On Tue, 20 Sep 1994 18:52:58 -0700 > said:
>
>Otherwise, by all means, let's debate how many angels can dance on
>the head of a pin...
>
--The answer is 42.

Charles ) wrote:
: On Sun, 18 Sep 1994 22:21:22 GMT > said:
: >
: >the question is not that of an "unbeliever", it is a question in ints own
: >right, which deserves an answer whether it be put by an atheist or a
: >doubting priest.
: >
: --But it is still difficult without assigning a long reading list.
: You want an answer to a complicated question.


my question was anything but complicated! whay does an all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-benevolent god allow innocents o suffer and die?

the intellectual contortions required to provide an answer which even vaguely
approximates a reasoned one do seem complicated, i'll grant you.

: >i was not seeking a "theological answer", i was asking for some account to
: >allay the prima facie inconsistency. i mean to say, if we accept the bible
: >as being a reliable account, then god created the diverse languages
: >because
: >the humans were getting to uppity, trying to reach heaven by means of the
: >tower of babel. well is not genocide also worthy of divine intervention?
: > or the space programme?
: >

 --The Bible is only partly history.  The diverse language example is
: fable.  It is a post-hoc explanation written by a poet.  I would not
: accept it as a reliable account, since the writer wasn't present to
: witness the development of language.  It is legend or fable, not fact.

could you provide me with a user's guide to the bible? which parts may i take
seriously and which parts as fable? remember to keep it simple, for the simple-
minded like me.


: >
: >
: >i have been constantly told by theists that i, a mere finite mortal
: >cannot ever aspire to achieve such insight or understanding. god moves in
: >mysterious ways.
: >
: --You are in no danger of developing great insight or understanding.
: Have no fear on that account.  You can, however, use your imagination
: to the degree required.

it may be mere conceit, but i claim to use my imagination and try to
extend its scope. how do i know what the "degree required" is?

[snip]

: --That's the whole point of a miracle.  It requires the suspension of
: natural law.  Most miracles were done to prove a point.  And if there
: is a God, who is to say that the "few million innocents" weren't saved?
: Being dead does not separate one from God.  You are equating physical
: life with salvation.

no i'm not. i am equating torture, starvation, physical abuse, mental abuse
with suffering. i also see children being sent to gas-chambers as being
anything
but benevolent. perhaps my imagination is too still too limited.

:  The two are not necessarily related.  You also have
: to consider, "Saved from what?"


saved from gas chambers, rape, beatings, slavery, famine, disease, torture.

it is interesting to note the cognitive dissonance between the christian
message
of love, peace, charity, etc., the commandments, and the equanimity with which
transgression of these precepts is accpeted, even approved when it is on
a sufficiently large scale. a singlr murdered, even a serial killer is a
heinous
criminal.drop an atom bomb and you're a hero.

d.a.

JELIKO ) wrote:
: Imi Bokor writes:


: > switzerland's neutrality predates its economic strangth by over a
: century.
: > during the last century and earlier parts of this century, the swiss were
: > the guest workers of many countries in europe, and many emigrated to the
: > usa, canada, south america to support families at home.

: So Hungary was also neutral at the turn of the century

correct me if i am wrong, but as far as i know, hungary was part of the
austro-hungarian dual monarchy at the turn of the century, with miltray
alliances.

:and it had a lot of
: economic emigrees, maybe than neutrality is not such a good thing?
: More seriously, you cant mix time periods when discussing the issue.

excuse me, but it was you who suggested that switzerland could afford to be
neutral because of its economic strength. i merely pointed out that the
economic strength of switzerland is far more recent than its neutrality and
that, in fact, for most of its neutrality it has been poorer by far than now.


:If you
: are expecting Hungary to follow an example now, you have to use examples
: of today. Neutrality meant something different a hundred years ago than
: what it means today. (Not that neutrality is a well defined thing anyway)

i did suggest some reasobly current examples, such as austria. i think
mankind would be better served by more, rather than fewer neutral countries.
hungary's becoming neutral would be a greater contribution, in my opinion,
than porkolt.

: > > Austria, not neccesarily through solely its own actions, ended up
: > >"neutralized" due to major powers negotiations, by being a borderland
: > >between the two major camps of the time.


: > that is also how switzerland became a neutral country over one hundred
: > years earlier.

: > >(IMHO, The Hungarians would have
: > >been very happy to be "neutralized" at the same time Austria was.)
: > Partly
: > >due to its (not self-selected) status, Austria also became much stronger
: > >economically than would have occured otherwise.
: > >Both countries were more developed on a comparative basis, than Hungary
: > >when they became "neutral" (even though to a different degree) and were
: > >less in need of foreign assistance.

: > quite the contrary. even today switzerland could not sustain itself
: > easily with food and energy even for a short while. hungary could ---
: > it has enough coal and enough timber to potentially supply energy demands
: > albeit at lower than current levels.

: I was not talking about foreign trade dependency, but political.

the two are not entirely unrelated. a coubtry which depends for its survival on
another is potentialy under political pressure, at least that was the argument
used by the reagan administration when trying to block the siberia-western
europe natural gas pipeline.

: > >
: > >Can Hungary achieve or should it achieve similar status is really a
: > >question of its population's wishes, but IMHO, even then it will need a
: > >favorable geopolitiocal situation.


: > hungary is fortunate in that its geopolitical location is favourable to
: > neutrality.

: If the favored geopolitical location is the middle of the road in pretty
: heavy traffic, than you may be right.


as i have pointed out beofre and elsewhere, an even cursory glance at a
topographical map of europe will rapidly dispell such delusions.

: > austria did not need the co-operation of the swiss for its neutrality. in
: > fact there is some dubstantial distance between the two countries, with
: > spying affairs in volved, cf brigadier jean-marie(?) of the swiss army

: Interesting example then for neutrality.

: If there is no strength to be gained by being joined by supporting
: neutrals, even if it is moral support.

