life and debate in late eighteenth century America. Writers sought to
cloak themselves with the authority of republican virtue identified with
the political heroes of ancient history..."

The point is that with such a restricted readership and a relatively small
number of people engaged in the debate, the instrumental value of using a
pseudonym in order to mask one's identity as the author of a "Federalist
Paper" was little or none. And it's not clear to me (or to Kramnick
apparently) that keeping one's identity hidden was the main instrumental
value that the authors of the "Federalist Papers" were seeking in using a
pseudonym. Besides that, the historical record shows that much of the
debate at the state level, which is where the issue of whether or not to
approve the Constitution was really decided, was conducted by political
leaders on both sides using their own names very openly and publicly.

Gabor goes on to chuck out a list of pseudonymous authors from a variety
of historical periods and nations, pointing out that they didn't have
hate-mongering reasons for using those pseudonymous names. He's absolutely
right, of course. The reasons for using those pseudonyms ranged from not
being the right religion (Pope), being the right religion but too far up
the ecclesiastical feeding chain to sully oneself as a scribbler (Swift),
the wrong gender (Eliot and Dinesen), class (Carroll, perhaps?) and being
a goldurned stubborn independent (Twain). But that shouldn't obscure the
fact that plenty of people do choose pseudonyms on the net for far less
than admirable reasons. How many race-baiting or gay-baiting trolls
spammed out to dozens of Usenet groups use their authors' real names? The
few who do earn themselves a Kook of the Month nomination and, sometimes,
their own Usenet group devoted exclusively to themselves.

And Gabor is absolutely right about something else he said: entirely
above-ground reasons for using pseudonyms on the net do exist. But when
one posts controversial messages -- particular messages aimed at attacking
a particular race or group -- using a pseudonym, I think there is
instrumental value in asking why. Obvious pseudonyms have some obvious
instrumental purpose. They tell us something about the poster's
ideological or intellectual orientation. That is, they do if you're
willing to pay attention to them.
Sam Stowe

Zoli, we gotta find a way to trim this thing. People are going to have
trouble figuring out who said what.

In article >, "Zoli Fekete,
keeper of hungarian-faq" > quoth:

> Well, since JFerengi just gave the pithy version of it, I'll allow
>myself the luxury of verbosity here - you've been warned ;-)!
> Sam, I trust that you know better than having me to explain all this. I
>tell you I can play patient longer than anyone keep with playing dense,
so
>the sooner you quit the better off you'd be ;-).
When did the American English definition of "pithy" change to coincide
with "intellectually pathetic"? God, now I have to go out and buy a new
dictionary.

>
>On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Stowewrite wrote:
>> >The question is the inherent
>> >difficulty in connecting online personality with real-life one. While,
at
>> >this point, I have reason to trust that you are indeed the same Sam
Stowe
>> >I may find off-line - in principle the 'stowewrite' string does not
say
>> >more, nor less, than 'jferengi' or 'mpflerr' or 'Szabo_III_Janos' or
>> >'Jeliko'. That JFerengi made a choice of writing under a pen name (and
>> > one that reveals itself to be so, incidentally  <sznip> you may not
have
>> > found it out at all) should not be a factor in judging her/his/its
posts.
>> >
>> We seem to have some disagreement about what constitutes signing one's
>> posts.
> Sure we do; we also differ on which one of us is wrong about it too ;-(.
>
>> You want to confine a discussion of signing to what's on the
>> message header.
> No I do not. Nor do I confine it to what else you may be putting inside
>the message body, as you are errenously proceeding below:

Well, you sure didn't leave me with that impression from your first post
or two. But, be that as it may.
>

>> This totally overlooks the fact that many of us, yourself
>> included, post our real names in the body of our messages.
> First of all, this is a non sequitor with respect to your main lemma
>that using a pen name is ab ovo irresponsible. Second of all, how do we
>know that what looks like real is indeed real? Would repeating it inside
>make it doubly sure? And, back to the original question, why "Sam Stowe"
>is a better real name than "JFerengi" or "Jeliko" (which I always
>considered a pen name, although I might be wrong about this - either way,
>his writings are as impeccable as they come).

"Ab ovo"? Sure you don't mean "a priori"? As far as real being real goes,
were you not the same person who posted a demand on this very same
newsgroup less than two weeks or so ago demanding that we not refer to
Zoltan Szekely as "Zoli" since you use "Zoli" and you didn't want people
to confuse you with him? Okay, let me get this straight: real isn't real,
or at least doesn't matter, when dealing with one's chosen name for net
postings -- unless the chosen name happens to somehow conflict with that
of Zoli Fekete, in which case it matters a hell of a lot. Is that about
it? Great! Now I have to petition the courts here in Wake County to change
my name back to Sam Stowe. And I was really getting comfortable with using
Zoltan Stowe.

