> Felado :  [United States]
> >Are the notions of raid for booty and "securing Hungary's borders" really
> >incompatible?
>
>         Yes, I think so. Besides, what borders are we talking about? At the
> time of these raids--according to Pal Engel as early as 899--the conquest
> was still in process even in the Transdanubian area. I have here a very good
> three-volume historical atlas put out for the Bavarian school district (one
> wishes that we had historical atlases either here or in Hungary as good as
> this one!) which has a map of Europe, showing the borders of different
> states or the placements of various peoples between 916 and 1056. Even at
> the latter date the borders on the east and the north were extremely fuzzy.
> In the north, it was somewhere just north of Nyitra (Nitra) and Go:mo:r. In
> the east, the eastern parts of later Transylvania were still in flux, but by
> the end of St. Stephen's reign several Transylvanian towns were established:
> Des, Doboka, Kolozsvar, Torda, Gyulafehervar.
I plead guilty of ahistoric terminology here -- indeed the borders were in a
flux. I shouldn't have said "securing the borders" as much as "winning/securing
the territory". Other than that we seem to agree:

>         I think the way their minds work is as follows: an ignorant American
> scholar sits down to write a general European history book in which (1) not
> enough space is devoted to Hungary; (2) the few sentences which mention
> Hungary mention these raids and booty; (3) such textbooks will spread the
> bad name of Hungary and Hungarians of today; (4) that must be prevented and
> the ignorant scholars must be taught the "true" history of Hungary.
Yes, this is *exactly* the logic.

>         My reaction was that if people judge today's Hungarians by what the
> Hungarian tribes did in the tenth century, we are in big trouble. I would
> rather think that people will judge us by our current actions and behavior.
You would, but many wouldn't. Many think that present-day Hungary is somehow
degenerate (and it's not a new sentiment exactly, re1gi dicso3se1gu2nk hol
ke1sel), that the Hungary under, say, Matthias Corvinus was bigger, better,
more powerful and altogether more glorious (that this was an age when 95% of
the population were serfs who died ungloriously after a short and brutish life
somehow gets forgotten). Even the tenth century -- hey, we really kicked butt,
all over Europe, so better not treat us as a minor player! These are the same
people who always come out saying that Hungary should DEMAND X (e.g. immediate
revision of Trianon borders) or that Hungary should TEACH A LESSON TO Y (e.g.
the World Bank or the IMF). Or else? Or else we fill our quivers with those
dreaded long arrows, get on our swift horses, and will kick butt again.  We've
done it once and better watch out fella or we'll do it again!

> Moreover, if some foreigners could hear this ridiculous discussion they
> would think that all Hungarians lost their marbles.
Well they better watch out. We know who they are and we'll get them. Our
horses are swift.

Andra1s Kornai

> >
> >
> Once again -- nice try. But you can't separate Marx's continued and
> unrelenting emphasis on the "inevitability" of humanity's march toward
> socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat from his strategies,
> predictions, et. al. Like every religious fanatic, Marx was tempted time
> and time again into tailoring the "evidence" to support his beliefs and
> ignoring or suppressing any evidence that argued against them. Like most
> religious fanatics, Marx was no empiricist.
> Sam Stowe

Ok, give us those evidences Marx suppressed. I find difficult to
see a materialist as a non-empiricist. Some of his followers
became unthinking/uncritical dogmatists, and as such,
I agree that they resembled the likes of religious fanatics,
however, I thought we were talking about Marx.

Eva Durant

I admit, I didn't follow this thread carefully,
but just to annoy Eva, let me tell you howI was taught
about 1848 in the "atkos" school...
I recall being told, that if the hungarian
troops would have continued all the way to Wienna to help
the revolution there, and if their politicians would have
managed "kiegyezes" with the other nationalities, than
that region would have become a democratic bourgois
republic on French or at least the brit pattern.
OK, start shouting at me... I still find
this reasonable...
Eva Durant

If you fail to notice poverty in Britain or France,
not to mention the US, it is you, who'e burying your
head, and very deep indeed.  The relatively better
conditions in Germany and Sweden were achieved by your
worst nightmare - strong unions and lots of govt. intervention,
and the most progressive taxation. (Unfortunately this
is not a viable long term solution to capitalism neither).
If it wasn't for Marx, the workers would have taken longer to
organize and fight for every little inch they forced on the
system, and whenever there is an economic crisis, these gains
evaporate, if they cannot maintain their industrial/political
strength. Look at the UK, Thatcher first wrecked the unions,
than managed to destroy the wellfare state, luckily, the french
establishment so far were unsuccessful, because the socialists had
no chance to have a go at the unions.
 E.g. mass demonstration of one million
people in Paris stopped an attempt to "reform" the education system,
while in England it was done rather subtly, and with very feeble
attempts to sotp it.