: Imi, in these affairs it is not the people who are behind you that count,
: but those who are beside you in a conflict.

it seems to me that avoiding armed conflict is the only sensible choice.
neutrality is a clear statement of intent. joining a miltary alliance is a
signal in the opposite direction. the fact that both greece and turkey were
nato members did not stop turkey from invading cyprus in 1974.

: The whole world was behind the
: Hungarian revolution of 1956, a lot of good it did. Now if a few were
: beside it, the story may have had a slightly different outcome.

: Regards,Jeliko.

what were you doing in october 1956?

d.a.

On Sun, 18 Sep 1994 22:09:37 GMT > said:
>
>>     "I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the
>>     whole.  In my experience, most of them are trash, no matter whether
>>     they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to
>>     none at all" (Meng & Freud, 1963, p. 61-62.
>
>>Meng, H. & Freud, E. L., (eds.) (1963). *Psychoanalysis and faith*.
>>  New York:  Basic Books.  (trans. by Eric Mosbacher).
>
Some corrections.  The quote begins on p. 61 and continues to p. 63.
Ernst Freud is Freud's son, not grandson.  An addition.  The letter
was written from Vienna on 9 October 1918.

Also, the letter from Pastor Pfister to Freud's widow is not in the
preface, but is the last letter in the collection, written on 12
December 1938.  He repeats the phrase, "The more human beings struck
him as trash..." (p. 146).

>i am interested, for i see the date of the letter as being relevant.
>
--Well, now you have it.  Why do you think it is relevant?  And to
what?

-Further, in perusing Freud's autobiography, I can find no evidence of
any kind of residence in psychiatry, beyond the year he spent with Charcot
at the Saltpietre from the spring of 1885 to the summer of 1886.  Since
Charcot's work was limited to hypnotism, Freud found it wanting.  I cannot
find anywhere in the Autobiography where Freud made the argument that
you refer to about the ultimate belief that all mental illness is
neurological.  Can you please point it out to me, imi?

Charles

VIKTOR VARGA 8*346-2958 NELA PARK writes:
>
> Oh, it became quite long but I hope it will be entertaining for some degree.
> Viktor

     thank you for the posting as it confirms a few things I thought I
might have got wrong.  In fact, had I seen yours first I would not
have bothered to post some of my stuff.


    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

With a name like Pataki George, that would be the most likely answer.  Or
he was adopted by a family of Hungarian descent.

In article >, 
writes:
> ...is running for governor of New York against Mario Cuomo.
>
> Does anyone know if he is of Hungarian descent?
>
> --Greg

d.a. writes:

> it seems to me that avoiding armed conflict is the only sensible choice.
> neutrality is a clear statement of intent. joining a miltary alliance is a
> signal in the opposite direction.

By similar logic, a police force is an incitement to crime, and an insurance
policy an invitation to disaster.

--Greg

 wrote:
: > [Freud] had no prospect of a stable career
: > in research since he would not have been granted a stable position at the
: > university in vienna, since he was jewish.

: Freud wanted to do research on stable horses?  Amazing what one
: learns...

it's a part of mathematics/physics: stability theory. that's why horses
have four legs, far more stable than having none.



: > there is almost nothing you
: > can measure in physics without presupposing theory.

: Please provide us examples of the few things in physics one *can* measure
: without presupposing theory.



: > but you will need to provide
: > sound arguments to comvince me.

: Funny how that works both ways.

: --Greg

in a bout of exuberant editting, you omitted my arguments in support,
but i guess these don't matter much to someone who's interest seems to
be fixated on equine habits.

d.a.

Charles ) wrote:
: On Sun, 18 Sep 1994 21:59:02 GMT > said:
: >
: >"das dreck" is a well-established word in the regular german vocabulary,
: >meaning "dirt" or "filth", etc. and since freud was a native speaker of
: >german, he could easily have used the word in a letter to soemone who
: >understood german.
: >
: I've already apologized twice for not knowing that Dreck was German.
: I mistook it for Drek which is Yiddish.  I have now dutifully looked
: it up in my Brockhaus and have said, twice, that I am sorry that I
: am not up to speed in my use of coarse German terms as evidently
: most of the list are.  Can I go now?

: Charles

only if you promise to behave well and look up the date of the letter.

d.a.

Csaba Zoltani writes:
>
>                         Re Ethnic Cleansing in Czechoslovakia and
>                            on the Hungarian Count Esterhazy, the
>                            only member of the Slovak Parliament in
>                            WW II to vote against the sanctions against
>                            the Jewish population
>
>
> Jan George Frajkor writes:
>
> > the story is not really quite complete. An investigation of the
> > Hungarian archives after the war showed that Esterhazy was a paid
> > agent of the Horthy government.
>
> ..........
>
> If you are aware of any archival material to substantiate your point, as
> you claim, you owe it to the readers of this Discussion Group to give
> precise citations. Where are these documents? Who authored these documents?
> Their catalog numbers? Are they publicly accessible? Also, who conducted
> the investigation? On whose testimony was the charge made? How credible
> is the source? What is the evidence? Why should it be believed?

      Unless there is something different about Hungary, all archival
evidence is public, or should be.  You are quite right that Communists
were good at fabricating evidence against anyone they disliked, and
many of the trials were revenge rather than justice.  However,
 I will do a little digging to back this up as I do not believe this
particular trial has ever been accused of being rigged.  It may take a
little time.

>
> Thus, Esterhazy's crime was simply that he was Hungarian.
>
    The property laws and Benes decrees were not at all the same thing
as actual trials for so-called criminal offences.


    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

d.a. writes:

> my question was anything but complicated! whay does an all-powerful,
> all-knowing, all-benevolent god allow innocents o suffer and die?

There are at least two orthodox answers that I know of:

1  it was man's free will choice of sin that caused these things;
   to reverse them would eliminate free will.

2  it would require an equal amounts of omniscience on your part to
   understand divine will, and on mine to explain it.


These "answers" only make sense within a specific, dare I say, theoretical
framework.  To achieve that framework takes, or so I am told, a certain leap.