>
>> And many of us,
>> yourself included, have not been taken in when a frequent flyer on this
>> list tries to worm his way back in using a pseudonym.
> I guess a little trick of guilt by association can't hurt your case much
>;-(, but how this comes in here? No, we were not taken - so then what's
>wrong with pseudonyms at large? And, theoretically, some or all the
>silli.con personas might have been actual separate persons, or they may
>have even gotten someone outside of PA's circle to take up the flag and
>regurgiate the same all over again, from actual individuals using "real
>names" at AOL or wherever else - how would have that made the situation
>any better in the absence of any pseudonyms and dubious accounts?
>
>> I think it is worthwhile in judging posts when someone makes
>> controversial statements, yet cannot seem to summon up the courage to
put
>> his or her real name with them.
> It may be worthwhile to you, but I do not accept it as universal judging
>criteria. There may be occasions where I give more weight to an opinion
>backed up by someone's real-life persona - but if the poster forgoes that
>I can understand, as they do how they give up some currency that way. You
>may not know how much harassment one can make his/herself gotten into the
>thick of the Net; unwillingness to become subject to that is no basis
>for evaluating one's postings (nor character, for that matter).

I never said it was universal judging criteria for me or anyone else.
Argue your own case, bubba. I don't need you to put words in my mouth. Use
of a pseudonym in conjunction with controversial statements does offer
some important clues to the poster's intellectual orientation and
motivation. If you don't want to use that information to assess the
validity or veracity of what someone has posted, that's your business. But
I think you're willfully ignoring important data by doing so. And if
someone receives challenges to their posts, that's part and parcel of free
speech. It has real world effects. It is not an abstract process.
Unwillingness to become subject to challenges to what one has said
publicly is, indeed, a basis for evaluating both one's postings and
character. You and I have both undergone such challenges in the past.
Doesn't seem to have hurt either one of us either, has it?

>
>> I think it offers us important evidence of the poster's motivations
>> for making the post and for desiring to avoid public scrutiny for what
he
>> or she has said in a public forum.
> So let's say I'm assured that you are "Sam Stowe" - what impact does
>that have on your motivations and our opinion on it, and how does it
>place you under public scrutiny?

Because I exist under that name. I have a life and a real-world reputation
under that name. All of those are accessible to you, if you spend a minor
amount of time looking for them. I have made no secret about where I live
and work. Nor have you, for that matter. I am more likely to pay serious
attention to what you say because you say it under your own name. I also
pay serious attention -- even though I find their Jew-baiting
reprehensible -- to Mr. Nemenyi and Zoltan Szekely, for that matter,
because they also post under their own names. I pay serious attention to
Jeliko, even though he uses a pseudonym, because he doesn't post
controversial stuff attacking other religious or ethnic groups or backing
up those who do. (Jeliko, I'm not trying to draw you into this. Zoli had
already mentioned your name and I didn't think you'd mind. I'll apologize
in advance if you do.)

>
>> Doesn't your local newspaper require a
>> signature before it will print letters to the editor?
> Well, some do and some don't. I believe any would withold names per
>request. None of the serious ones make it easy to call the writer up and
>scrutinize them over the phone, though (how would I know which one of the
>S. Stowe's of Boston to connect with anyways). In any case, such letters
>should be read for the opinions presented not for the flimsy factual
>content which is typically slanted at best.
> On the other hand in yellow journalism you can see the more obviously
>fake something the more authentically "real name"-y support appear to
>purportedly verify it. Just the yesterday I got this sensational report
on
>how Clintonites murdered dozens of people - the pamphlet was complete
with
>scrores of witnesses, experts, real-name editor with phone number and
>subscription address. Same holds with things like The New American story
>on the Oklahoma bombing as inside demolition work, or with whatever
>Hungarian rag cooked up the false news of hundreds of thousands foreign
>Jews set out to colonialize Hungary (which tale then was spread to the
>Internet with known accounts of established reputation). So how was that
>connection between veracity and real names again ;-<?