Eva Durant
>
>         Your problem is that you simply refuse to see that your description
> of "more wealth to the wealthy, more poverty to the poor in global and in
> the national scale" is simply untrue. Yes, this is what your friend Karl
> Marx thought but he turned out to be wrong. The poverty-stricken working
> class became better and better off instead of his predictions of increasing
> poverty and exploitation. You just read a bit about the "horrible
> conditions" of the German workers--with their free spa vacations, six or
> eight weeks of paid holidays, and so on and so forth and it is pretty hard
> to argue that the German workers are poverty stricken. Or the Swedish ones,
> or the French ones. Come on, looking around in the world instead burying
> your head into some kind of marxist ideology.
>
>         Surely, you don't want to claim that the situation of nobles versus
> serfs is exactly the same as that of a large publicly owned corporation and
> a unionized worker.
>
>         Eva Balogh

> Felado :  [United States]
> > But wherever we go, we must draw our lesson from what happened.
> > Otherwise, we will end up once again exactly where we are now:
> > in our own private Lebanon.
> >
> > Akos Rona-Tas
>
> Nice of him to avoid laying out what the lesson is. Might save some nasty
> shouting and arm-waving on here that would ruin that cloistered academic
> motif we're aiming toward.
Sam, A1kos did, just not in the one and only approved ANSI standard American
rhetorical order, but sort of halfway down the piece:

>  We were too naive to see that every community,
>  liberal or not, rests on communal standards -- and that these standards
>  need to be supported and defended.  We forgot that the living room
>  needs to be aired and swept regularly.

Part of the problem is ownership. At that time HIX was so virtual, now running
out of this borrowed graduate student account, now out of another one, it was
never tied to any institution in the real world. This was four-five years ago,
but HIX is still virtual, with Hollo1si taking special pains not to associate
it to his day job in any way, to distribute it among several servers that are
physically hundred miles away from one another and institutionally unrelated
-- what need does Jo1zsi have for an institution? He became one himself.

HUNGARY is rather different: it runs out of a fully legally approved listserv
at Georgetown U, and Hugh Agnew actually cares what kind of reflection it
casts on that institution. To support communal standards some kind of
enforcement is sometimes necessary, and Prof. Agnew, however reluctantly, will
toss out an offender (or perheps _the_ offender) time and again to maintain a
liveable living room.

So far, people haven't invented any lesser sanction that works. Ignoring the
offender in stony silence, the PgDn option, doesn't work because such people
always take silence as tacit approval. Rebuttals don't work either, because
then the offender gained a "heckler's veto" and dominates the whole list.
Be1la Lipta1k is lucky that so far his list has not been subjected to very
extensive harrassment. But of course he has it coming, leaving the door open
and the key in the ignition, so to speak.

> Martha Bihari and her
> legion of unstated followers want a virtual faculty lounge.
I hereby state it. I'd much rather hang out at a virtual faculty lounge than
at a virtual OK Corral.

> Since nearly everyone on here is a slave to Enlightenment thinking and
> values regardez, s'il vous plait, la Tourniere's stirring libertarian homage
> recently to said philosophical era),
Me too. Came out of the closet as "bo3sz aufkle1rista" not so long ago.

> there seems to be some group dynamic that renders large portions of our
> membership blind to the fact that many of their fellow human beings who went
> through the same western European and North American educational institutions
> as themselves aren't exactly amenable to the cool, cleansing, refreshing
> waters of rationality and civic discourse.
Well, yes, true. But can't we just keep them out? Make that "faculty longue"
a "faculty club", with rules of conduct. Virtual blackballing software is
what we need. Let's say everyone has three blackballs per year, and can
award them, without any need to justify this decision, to anyone s/he cares.
Any member collecting N blackballs is suspended for six months. How's that?