Some would say that the leap is an act of the soul, and not of the intellect.
You might say it's the foolish origin of many even more foolish doctrines.

If I've put my finger on it, can we move on?

--Greg

JELIKO ) wrote:
: Imi Bokor writes:

: > >Hungary
: > >
: > >Terrain:  mostly flat to rolling plains

: > protected by carpathian alps and their foothills to the north and east,
: > by the yugoslav and austrian alps and their foothills in the west and
: > south.

: Imi, it is time to look at a geography book that is post 1920. You just
: stated, that Hungary's neutrality depends on her geographical defenses that
: are currently in the Ukraine, Romania and Slovakia. On second thought, you
: might be correct.:-)


the atlas i used is "the macmillan australian atlas", first published in 1983
which has a "physical and political map" of the region on pp 62-63.


: Regards,Jeliko
: PS BTW, the example country you were referring to in Eastern Europe,i.e.
: Roumania, just signed the NATO affiliate partnership treaty.

more's the pity.

d.a.

d.a. writes:

> my question was anything but complicated! whay does an all-powerful,
> all-knowing, all-benevolent god allow innocents o suffer and die?

There are at least two orthodox answers that I know of:

1  it was man's free will choice of sin that caused these things;
   to reverse them would eliminate free will.

2  it would require omniscience on your part to
   understand divine will, and on mine to explain it.


These "answers" only make sense within a specific, dare I say, theoretical
framework.  To achieve that framework takes, or so I am told, a certain leap.

Some would say that the leap is an act of the soul, and not of the intellect.
You might say it's the foolish origin of many even more foolish doctrines.

If I've put my finger on it, can we now move on?

--Greg

Heather Olsen ) wrote:
: On Sep 19,  6:22am,  wrote:
: (stuff deleted)

: > I am affraid the "neutral corridor" does not exist anymore, Austria
: > will become a member of the European Union and cannot avoid to be
: > integrated, in my opinion, to some defense structure.
: >

: I just heard on the radio last night that the Austrian People's Party has
: come out in favor of abandoning neutrality and joining the WEU and possibly
: NATO. The Social Democrats continue to support neutrality, and it is likely
: to be an issue in the upcoming election campaign.

: Heather Olsen

neutrality is part of the austrian constitution. a simple change of governemnt
is not enough to change that, unless it is in the form of a coup.

d.a.

paul ) wrote:
: >>        Where did you get the info for you disertation on the behavior
: >of the
: >>Slovak water?
: >>        Paul Gelencser

: >does it matter? surely the arguments presented stand or fall on their own
: >merits and are independent of the person communicating them.
: >d.a.

: Yes, but the reason for the question was out of curiosity of where you are
:  getting
: your arguments from, given that you are not a scientist.  As you have seen,
:  others
: on the list with significant knowledge on the topic had views opposed to the
: one you presented, as to the affect of the dam on the environment. (Not being
an
: expert in the field, I cannot give such an informed opinion, but as an
engineer
: with basic background in the field I am able to determine if an argument is
: reasonable, or full of it, and your did seem reasonable).

: Paul Gelencser

1. there is a case of mistaken identity here, as i have made no contribution to
the technical discussion on hydrology and the liek.

2. the only contribution vaguely connected which i communicated was what i had
been told by an aeronautical engineer about partial vacuums, narrow regions of
turbulence as perturbations of laminar flow.

3. i stand by the point that the worth of a contribution is indepenednt fo its
ssource. even when evryone who was not considered insane, possessed of the
devil
or the like, thought that the earth is flat, when all reputable scientists
agreed, the world, i venture to claim, was still not flat.

d.a.

Csaba Zoltani wrote under subject Ethnic Cleansing in CS :
>
>         Local Government Rejects Memorial to
>         Hungarian who Defended Slovakia's Jews.
>
>         by Charles Jokay
>...
> in the Slovak rump puppet state. The Hungarian Count Janos Eszterhazy
> was a member of the Slovak parliamnent during World War II. He was the
> only member of Parliament to have voted against the Jewish laws that led
> to massive deportations of the Jewish community.
>
> As a result of Eszterhazy's actions, at the end of the war the
> Czechoslovak government declared Eszterhazy a traitor and sentenced him
> to Soviet concentration camps. Recently, his daughter wished to erect a
> memorial plaque in Szenc in her father's memory. The local government
> flatly refused her request, since according to Slovak officials,
> Eszterhazy is still considered a traitor.
>
> Eszterhazy is an embarrassment to Slovak nationalists, who want to
> forget that Slovakia collaborated with Hitler and that a Hungarian was
> the only MP who opposed the discriminatory Jewish laws. Matica
> Slovenska, the cultural organization of Slovaks with strong ties to
> ultra nationalist organizations, qualified the memorial to Eszterhazy as
> "yet another Hungarian attempt to threaten the territorial integrity of
> Slovakia" (Magyar Nemzet, June 16, 1994).
>

Csaba, I agree, J. Eszterhazy was the one deputy who voted against.
I only read some deputies who disagreed with those anti-Jewish
laws left parlament before vote.

A few words about J. Eszterhazy:
------
In journal Gardista was written (May 17, 1942) in article
'Len tak mimochodom' - BTW : (about that vote)

"Deputy Eszterhazy kept his hand in lap and didn't voted in favour
for reasons which have and could have any common neither interior
nor foreign politics."

I appologize I'll write in Slovak in Magyar ' e-mail club', but some of you
(who have knowledge of Slovak language) can compare my poor translation
with an original text (and surely will find some my mistakes) and correct it.

('Poslanec Eszterhazy si nechal ruky v lone a nehlasoval z pricin,
ktore nemaju a nemozu mat nic spolocne ani s domacou ani so zahranicnou
politikou'.)