I get crap like that in the mail every day. And I know it's crap because
there are all kinds of signs (I wish I had a better grasp of semiotics,
but Peirce absolutely puts me to sleep. It would come in handy here.) in
it that it isn't true. The point is that I pay attention to the totality
of the evidence. Using your criteria, if the stuff is simply logical and
footnoted, then it's true. 'Taint necessarily so, McGee. It's almost as if
you're tone-deaf or color-blind to some of the little pieces of the puzzle
contained in every statement or story. If you really have that much
trouble going beyond the surface of what's said to you, I'd stay away from
insurance salesmen and Girl Scouts bearing cookie order forms if I were
you.


>
>> Either what happens on
>> here is real or it isn't. If you believe it is real, then you've been
>> arguing just to be contrary. If you believe it isn't, then what the
hell
>> do you care? In either case, speaking of signs, you're showing signs of
>> desperation when you start reeling out spelling trolls. Is your
customary
>> sang-froid losing a little of its mojo?
>
> Maybe I'm under some spell, but the above literally doesn't make any
>sense to me - is there some code to it?

No code. You just don't want to admit that you took the low road for once.
Don't worry, you're still alright by me.

>
>> And I haven't reached a sufficient level of paranoia and
>> technical expertise to either want to use PGP signatures or know how to
>> use it if I did. How about sending me some info on how to do it?
> I thought in the foregoing you meant say how important it is to
>make verifiable digital signitures, which is what I am doing with PGP.
>A good starting point for the PGP technical diddly-do is
><http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp>;, or for a more down-to-earth start see
><http://www.well.com/user/abacard/pgp.html>;.

I was rather hoping you'd explain how to do it. You're pretty good at
breaking it down so the barely-computer-literate like me can understand
it. I would guess there might be some other people on the group who are
interested in PGP, too.

>
> I could pick apart the rest of your arguments, as they were with KKK
>etc., but suddenly I'm feeling merciful so I leave for now :-)...

I rather doubt you're feeling merciful here. You're simply trying that
tried and true rhetorical trick of declaring victory and getting the hell
out. Ah, but more smiley faces this time around. Perhaps we are
approaching synthesis. If you ever come down here to the Triangle area for
an academic conference or whatever, you and I have some serious imbibing
and conversing to do. This is fun!
Sam Stowe

>- --
> Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
>*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
>*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
>*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6.2

In article >,
 says...
>At 10:06 AM 8/1/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:
>>        Oh, I thought it was such a good line and now turns out that Joe
>>didn't get it. The Forum is full of rightwingers with blinkers on; he, on
>>the other hand, has leftwing blinkers on.

>"Nothing is so easy to fake as the inner vision."
>               Robertson Davies

Bingo, Joe.

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC

In article >,
 says...
>I don't know about today, but wine was always cheaper than beer.  My worst
>memories of beer in Hungary was in the good old days when, at night, good
>(by comparison) Hungarian beer was not allowed to be sold.  Only that awful
>strong beer, made in Poland, if I remember right, was sold after a certain
>hour.  It was about 9 or 12 percent alcohol.  I didn't care for it at all.
>I guess one of the good things about the demise of the old system is that
>Hungary no longer has to sell stuff like that.  Unless, of course, there's
>a market for it.  But I didn't see one the last time I was in Hungary.

Can't remember that Polish stuff. Czech, yes, and there are *some*
good Hungarian beers, but having lived in Germany and Belgium for a
few years, I'm afraid my standards are bit more discerning ;-) than
your average occasional drinker when it comes to beer (even if I say
so myself.) Nothing east of the curtain I ever sampled, ever compared
with Weihenstephan, Hannen Alt, Duvel, etc, (drool...) It just slides
down so easily...

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC

Andy Kozma wrote:

>No NPA.this the farthest for me.To tell you the truth i am sory you are or
>were in trouble.If this wouldn't have happened we would miss all this soap
>opera.

Are you really sorry? Somehow I don't believe you. But I can't offer nice
soap opera on my part. I was two years old then. That was my trouble,.. I
couldn't see Eva fighting like a lioness! :-)

>I doubt that it would bring out   such interrest as in the States your
>case.

??

>Anyway what I would like to clear up with you is:why do some people call
>this thread anti Hungarian?

Why don't you ask those people who claimed it?

>I admire people who has the strenght and passion of reading and all
>professionals,but that does not mean they are in any way  shape or form
>superior to anyone else,should that be race religion,schooling
>and so forth.

I don't think so. But you know, there are some, who can offer the
ultimate balanced views what the Hungarian public NEEDS. Superior
mind to inferior people? :-) Right Andy?

>I remember I lost jobs in my life,but I got on my feet,and worked more,and
>harder to support myself and my family.