> The same thing which destroyed Forum could destroy this newsgroup.
I don't think so. Jo1zsi was unwilling to ever throw anyone out, so there
wasn't, there couldn't be, any maintaining of any norms whatsoever. The result
is a cesspool. HUNGARY, on the other hand, seems to carry quite reasonable
traffic most of the time. I certanly don't feel like being engaged in trench
warfare, which I was, back in the FORUM war of secession.  Actually HUNGARY
is not a newsgroup (though it is gated over to usenet) but a listserv, which
confers quite an advantage compared to unmoderated groups.

> to toss his ass out. In the meantime, he's had nearly a week and a half or
> more to constantly attack the reputation of one of the more academically
> oriented members of the group. You really call this civilized?
Well he did, but I wonder whose reputation suffered more. Certainly E1va
came across as calm, reasoned, and dignified, while he came across as a
total jerk.

> I see three choices for newsgroups like this in the future. The first is
> to severely restrict membership to only a small circle of professional
> scholars who can be trusted to adhere to the "code of conduct."
How about a large, open circle of not necessarily professional scholars
but just people interested in Hungary and matters Hungarian, not
necessarily trusted to be able to adhere to a reasonable code of conduct
but at least presumed innocent until proven guilty?

> The second is to do exactly what most of us did this time around -- wring
> our hands and whine about how unpleasant all of this is while one of our
> list members is being savaged.
When I was in the hot seat (and it wasn't so long ago) I was gratified by the
amount of support I received, often from people who don't quite agree with
my views.

> The third is to engage the intruder with every
> rhetorical tool available, even the unpleasant ones that make a loud noise
> when they go off, to expose him and his beliefs for what they are.
These three are not mutually exclusive options.

> This recent round of reflection convinces me of one thing. When the
> repressions born of the Age of Reason took political power in this
> century, they usually shot the intelligentsia right off the bat. Next time
> around, the repressors of the Age of Irrationality won't touch the
> thinking class because they'll realize how truly toothless it is.
You seem to forget about our long arrows and swift horses!

Andra1s Kornai

If Hungary is re-writing the constitution, I suggest they follow South
Africa and Canada and make discrimination based on sexual orientation
illegal.  Yesterday, Canada's parliament gave third reading to a bill that
gives gays and lesbians equal rights.  The vote was 153 for and 76 against.
Seven of Canada's ten provinces already have such a law.  It's not very
often that I can say that I'm proud to be a Canadian, but yesterday I could.
My only regret is that my younger brother, Tibor, who died of AIDS eight
years ago, was not with us to celebrate.

Any chance that Hungary will be the third nation in the world to have such a
human rights law?

Joe Szalai

>
> I can't think of a single totalitarian state which would be thought of by any
> financial institution as a safe investment.  Quite apart from the political
> implications of investing in states with oppressive regimes, the main reason
> is that it is simply not worth the risk.  History provides us with a long lis
t

China, Indonasia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia
ok investmenwise,etc, etc. They are sold plenty tools of torture
etc and arms to keep the place "secure".

>
> [The success for new investment is not
> [the best measure of progress and the general well-being
> [of a society.
>
> I am not sure how one measures the 'general well-being' of a society.  Do you
> look at its crime rate?  Its per capita income?  How many people play chess i
n


Well, I agree, there's no sure measure, but the amount of investment
is certainly not a good one.

> these nations are also the nations considered to be the best places in which
> to invest?  That is why the top industrial nations get away with offering
> relatively low interest rates: you can get a better rate elsewhere, but at
> higher risk.  The point I made in my previous post (which you snipped!) was
> that only by playing the game with the World Bank and IMF will nations like
> Hungary get to be thought of as good places to invest.  Only when that
> reputation is built will Hungary be able to compete globally.
>
>

I snipped stuff, because I was told it is neticette to
only copy the relevant stuff.
The World Bank and the IMF is rightly blamed for imposing
draconian economic structural adjustment policies that have
only benefitted the rich.  The favouring of private industry
has left people " more dependent on their own resources".
But these are stretched rather now.
Globally one percent of the world now controls 60 percent of
the resources, and 80 percent srrabble for 15 percent of
resources. (Harriet Lamb) And the trend is for worse, not for better.