[Jozef Klimko - 3. risa a ludacky rezim na Slovensku - 3rd empire (reich)
and Hlinka's party regime in Slovakia, Bratislava 1986]

---------------------------------
By report of J. Eszterhazy on January 26, 1939 to Budapest:
Eszterhazy wanted that 'Tiso's guys' "delayed with proposal of Jews laws
or if they would proposed them let it would be fully temperate.
In this way maybe it could be get that Berlin would fully avert from them
and we could have profit from it if Berlin would wanted to solve
CS question in final validity".

"Esterhazy si zelal, aby tisovci 'meskali s navrhom zidovskeho zakona,
a ak uz s nim vyjdu, nech by bol celkom umierneny. Tym by sa snad
mohlo dosiahnut, aby sa Berlin od nich celkom odvratil, osoh z toho by sme
mohli mat my, keby Berlin chcel riesit cs. otazku s konecnou platnostou",
teda dat Slovensko Madarsku."


[Ctibor Gregus - Slovensko. Dlha cesta k suverenite. Bratislava 1992].

---------

And a little article from Slovak newspapers:

Nitrianske slovo June 11, 1934

Eszterhazy at home in Ujlak and in abroad

A news was published in newspapers as the nobleman from Ujlak near Nitra
did a great riot in Budapest in Arizona 'club'. When (he was boozy) he
amused with his aristocrat friends there at night a music group played
'our' song for some CS citizens... At once he excited, called police
and told that our anthem was played - that meant he couldn't offend
himself in Budapest because he was Magyar. When he became sober he
repealed his 'denunciation' that
he came back to Ujlak as a silent lamb. But a great scandal was from it
and a owner of pub is still persecuted awaking men. This case forces
us to compare. In Slovakia and in Prague Gipsy's bands played only
'chardash'  and melodies from Magyar musical comedies. And often
we can see merry company starting to sing Magyar and 'gaving to play
to ear'. Noone of us excites for it, we allowe everybody to live
and amuse by his will and in Hungary for one our song was nearly
to rebellion. Mr. Eszterhazy's 'moral' excitement should be a lesson
and a warning for a lot of our Slovaks who are members of his
christian social party in which way he thinks with us. At home he
as a lamb fawns to our people to get power and when he is in Budapest
between 'his people', he shows 'teeth' to us and our culture.

(   Eszterhazy v Ujlaku doma a v cudzine

"Dennym tiskom prebehla sprava, jak v budapestskom podniku 'Arizona' ztropil
velku vytrznost 'velkomozny' pan z Ujlaku pri Nitre. Ked sa tam totizto
v noci so svojimi slachtickymi kumpanmi v podrusenom stave zabaval,
niekolkym Cechoslovakom z druhej spolocnosti zahrala hudba nasu piesen ...
Ihned sa rozculil, povolal policiu a tvrdil, ze hrala sa nasa hymna - teda,
ze v Budapesti sa nenecha ako Madar urazat. Ked bol triezvy, svoje udania
odvolal, aby sa opatne vratil do Ujlaku ako tichy baranok. Bol z toho
ovsem velky skandal a majitel podniku este dnes je stale prebudzajucimi
prenasledovany. Tento pripad nas nuti porovnavat. Na Slovensku i tiez
v samotnej Prahe nehraju ciganske hudby uz nic ineho ako cardase a melodie
madarskych operiet. A casto i v Nitre sme svedkami, jak rozveselena
spolocnost zacne spievat madarsky a necha si vyhravat 'do uska'. Nikto sa
u nas nad tym nerozculuje, nechame kazdeho zit a zabavat sa dla svoje vole,
co v Madarsku pre jednu nasu piesen hotove povstanie ... 'Mravne' rozculenie
p. Eszterhazyho malo by byt pre mnoho nasich Slovakov, ktori su este dnes
v jeho krestansko-socialnej strane, ponaucenim a vystrahou, ako to dobre
s nami zmysla. Doma v ruchu barancom liska sa k nasim ludom, len aby
dostal moc a ked je medzi svojimi v Budapesti, ukazuje nam a nasej kulture
zuby." )

Jozef Simek

paul ) wrote:
: >> still valid.  Christianity provides a set  of standards of behavior which
are
: >> eternal.
: >> PERIOD! :-)
: >>
: >> Paul Gelencser
: >
: >Please spell out for me, which of the human standards of behaviour are
: >exclusively Christian. Thanks, 

: Eva, I didn't say exclusively.  The objective of religion is to set a
standard
: of behavior, and certainly there are some beliefs religions have in common.
:  There
: are also ideas that not held in common, like worshiping a god entity versus
: worshipping nature, or ancestors, or practicing monogomy.

: I cannot make a comparison between Christianity and Buddism or Hinduism with
: any confidence, but maybe someone else can speak on that.  I am certain that
: the abstract concepts of not doing harm to others and honesty are common to
all,
: but the interpretations may be different.

: The point was that, without any religion as a standard bearer, people are
likely
:  to
: rationalize any liberal idea as being just or acceptable, or, alternatively,
:  people
: would discard ideas of morality - only the strongest survive, it is right to
:  take
: what you want if you are strong enough to do it, etc.

: Paul

religion hasn't changed, but rather enforced this trend which you find
so "unfortunate".

with religion as a standard bearer, people do rationalise any illiberal idea
as being just or acceptable  - witness my discuusion with charles atherton.

with religions such as the ones of judeo-chrisrian-muslem origin, people do
avert personal responsibilty for their actions and teir consequences (this
varying from person to person, religion to religion).

if we look at the distribution of religion throughout the worls, the greatest
growth has been fo those religions (over the past few centuries) which have
been forced upon other people by brutality and thrreatend or actual genocide.
"a nagyobb kutya baszik" seems to be the utlimate principle underlying the
spread of christianity  during the past few centuries.

if that be laudible, desirable or even acceptable to you, then we are in
strong disagreement.

d.a.

d.a writes:

>
> : > there is almost nothing you
> : > can measure in physics without presupposing theory.
>
> : Please provide us examples of the few things in physics one *can* measure
> : without presupposing theory.
>
>
>
> : > but you will need to provide
> : > sound arguments to comvince me.
>
> : Funny how that works both ways.
>
>
> in a bout of exuberant editting, you omitted my arguments in support,
> but i guess these don't matter much to someone who's interest seems to
> be fixated on equine habits.