Good for you Andy. You are a real worker.

>I never accused anybody on my bad fortune (wich turned out to be the good one)
,
>only got muself together and looked for the future.

It wasn't the act of fortune, but the act of coward bastards. And what do you
want me to do, Andy? Should I forgive them ? Look at history my friend! Where
is my reparation (jovatetel) ? You just let me do my business the way I want
to do it. Worry about your own life.

>I am not anty Hungarian,I am just concerned of the language and hatred
>comming from some of them.

Then don't support those who are denouncing others, and spewing hatred and
false accusations in their letters to DOE. & ANL. I don't care if you are
an anty Hungarian, or not...the best thing you can do is, just work hard
and listen how Mr. Szalai's bowel movements are playing the "impatient"
music. :-)

>PS.When anyone find mistakes in grammer or and spelling please send it to
>the Editor for correction.

Don't worry I don't care about that, Eva might get a hot spell over your
"anty grammer". I don't. My English worth shit... I was told, And never
debated it, knowing the truth. :-))))

Good Luck to you too: NPA.

Eva Balogh wrote:


>But why not? Most rumors start this way.

But Eva wouldn't like bad rumor about herself, would she?

>If I had denounced Nemenyi I would have said so openly and publicly,
>and with head high. But I didn't.

Sure, Eva, sure. How come the braves on the war path are hiding like
bunch of scared little children? :-) I know, if you would be them, you
would be fearless.;-)

>His antisemitic views have nothing to do with his performance at his
>workplace. If the laboratory was dissatisfied with his work it is their
>prerogative to fire him. If he did something which is against the rules
>and regulations of the organization, he should be investigated.

If, and again if....Eva knows very well, I was framed  because  of  the
pressure from DOE. but she comes with the good old B.S. about rules.
Which rules? There were two of them, with opposite meanings. She did
not even see any of them, but starts a debate on rules.

>What I object to is Nemenyi's half-baked, pseudo-scientific ideas on
>history: world as well as Hungarian. He manages to influence a goodly
>number of people on the Internet who take his ideas as gospel truths.

Does it mean, that because several (par) :-) people like it, it should be
banned? What's wrong with Eva? Is there jealousy, or an order from above,
to fight those dangerous ideas? Does that worry has a price tag attached
to it too?

>This is what I object to. This is the last thing the Hungarian public needs.

Who the heck is Eva to judge what the Hungarian public needs? Is she having
an identity problem? If she doesn't know yet, I let her know. She is not
the Goddess of the Science of History. Not yet!

>What the Hungarian public needs is at last a balanced view of history:
>not  the kind the Kadar regime taught in the schools and not the kind of
>far-right is propagating.

And of course Eva is the one, who can offer this to the Hungarian public.
But what can we do, if there are some, who don't want Eva's balanced
views? Shoot them, or just denounce them? :-(

NPA.

At 03:02 PM 8/2/96 -0500, Nemenyi wrote:

>If, and again if....Eva knows very well, I was framed  because  of  the
>pressure from DOE.

        No, I don't know it "very well." I don't know it at all. And that's
why you are not a good historian, Nemenyi. One needs hard evidence to state
something with certainty. I don't have hard evidence and therefore I don't
know whether what you are saying is true or not. It doesn't mean that I
think that you are liar. I just need hard evidence, independent of you.


>And of course Eva is the one, who can offer this to the Hungarian public.
>But what can we do, if there are some, who don't want Eva's balanced
>views? Shoot them, or just denounce them? :-(

        With such statements you just discredit yourself and your own ideas.

        Eva Balogh

 wrote:

>Are we going to "learn the facts" before or after Christmas, 1996?
>I'm getting impatient.  The excitement and anticipation are overwhelming.
>I'm losing control of my bowel movements!

If you will ask "pretty please", ... may be. But if can't control your
bowel movements meanwhile, just fart quietly. And of course you can have
an elevating discussion on it.

NPA.

Eva Balogh wrote:

>>If, and again if....Eva knows very well, I was framed  because  of  the
>>pressure from DOE.

>No, I don't know it "very well." I don't know it at all. And that's
>why you are not a good historian, Nemenyi.

But you should know Eva. Too bad, than. So I say it again. I was framed.
Now you know?

And I am not a historian. Never claimed to be one.

>One needs hard evidence to state something with certainty. I don't have
>hard evidence and therefore I don't know whether what you are saying is
>true or not. It doesn't mean that I think that you are liar.