I don't know what you mean; I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments
of "you will need to provide sound arguments to comvince me"; and I'd
simply like examples of the things in physics one can measure without
presupposing theory.


--Greg

On 19 Sep 94 06:52:43 GMT, then again on 20 Sep 94 06:29:35 GMT,
Imre Bokor > writes:

>In article > ,
 writes:

[... deleted ...]

>>Switzerland
>>
>>Terrain:  mostly mountains (Alps in south, Jura in northwest) with a
>>central plateau  of rolling hills, plains, and large lakes
>
>
>(i) the jura mountains form the western border and hardly qualify as
>alps,
>being little over 1,000 metres high

Jura mountains form the western border and are 1300 to 1700 m high, with
peeks like La Dole (1677 m) and Cret de la Neige (1718 m), just over
Geneva, where people like to go skiing. Usefulness of having mountain
border was still perceptible fifty years ago.


>(ii) the alps run through about the middle of the country with a
>substantial part of the country of major agricultural importance
>to the south

Southern of the Alps is Ticino valley which forms a canton, and three
small valleys Val Mesolcina, Val Poschiavo and Val Mustair in Graubuenden
canton (Grisons). They are not of major agricultural importance.


>>
>>International disputes:  none
>
>there is, however internal division and strife, with significant portions
>of the francophone and italophone regions pushing for secession from
>switzerland to join france and a possible new northern italy to escape
>what
>is perceived as domination by the german swiss.  ...

Internal divisions on certain questions exist but strife is too strong a
word. Switzerland is a country of consensus and compromises, decided
democratically by the majority and accepted as such.

There indeed is something ironically called "Roestigraben" (roesti is one
of Swiss national meals) "separing" Welch and German cultures, especially
after 6 Dec 93 votations when Suisse Romande (Westschweiz) voted for
Europe, Central Switzerland against. There even were two separatist
movements in Geneva before the last elections, but none of them lasted.
Francophone and italophone regions pushing for secession is unnecessarily
strong expression, we already have federalism and cantonal souvereignity
in all issues except money, army, and foreign policy. It works very well
as it is with only minor changes since 1848.


>there have been  attacks in
>the jura region (by "les beliers") in support of the separation of the
>french
>speaking communities from the german speaking ones of the cantons of
>bern and basel at least.

Jura canton, the youngest one, was before a part of mostly germanophone
Bern and Basel cantons, now is independent, has the highest taxes,
highest unemployment, and one of the lowest average incomes in
Switzerland. Beliers are an extremist group, but their objective is not
separation from Switzerland. Their attacks were directed against a statue
in Bern, or electricity when a train with federal counselors went to
visit Jura, and so on, nothing to do with "classical" attacks elsewhere.

Speaking about internal division and strife in Switzerland at the same
level as speaking about problems of Ukraine, Hungary and Slovenia is, in
my humble opinion, somewhat exaggerated.

>switzerland's neighbours did not trust switzerland, which is why
>switzerland
>had its neutrality imposed upon it by others in 1815(?).

Interesting opinion.

Roman Kanala

Hurray for Greg!!

>Some would say that the leap is an act of the soul, and not of the intellect.
>You might say it's the foolish origin of many even more foolish doctrines.

>From those foolish ones among us - Thanks, Greg.

Paul "The Foolish"

On Wed, 21 Sep 1994 06:34:23 GMT IMRE BOKOR said:
>
>only if you promise to behave well and look up the date of the letter.

--I have done so in another posting.  I will not behave well.  I do not
know how.  Although I live in the American South, I am not a Southern
Gentleman.  I have only met two who fit the stereotype in the last
twenty years.

d. D.

>: On Sun, 18 Sep 1994 22:21:22 GMT > said:
>: >
>
>my question was anything but complicated! whay does an all-powerful,
>all-knowing, all-benevolent god allow innocents o suffer and die?
>
--You want a simple answer?  It may be because an all-knowing God does
not interfere often with what humans choose to do.  We are not puppets, and God
is not a puppet master.  You want him or her to routinely interfere and permit
only good to occur.  This would be unnatural.  Kierkegaard approaches it by
a fable.  Briefly, the fable is this.  A prince fell in love with a common
maiden.  He wanted to woo her.  He considered coming to her in all his
finery at the head of a mighty army.  That would impress her.  It would also
intimidate her, and she would not love him for himself, but for what he was.

He also considered elevating her to the rank of princess and then wooing her.
But he decided that she would not understand what had happened to her, and
that this would not do.  So he chose a third alternative.

He became a commoner and renounced his fortune and position.  He wooed her
as an equal.  He took the chance that she could refuse him and reject him.

The point is that God does not determine every facet of human life.  Humans
are free to be as cruel and inhuman as they wish.  Being flawed beings, they
act in flawed and evil ways.  The Church, which is a human institution, is
undoubtedly corrupt.  There is nothing to prevent this.  The state is a human
institution.  It is undoubtedly corrupt.  There is nothing to prevent this.
If the world were a perfect place, it would not be the world.  It would be
paradise.  We weren't promised paradise.  We are free creatures with the
power of choice.  Being flawed, we make flawed choices.  God does not cause
evil to exist.  But it does.  An all-powerful God could eliminate evil.  But
then we would be puppets instead of responsible free beings.  We may choose
what to believe, what master to follow.  There is an old Spanish proverb:
Take whatever you want from life.  And pay.  Says God.  End of sermon.
>
>could you provide me with a user's guide to the bible? which parts may i take
>minded like me.

--There you go again with that village idiot, butt of all jokes pose.  Yes,
I can recommend a user's guide.  S. R. Driver, *Text and Canon of the Old
Testament* published in 1901 is a good start.  Don't be afraid of an old
book.  I have a more recent work in my office and I will give you the
citation next time you post on the subject--if I remember in my senile
state, to bring it home.  The question has been raised--and addressed by
competent scholars--before.
>
>it may be mere conceit, but i claim to use my imagination and try to
>extend its scope. how do i know what the "degree required" is?
>
--Fencing again.  I have every confidence that you can understand
Driver.

>: --That's the whole point of a miracle.  It requires the suspension of
>: natural law.  Most miracles were done to prove a point.  And if there
>: is a God, who is to say that the "few million innocents" weren't saved?
>: Being dead does not separate one from God.  You are equating physical
>: life with salvation.
>
>no i'm not. i am equating torture, starvation, physical abuse, mental abuse
>with suffering. i also see children being sent to gas-chambers as being
>anything
>but benevolent. perhaps my imagination is too still too limited.
>
--Clearly, this is true.  You are attributing to God the work of evil
humans.  You require that God be a puppet-master.  See the above.

>:  The two are not necessarily related.  You also have
>: to consider, "Saved from what?"
>
>saved from gas chambers, rape, beatings, slavery, famine, disease, torture.
>
--You still are asking God to be a puppet-master.

>it is interesting to note the cognitive dissonance between the christian
>message
>of love, peace, charity, etc., the commandments, and the equanimity with which
>transgression of these precepts is accpeted, even approved when it is on
>a sufficiently large scale. a singlr murdered, even a serial killer is a
>heinous
>criminal.drop an atom bomb and you're a hero.
>
--Since you have decided to attack Christianity and not other religions, I
will only defend Christianity.  Please find me a leader in Christianity
who advocates rape, murder, and so on.  Perhaps Dietrich Bonhoeffer?
The Church as an institution has much to answer for, but please spare
me you accusations that all Christians advocate these things.  Many
have gone to their deaths in opposition.  Do not confuse Christianity
with the institutional church.

This is a long way from the subject of Hungary.  Members of the list,
do not flame me.  I'm merely responding to questions from Hungarians.

Charles

--I think that Durant Eva said this:

>with religion as a standard bearer, people do rationalise any illiberal idea
>as being just or acceptable  - witness my discuusion with charles atherton.
>
--I don't think that I said this.  Religious people can't do this.  Members
of churches, synagogues, or mosques might do this, but membership does not
equate to being a believer.

>with religions such as the ones of judeo-chrisrian-muslem origin, people do
>avert personal responsibilty for their actions and teir consequences (this
>varying from person to person, religion to religion).
>
--They may do this, but not on the basis of religion which teaches the
exact oppsite.  It is unrealistic to expect all believers to be of
uniform conviction.

>if we look at the distribution of religion throughout the worls, the greatest
>growth has been fo those religions (over the past few centuries) which have
>been forced upon other people by brutality and thrreatend or actual genocide.
>"a nagyobb kutya baszik" seems to be the utlimate principle underlying the
>spread of christianity  during the past few centuries.

--No!  Membership in a congregation, maybe, but not religion.
>
>if that be laudible, desirable or even acceptable to you, then we are in
>strong disagreement.

Of course not.  And I think that you know better.

Charles

Jan George Grajkor (JGF) wrote:

>Jeliko wrote:
>> Unfortunately, most of these issues are being mixed. The most unfortunate
>> part is when somebody uses partial (technically disguised) arguments to
>> support his or her geopolitical feelings.

>     The arguments are purely technical, intended to show that the
>environmental objections were spurious and that the quarrel actually
>IS a geopolitical one which some people tried to disguise as an
>environmental one.

I see, so any environmental damage done in Hungary is just 'spurious
objection'.

>     Other than the environmental issue, there are legal
>(international law and riparian rights law) issues, as well as the
>energy considerations... but I do not think the world court is
>concerned with those.

I would be extremely disappointed if this were the case.  The just distribution
of water resources between nations is an increasingly serious source of
conflict worldwide.  The International Court is the only supranational
forum for the settlement of international disputes by legal means, so it
would be a dereliction of duty if they did not consider water sharing
explicitly.

>    Yes, one of the HUngarian arguments was that the project caused
>measurable environmental damage and financial loss, and the
>counter-argument is that it does not, that in fact, NOT finishing
>Nagymoros is the cause of the environmental damage.

The dam at Nagymaros would also consitute environmental damage, but
as it would be in Hungary is does not matter for Slovakia.  Ergo,
it does not exist, not part of the equation, and the International
Court should not consider it, according to JGF.

>    Yes, saturation is an issue as one of the Hungarian complaints is
>that the underground water table is being depleted by the project,
>leaving less pure, deep water for human consumption.  The counter
>argument is that saturation is being increased, or at least little
>affected.

This counter argument is patently untrue for the old main channel, as it
has been pointed out a number of times now, and half-acknowledged by you
before.  You do not exactly enhance your reputation as a reasonable debating
partner if you keep lapsing back to trumpeting old untruths.

George Antony

In article >, Charles
> writes:
> --I'm not a physicist (but that doesn't matter as long as I sound
> authoritative, right), but my understanding is that Newtonian physics
> has very little to do with relativity.  Einsteinian physics represents
> a paradigm shift.
Not except for those who fully accepted the luminiferous aether.  Mostly there
was doubt, for few really believd Lorentz s explanation of real contraction in
the direction of motion.  Einstein s physics is to most instruments the same as
Newton s at low speeds.

> Flogiston and ether, I'll grant were strange.  Looking backward, it is hard
> to see how anyone could have believed them.
No, if the history of the discovery of oxygen were slightly different, we
would call oxygen "phlogiston".  Oxygen actually matches much of the behavior
pozited to phlogiston

This is in response to an old comment by Marc Nasdor, but I think
it is important enough to respond to:

>more blunt. Until the most recent times, the U.S. has been under the cultural
>domination of white men of northern European extraction. Having invested many
>years promoting the literature of all cultures, I don't mean this statement as


You mention specifically "cultural domination."  What is wrong with that?  It
should be this way, as it promotes assimilation.  You, and others with the
same critisicm, seem to ignore that white men of northern European extraction
founded the American colonies which grew into the USA, our system of
government was given to us by white men of northern European extraction, and
white men of northern European extraction did most of the sweating and sufferin
g
to settle (steal?) North America.  That the culture of the USA should be that
of white men of northern European extraction, with heavy influence from the
Africans who came hear from the beginning and also did some suffering
and building, only serves to offer permanent recognition to those who
gave us what we have inherited. Economically, people of all extractions,
except Africans, have achieved what their skills would allow them to.
That we offer recognition to the founders of our country by adopting their
culture is only right.