I care less about your whimpering. I keep it to myself and to my friends
until the case is over. If you don't know the truth, but calling me a liar,
....then you make me laugh.

>I just need hard evidence, independent of you.

There are people who have it, but I don't think, they will share the
details with you. You are just not to be trusted.

>>And of course Eva is the one, who can offer this to the Hungarian public.
>>But what can we do, if there are some, who don't want Eva's balanced
>>views? Shoot them, or just denounce them? :-(

>With such statements you just discredit yourself and your own ideas.

Myself? Are you loosing it? Can't you see, that the issue here is not
me, but freedom of speech? I'm just wasting my time with you. You wouldn't
understand it anyway.

NPA.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 I have accidentally dropped into a thought-scrambler an esteemed
contributor's post that attempted to come up with some fundamental
difference between pseudonyms on and off the net. The incident
cross-transformed references to the two domains and changed some minor
details, but the resulting food for tought still looks intriguing, so let
me share:

 The evil cousin of Zsolt Feher has this to say in his introduction to
"The collected works of JFerengi" (Limbo Virtual Press, 1996, in pre-print):

_ "Readers of the HUNGARY list were not surprised to find the essays signed
_ `JFerengi'. Using classical pseudonyms was a familiar feature of political
_ life and debate on late nineteenth century Internet. Writers sought to
_ cloak themselves with the authority of various virtues identified with
_ the miscellaneous heroes of all walks of life..."
_
_ The point is that with such a restricted readership and a relatively small
_ number of people engaged in the debate, the instrumental value of using a
_ pseudonym in order to mask one's identity as the author of a "JFerengi
_ post" was little or none. And it's not clear to me (or to Kramnick
                                     ^^^^^^^^^
_ apparently) that keeping one's identity hidden was the main instrumental
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
_ value that the authors of the Internet articles were seeking in using a
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
_ pseudonym.
_[examples of above-ground off-Internet nyms]
_[...] But that shouldn't obscure the
_ fact that plenty of people do choose pseudonyms off the net for far less
_ than admirable reasons. How many race-baiting or gay-baiting pamphlets
_ spammed out to off-Usenet outlets use their authors' real names?
_
_[...] entirely
_ above-ground reasons for using pseudonyms off the net do exist. But when
_ one publishes controversial works -- particular messages aimed at attacking
_ a particular race or group -- using a pseudonym, I think there is
_ instrumental value in asking why. Obvious pseudonyms have some obvious
_ instrumental purpose. They tell us something about the poster's
_ ideological or intellectual orientation.
 Well, as a matter of fact they don't.

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgJ3OsQ/4s87M5ohAQHkzAIA5foumoNkKAqIgeBc3/2uBEzvFgCRACIt
7tZNACUrXXgrDp+Ap4YuOHUIdnDOvu/geY67Qvj+5eVbjFKYdKwoPQ==
=gvc+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Stowewrite wrote:
> >A good starting point for the PGP technical diddly-do is
> ><http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp>;, or for a more down-to-earth start see
> ><http://www.well.com/user/abacard/pgp.html>;.
>
> I was rather hoping you'd explain how to do it. You're pretty good at
> breaking it down so the barely-computer-literate like me can understand
> it. I would guess there might be some other people on the group who are
> interested in PGP, too.

 OK, let me put this out of the way in a separate post - although I
should warn you that my best creative writing (being neither good nor
particularly creative ;-)) can't susbstitute for a good reading of the
online documentation available starting at the above addresses.

 PGP stands for 'Pretty Good Privacy': a popular implementation of what's
called public key cryptography. It allows me to encrypt things in a way
that is decodable with PGP by using my 'public key' (a number available to
anyone). But such decoding would only produce valid output if my 'secret
key' (a number closely guarded by me) was used to make the input - if
one attempts to go thru the process without the necessary match between
the originator's secret key and the public key used by the recipient the
result would show the lack of fit.
 What I am using this method for is to mark my posts with 'digital
signature', which is impossible to forge (unless my secret key gets
compromised). The PGP program first takes my message and generates from it
a number uniquely representing it (or at least practically uniquely, to be
precise: one in a couple billion different messages might produce the same
number) via what's termed a 'one-way hash function'. This number is then
run thru the magic encryption with my secret key and PGP's
number-crunching: the result is the code attached in the PGP-signature.
People can run the signed message thru PGP in reverse, using my public
key. This yields what should be the hash function result from the message
- - if it is that shows that the signing was done by someone with access to
the secret key corresponding to to public key. If there is no match than
either the encoding was not done by the proper secret key (so the decoding
doesn't give the original code back), or the message got changed between
the encoding and decoding phase (so the message is different making the
hash different too).