Paul Gelencser

Since the elections the contributors to *168 ora* have been on their very
best behavior. In fact, the journalists, who had been vituperate in their
criticism of the Boross government, rarely uttered a word of criticism of the
new one. It was only occasionally that one could see an interviewer who
pressed his/her subject a bit by asking some harder questions on the less
than sterling beginnings of the Horn government. However, the honeymoon seems
to be over: as of about two weeks ago *168 ora* began to be more critical of
the administration. And the criticism is coming from the left.

I noticed the first sign of this change in an interview given by Gyula Horn
to Sa1ndor Sze1na1si. Originally, it was a live TV interview (TV4, Pallas
Pa1holy), which got published in an abbreviated form in the September 6, 1994
issue of *168 ora* (pp. 10-11). The interview began this way:

S.Sz.: Theoretically it is difficult to define what you and your government
really want, what it is what you envisage. There are two possibilites: either
one cannot define the MSZP ideologically, or, if one does, one would have to
call it the party of the democratic socialist capitalism.

Gy.H.: You can call it whatever you wish. [He explains that he is a pragmatic
sort. One has to put things into order. And this has little to do with
ideology.] The Socialist Party did not try to figure out--and I mean that
self-critically--what it means for a leftist party to build capitalism.

S.Sz.: It certainly means perversion . . .

Gy.H.: That is not perversion--rather it is a given. . . .

S.Sz.: Mr. Prime Minister, considering the situation of the country, the mood
of the people, and considering what kind of four years, actually decades, are
 behind them, could you find it possible that perhaps your government will be
voted out office, that is, you will not last four years?

Gy.H.: Yes, it is possible, there are no ever-lasting governments.

S.Sz.: And if yes, what can be the reason?

Gy.H.: Look here, I don't think that this government will be voted out of
office. [Long answer, basically telling that this government is very well
prepared and long on expertise. They will handle things.]

I am especially calling attention to the question about a socialist party
building capitalism and that such a situation is a perversion.

A week later the criticism continued. This time it is an editorial and the
criticism is much stronger. But the message was the same.  The author is my
favorite (I mean to be sarcastic here) journalist, Gyo3zo3 Ma1tya1s. Even the
title is telling: "Szarkakapitalizmus" (Pilferer's capitalism). "Szarka"
actually means magpie, a bird who allegedly steals the eggs of other birds. I
am also almost sure, given Hungarian journalists' predilection for word
plays, that the first syllable of "szarka" "szar," meaning "shit," is not
very far from his mind. Before translating parts of the editorial, I would
like to mention that the whole article is no more than 750 words in length,
yet, I had to look up *five* words in the dictionary, and I consider myself a
person with a decent vocabulary in Hungarian. I was shaking my head: what on
earth is going on with the Hungarian language. Have I been away too long and
don't know the newest slang, or what. Well, it turned out that three of the
words were regional words, and obviously Mr. Ma1tya1s's birthplace was
nowhere near mine. Moreover, I was born and raised in a city not in the
country. What these regional words are doing in written Hungarian, intended
for a wide audience is a real question. The fourth word was described by the
dictionary as "archaic, literary." Put it that way, I have never heard of it.
The meaning of the fifth word was clear to me but I was almost certain that
such word didn't exist in Hungarian. Indeed, it didn't. The above will give
you an idea about the "ease" with which one reads Mr. Ma1tya1s's convoluted
prose. And it is convoluted, believe me. One of those: on one hand, and on
the other hand, and on the third hand. Well, after about three readings I
more or less got it!

I will not try to give a translation of Mr. Ma1tya1s's sterling prose. I will
only summarize it. Basically, he talks about Gyula Horn's mention of the
introduction of "wealth tax," which apparently is not part of the coalition's
program and the minister of finance is against it. I translated "vagyonado1"
as wealth tax. It certainly is not "property tax." It really means: let's tax
the rich with their hidden wealth and all will be well. Some people accused
Horn of demagoguery, some people even discovered notions reminiscent of the
Kadar regime. However, in our poor country this is not an unpopular slogan: a
lot of people who live on fixed income would like to levy the bourgeois (he
uses the Hungarian word, coming from Russian, burzsuj). Yet, he says, the
coin has another side. In 1988-89 those who had worked "shoulder to shoulder
to destroy capitalism" quickly began to privatize and certain people were
able "to buy the whole state property for one forint." "But this should be
the business between the prime minister and his former buddies lest the
latter get a little upset about all this talk about love of ordinary people."
Yet, says Ma1tya1s, after all, one ought not to be surprised that Horn is
sympathetic toward the little men, after all he is the head of a socialist
party. But the realists say, this is all very nice but today this is not on
the agenda. Today the task is the creation of "a regime full of injustices."
It is a bizarre situation that the creation of such a regime falls on a
socialist party. Especially in the knowledge that many people voted for them
hoping that the party would end this "maffia-like looting which in our
country is called market economy." "If one listens to the necessities of the
situation, and listens to the minister of finance, one will fight resolutely
in the sentry box of grim capitalism." In this situation Ma1tya1s would not
be surprised if one day the prime minister would announce the fight for 3 x
8.