 Well, I'm not sure how this crack at explanation worked - but perhaps
I'd be able to tell better if you ask some specific question about it...

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgKCTcQ/4s87M5ohAQHQaAIAwhq4S+AYicLOi24/0KPw4tNOO/RSGrbz
x19P4kHr77g4cGqlJFa4uF/JLAz9PcP/kclfjiPHBoaZCkCo+ZIOEw==
=DBqG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 10:37 AM 8/2/96 -0400,Joe Szalai wrote:

>I've tried Beerenauslese once.  It's a great wine but it's out of my price
>range,

as it is out of mine (I also had it only twice, on round birthdays)

>just like Trockenbeerenauslese, which I've never tried.

Where can you buy that? 50 is coming up...

Gabor D. Farkas

At 04:58 PM 8/2/96 -0500, Nemenyi wrote:

>Eva Balogh wrote:

>>No, I don't know it "very well." I don't know it at all. And that's
>>why you are not a good historian, Nemenyi.

Nemenyi:

>But you should know Eva. Too bad, than. So I say it again. I was framed.
>Now you know?


No, I don't know. How should I know? Just because you say so?

Nemenyi:

>And I am not a historian. Never claimed to be one.

        No, you didn't claim to be a historian. At least not in so many
words. But history is your hobby horse. You said somewhere something to the
effect that you want "to demolish historical myths." Well, it is terribly
difficult to come up with really original ideas in history; that is, to
demolish "historical myth." Other historians are just as smart, if not
smarter, than you are, and they read the same documents as you do. In fact,
professional historians are much more familiar with the "literature," than
you are. You have to read and re-read those documents many, many times
before you can offer a new interpretation. You have to check every statement
in every document.  You have to ponder, sometimes for days, before you can
come up with something you consider to be a new interpretation. It is not
enough, as I said many, many times before, to discover a document by some
captain in Omsk who says such and such. One has to prove that the captain
knew what he was talking about! One doesn't have to be a genius to be a
historian, but one has to think straight. One can't just pick up any a
document out of the blue and claim that this is the gospel truth.
Unfortunately, this is what you do. You pick up some document from the tens
of thousands (if not not more than that) dealing with the Hungarian
political situation in the British Foreign Office, let's say, written in
1943 and claim that the contents of this document overrides any other. This
is not history. Do you understand that? A former colleague of mine, Robin
Winks, wrote a book called "The Historian as Detective." You really don't
need to be smarter than a good detective. But you have to have the patience
and the perserverance to be a detective. You cannot act as a detective who
is crooked, who already knows, at the very beginning of the investigation,
who the culprit is. And that is what you are doing. You have an agenda and
you are madly looking for proofs. And it doesn't matter what the value of a
certain document as far as you are concerned as long as it says what you
want to hear.

Balogh:
>>One needs hard evidence to state something with certainty. I don't have
>>hard evidence and therefore I don't know whether what you are saying is
>>true or not. It doesn't mean that I think that you are liar.
>

Nemenyi:
>I care less about your whimpering. I keep it to myself and to my friends
>until the case is over. If you don't know the truth, but calling me a liar,
>....then you make me laugh.

        Please, read what you wrote again. I am not whimpering, I am simply
telling you that as long as there is no hard evidence, I cannot be in your
corner. Give me the hard evidence I will be in your corner. Keeping it to
yourself and to your friends unfortunately doesn't help the general status
of your case. And then, please read the text before you with a little more
care. I said that I don't think that you are liar.  However, I simply can't
say that you are *not* a liar until I hear otherwise. So, why are you saying
that I am calling you a liar?

Balogh:
>>I just need hard evidence, independent of you.

Nemenyi:
>There are people who have it, but I don't think, they will share the
>details with you. You are just not to be trusted.

        Again, as long as you don't tell it openly, to all the readers of
HIX, the "details," I am afraid, I can't believe you. It doesn't matter
whether you told your story to Joe Pannon or Barna Bihari. That's not
enough. I want hard evidence and I doubt very much that these two people
recieved the kind of hard evidence I am looking for.

Nemenyi:

>Can't you see, that the issue here is not
>me, but freedom of speech? I'm just wasting my time with you. You wouldn't
>understand it anyway.