The third piece, again an editorial by Sa1ndor Szabo1 entitled
"Be1ke(si)-ko2lcso2n," (Be1ke(si) loan), more or less echoes the same
sentiments. The title again is a play on words and also a political joke. The
minister of finance's name is Be1kesi. The word "be1ke" means peace and
during the Ra1kosi regime the economically already very poor population was
forced to give up a portion of their pay to build socialism and communism.
These loans were called peace-loans. Szabo1's topic again is the "wealth
tax." His conclusion is that he is not an economist and therefore he doesn't
know whether the introduction of "wealth tax" is practical or not; he doesn't
know whether Be1kesi is right or not. But he does know that such a tax would
be fair and equitable. One should ask all those people who subscribe to the
"Elite" magazine and those who don't but we know that they are billioners to
give a helping hand. One ought to tell these people to give interest-free
loans to the state budget for three years. For social and cultural purposes.
This would be a nice, patriotic act, and it would help the country greatly.
There had been example for this in Hungarian history. In the time of Kossuth.
And we could use our acerbic humor and call it the Be1ke(si)-loan.

Obviously, there are people out there who are not happy with either the
austerity program or the faster pace of change. Eva Balogh

Charles wrote:

>act in flawed and evil ways.  The Church, which is a human institution, is
>undoubtedly corrupt.  There is nothing to prevent this.  The state is a human

        human control does not equal corruption.  You cannot, with any
        integrity, say the Catholic Church is corrupt just because it is
        human.  That is not to deny there have been periods of corruption
        within the ranks of the Church (indulgences, etc.) or that the
        Church has always confronted evil head on (slavery of Africans),
        but that in no way means that the Church has always been less
        than pure in deed.  For example, what corruption  would you
        attribute to the Church today?

Eva Durant wrote:

>a singlr murdered, even a serial killer is a heinous criminal.drop an atom
>bomb and you're a hero.

        First, the Vatican has never been shown to possess nuclear weapons,
no matter what kind of photos of missile silos Eva can produce :-)  If you
recall, Kennedy was our only Catholic President, but FDR dropped the bomb,
and as far as I have heard, he didn't justify it with Christian teaching.

        Second, Christianity does recognize the justice of self defense,
and in killing during war to defeat an aggressor.  How to define who is the
aggressor can only be done by an sincere and honest examination of the
situation.  Would you say the US was wrong to edfend itself against Japan?
It has been shown that their next target was the naval base at San Diego, Cal.
Should we have waited till the actual attack to be justified as a defensive
act, or was our attack of strategic Japanese possessions justified  since it wa
s
logical to capture/destroy them to win the war, not just win each battle in
which the Japanese made the first agression?  Is not the ultimate goal of a
war to capture the opponents capital/country?
        To be Christian does not mean to be always docile, and allow yourself
to always be the victim.  Jesus himself showed anger when he threw the
merchants and money changers out of a synagoge, actually overturning tables
in his anger.  Was that an un-Christian act?!?!  What is wrong is to do
violence for some gain.

Paul "Expecting to be Harpooned for my Views" Gelencser

On Wed, 21 Sep 1994 19:25:18 EDT paul said:
>Charles wrote:
>
>>act in flawed and evil ways.  The Church, which is a human institution, is
>>undoubtedly corrupt.  There is nothing to prevent this.  The state is a human
>
>        human control does not equal corruption.  You cannot, with any
>        integrity, say the Catholic Church is corrupt just because it is
>        human.  That is not to deny there have been periods of corruption
>        within the ranks of the Church (indulgences, etc.) or that the
>        Church has always confronted evil head on (slavery of Africans),
>        but that in no way means that the Church has always been less
>        than pure in deed.  For example, what corruption  would you
>        attribute to the Church today?

--You are a Catholic.  I am not, although my mother was.  I do not have
to defend the Roman branch of Christianity.  You have the perfect right to
do so, but we'll disagree and will have to let it go like that.  I tend to
follow Calvin and not to regard the Church as divine, although I believe
that the faith or the church invisible might be.  The corruptions that
you list are not because of God, but because of human fallibililty in my
more Protestant view.  Today?  Literally?  And which branch?  If you mean
Roman Catholocism, I think that the bank scandals of a few years ago which
involved a papal representative were certainly questionable.  I can't recall
the details, can you?  At any rate, I would not blame God for the shortcomings
of any cardinal.
>
>
>        First, the Vatican has never been shown to possess nuclear weapons,
>no matter what kind of photos of missile silos Eva can produce :-)  If you
>recall, Kennedy was our only Catholic President, but FDR dropped the bomb,
>and as far as I have heard, he didn't justify it with Christian teaching.
>
--It was Truman.  FDR was dead.  And my brother, who had fought in Europe
for nearly three years didn't have to fight in the Far East.  I would have
dropped the bomb under the circumstances.

>It has been shown that their next target was the naval base at San Diego, Cal.

--News to me.  I doubt if it was true in 1945.

>        To be Christian does not mean to be always docile, and allow yourself
>to always be the victim.  Jesus himself showed anger when he threw the
>merchants and money changers out of a synagoge, actually overturning tables
>in his anger.  Was that an un-Christian act?!?!  What is wrong is to do
>violence for some gain.
>
--No argument here.  Perfectly valid view.  And why on occasion, I carry
a gun.

Charles

On Wed, 21 Sep 1994 19:48:15 -0400 Hala'sz Sa'ndor said:
>In article >, Charles
> writes:
>> --I'm not a physicist (but that doesn't matter as long as I sound
>> authoritative, right), but my understanding is that Newtonian physics
>> has very little to do with relativity.  Einsteinian physics represents
>> a paradigm shift.

>Not except for those who fully accepted the luminiferous aether.  Mostly there
>was doubt, for few really believd Lorentz s explanation of real contraction in
>Newton s at low speeds.
>
>> Flogiston and ether, I'll grant were strange.  Looking backward, it is hard
>> to see how anyone could have believed them.

>No, if the history of the discovery of oxygen were slightly different, we
>would call oxygen "phlogiston".  Oxygen actually matches much of the behavior
>pozited to phlogiston

--I won't argue.  I believe in experts.  It's imi who believes in pure
thought without expertise.