        The issue is not freedom of speech as long as we don't know whether
you were forced resign on the account of your antisemitic remarks on the
Internet or not. If we get hard evidence that Argonne National Laboratory
made you resign just because you made antisemitic remarks on the forums of
HIX, then the issue is going to be freedom of speech. But not until then!

        Eva Balogh

If we want to talk about the history of anti-semitism, we may want to talk
about the Jewish history also.  I believe, the first comprehensive philosophy
about history in the history of the humankind is presented in the Book of
Isaiah. This philosophy is not simple to understand and its image about the
Izraelite people and nation is rather complicated.

The Book of Isaiah was written during a time of great tribulations for Judea.
So we can not expect a simple guide to comprehend it. On the other hand, if
we have a good catch on Isaiah, in my opinion, we may understand a lot about
the turmoils of the history of the Izreali nation also.

Just to have a big leap, we may also talk about the assassination of former
Izraeli Prime Minister, Rabin.  It was really a shocking experience too face
the young murderer, and see him to smile. We had to learn, that just days
before the murder, an effigy of the late Prime Minister were drawn along the
streets, showing him in SS uniform, and calling him a Nazi. The puppet was
burnt and thrown into the river, as the leader of the opposition party had
a rally nearby. And a couple of days later Rabin died with an extremely large
hole in his chest. Yigal Amir was worrying about the size of this hole...

Well, we may ask, if Mr Rabin was a Nazi or Yigal Amir is a Nazi? Or we may
ask, if Mr Rabin was an anti-semite or Yigal is? What I know for sure, is
that to kill an innocent and then feel gloriously about it is not nice.

Controversy about the Izraeli history is nothing new.
Controversy about Jewish leaders is not new either.
Controversy about the political evaluation of events related to the people
of this nation is just normal.
Would saying this really make me immediately an anti-semite?       Sz. Zoli

Hi, Guys and Gals!

First of all, let me apologize if my comments are a bit anachronistic - I am
having the same old problem with my Newserver or whatever it is again -
getting, like, 150 or 200 Hungary List messages at a time every couple of
days - which makes it difficult even to keep up with *reading* all this
stuff, let alone responding to it!

At 12:29 30/07/96 -0400, "really me myself, cross my heart!" (Zoli Fekete)
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

<sznip Sam's stuff>

> But I am not talking about forgeries. My illustrative example with the
>difficulty of spotting even an impersonation is a bit overstated (I most
>certainly wouldn't want to appear in Joe's persona ;-() to make the point
>- - but the case about the issue is not. The question is the inherent
>difficulty in connecting online personality with real-life one. While, at
>this point, I have reason to trust that you are indeed the same Sam Stowe
>I may find off-line - in principle the 'stowewrite' string does not say
>more, nor less, than 'jferengi' or 'mpflerr' or 'Szabo_III_Janos' or
>'Jeliko'. That JFerengi made a choice of writing under a pen name (and one
>that reveals itself to be so, incidentally - it could've been "Valentine
>M. Smith" or even less conspicious and then you may not have found it out
>at all) should not be a factor in judging her/his/its posts.

And OK here I am admitting my ignorance as usual - but how did you manage to
discern that *jferengi* is a *nom de plume*, as it were? And how is it that
it reveals itself to be so? I just assumed when I saw it that the guys who
created Star Trek must have borrowed a Hungarian name for the name of their
avaricious entrepreneurial race. Are you telling me I'm wrong, and the truth
is that *jferengi*, our esteemed Listmember, borrowed the name from the Star
Trek series and not the other way around?

> The fact is, as a practical matter 'stowewrite' does not assume any more
>responsibility than 'jferengi' does - so there, deal with it...

On this one I am inclined to side with Sam, Zoli. I believe you are who you
claim to be, because there is a history of posts from you, if one cares to
search back a ways, which seems to reveal you as a distinct entity, and a
generally reasonable one to boot. I am automatically somewhat sceptical of
those who are only willing to use pseudonyms, even when their opinions are
revealed to be reasonable. I wonder for instance why Jeliko, a person for
whom I have developed a rather large degree of respect, does not reveal his
real identity for us. However, in his case, I am willing to put up with a
certain degree of discomfort that I feel from this fact in order to have the
benefit of his comments, which have been unusually enlightening about  some
often obscure (at least to me) elements of Hungarian culture. But I tend to
believe that if one is the holder of reasonable and sensible opinions, there
is no reason to hide behind a pseudonym, because there should not be
repercussions from promulgating reasonable beliefs, and in any case, one
should be prepared to stand up for one's beliefs if one feels that they
*are* reasonable.

Now, to respond on the other side, however, there is also a lonnnnngggggg
history in English and American history of political commentators who ran
the risk of encurring the wrath of the powers that be using such noms de
plume. As an example today, a gentleman in my small town, writes doggerel
with pointed satirical messages under the pen name of *Cadwalader,* which I
believe was the name of an ancient Welsh hero. Of course, this gentleman
just happens to be of Welsh origin. I use this example because the more
significant historical examples escape me, but I know this was common in
England and America in the 18th. and 19th. centuries, and I could probably
come up with many examples if pressed.

Bye y'all,

Johanne (I'm listed in the phone book) Tournier

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 Apropos a couple of complaints I've seen recently about trouble with
reading the HUNGARY list: let me re-iterate that the only reliable way of
receiving the list traffic is via email (from , or
via HIX if one wishes to use the secondary source instead). Unfortunately
there are some persistent problems with the Usenet side of the gatewayed
bit.listserv.hungary, that often cause prolonged delays lasting days (as
opposed to the near-instantenous delivery to email subscribers) and not
infrequently total loss of some articles. Users experiencing such may want
to contact their local administrators for help - but be aware that this is
unlikely to be solved with any quick fix. Note also that complaining to
either the readers or the owner of HUNGARY can't do any good; indeed
reporting difficulties with reading the gatewayed newsgroup will merely be
perplexing to most of us, since the list per se is operating flawlessly
most of the time (except when too many posts flow over the daily limit set
be the server - in which case posters are receiving a warning to this
effect).
 Incidentally, some other bit.listserv.* groups may be suffering similar
fate - my experience with b.l.slovak-l had been even much worse, if this
is any consolation ;-<. The upshot is that those who choose reading HUNGARY
via the b.l.h newsgroup should be aware that they are taking on problems
that are not inherent with the email list but are the by-product of the
gatewaying process and Usenet propagation glitches.
 Those who prefer getting their fix of HUNGARY via news can get it more
reliably from the soc.culture.magyar crossposted HIX version (which in
turn communicates directly with the LISTSERV free of the b.l.h bugs, and
despite occasional hiccups of it own works a lot better than the standard
gatewaying) - if they don't mind going thru digested format on the one
hand and the rest of the s.c.m posts on the other.

 Which brings me to another point I'd like to make while I'm stomping the
podium ;-): please do not, repeat DO NOT PRETTY PLEASE ;-(, refer to the
Hungary posts by their HIX-numbered tags, which are meaningless to
everyone but the fraction of readers who's getting them via that route!

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgKmUMQ/4s87M5ohAQG6jAH9Gn6rJ/pp+V6BVtjO2vXYpQkabzzUTbkk
qXpCtHsI3nsH2npxitQf3g9L0yTznUIym9m0rxAI6m8ADX8b53j4lA==
=PWV2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I see tha "crazy Jose" is incompetent in French as well!
You better watch your tongue before someone steps on it.

At 09:57 AM 8/2/96 -0500, Nemenyi wrote:

>Gabor Farkas lies again:
>
>>P. S. Interesting, how nobody ever writes: Petofi (Petrovics) Sandor.
>
>I wonder why is that urge on Mr. Farkas's part, to always cite things,
>foolishly?
>
>In the early stage of Forum, Petofi was called by his original names
>"Petrovics" by liberals as well as Nazi Scumbags. :-)
>
>I can go as far back as Forum # 315[1991] (Breznay Peter) or Forum # 655
>[1992](Csanyi Gabor, or Forum # 873 [1993] (Bimbo Kati) or Forum # 14447,
>1838 (Zimanyi Magda) or the most favorite of Farkas's gang, Mr. Pellionisz
>who wrote about (Petrovics-Petofi) in Forum # 1653 stating, that there were
>hints in his poems about "RED FLAGS" and mentioned TGM.'s research for
>Petofi's poems with a twist = Balra Matyar hulye haza.

I took the trouble to search out the word Petrovics in the Forum archives.
And yes, there are 13 issues of the Forum, where people talk about Peto"fi
and mention his original name, Petrovics. Nemeny forgets to mention (or
maybe he is just too stupid to detect the difference) that in all of those
postings the topic is the use Peto"fi's original name to show foreign
origin. The topic was not once Hungarian poetry.

 When Nemenyi and his ilk write Rakosi (Rosenfeld)  or Trotsky (Bronstein),
the topic usually is communism and the names in parentheses are included to
show  they were Jewish.

But I think Hugh explained this much better in the start of this thread.

Gabor D. Farkas