>
> Erm...  not sure where to start replying to this bit!  Cheap, well-trained an
d
> motivated workforces are NEVER out of date and DON'T just work for a 'limited
> period'!  The workforce is the key element of any industry, almost without
> exception.

The question is than: how cheap? The brits are about the cheapest
in Europe - but alas, not cheap enough.

> a plant.  I think you are suggesting (please chastise me if I am wrong!) that
> after five years the directors of Ford, or whoever, pack a few suitcases with
> #20 notes and flee the country!  That's just not what happens, but perhaps yo
u
> have access to statistics regarding exploitation of government subsidies that
> I do not have.
>


Well, my experience in this part of the UK - fancy new developments
closing down in a few years, new buildings left abandoned and wasted.
I am not a research worker or a sociologist, I just read the
"quality" liberal - not particularily left-wing - press, that
happens to give you some data at times, if you look for it.


> As for 'speculation', all I can say is that ALL business is speculation.  It
> is simply investing money in the hope that a good return is forthcoming.  The
> only variable is the amount of risk attached.
>
 >
> 
> Budapest lover!


And seems to be less risk at the money markets and antiques,
...
Eva Durant

Perhaps someone knows of an organization that
could use this number to help promote all that
Hungary has to offer.  If so, please let us know.

Note: No one will forget this easy-to-remember number
(1-888-HUNGARY).

Eva Balogh writes:

>         Jeliko says in response to my observations about the connection
> between independence and the nationality problems, specifically about the
> possibility of independence as a result of the Rakoczi Rebellion:


Ok, I'll take the three subjects one at the time. Let's start with the
raids. "kalandozasok" (I do not know who came up with this name, maybe it
was an early TV snippet used to assure the to be raided population that
they should vote for those who invited the good Hungarian folks, anyway I
am sure that the word was not used in the actual times.) As many items of
Hungarian historical theories, thru the last hundred or so years several
different interpretations were used for the cause. All were set as being
the only "true" reasons without accepting that the reasons are generally
complex and not any single cause can be accepted solely by itself. Thus
Pauler and K.Szabo ascribed to the demonstartion of Hungarian virtue and
heroism (as if it were a sporting event, like the later meetings of the
knights at the bar) Deer and Bogyai claimed that the events were a search
for finding a better place than the current homeland (maybe they knew that
the "west" will be more "cultured" and wanted to get "civilized" faster.
Homan claimed that the reason was the assurance of their status in the
current homeland (the new kid on the block philosophy) Molnar and Elekes
claimed that the reason was the breakup of the nomad society and the lack
of employment for the masses (this has been tried by others later on also,
just see the FDR attempts of the WPA, PWA, etc., alphabet soups until he
hit on the winning solution of WAR), Gyorffy and Vajay tried some
integration of of the causes as weakening the enemy, strengthening the the
homeland without collecting taxes from their own folks, (again popular
later on also, even in our days). Lately Kristo claimed that it was a
shopping trip for goods that were not available in Hungary at the time,
(again still practiced, just look at the LA riots, don't have horse, does
not need to travel can collect goods close by). To my knowledge none of
them stressed that the beginning generally was the invitation to interfere.
or that probably all of the above were partial reasons for the raids. It is
insinuated at times, that it was also caused by an "overpopulation" and not
having speedy access to PP, temporary foreign employment was sought. In my
opinion, one should not set a starting date for the raids at the point when
the Hungarians settled in the Danubian plains. Past experience, at least in
those days, was still a good teacher.

The Hungarians were practicing the raids even before they settled in the
area. We have records of raids against the East Franks as allies of
Svatopluk in 862 and 881. In 892 they were offered better terms by Arnulf
and they were fighting the Moravians as allies of the East Franks. In 895
they were invited by the Byzantines to vacation on the Bulgarian sea cost.
Then after their expenses not being covered, they laft their then abode
(the bill collector Pechenegs were pestering them for the Bulgarian past
due bills and the best thing was not to leave a forwarding address). Just
about the same time Arnulf again invited them to vacation in Italy (the
Bulgarian seacost was not available, some liked it so much that they even
stayed [Ciccolinatis]. Yes the "falling apart" of the E Frank empire was a
great reason for the continuation of the raids to the west (the east was
firmly held by the Pechenegs, the Byzantine empire paid rather than fight
but that does not mean that they were weak) because in a murky ex East
Frankish domains there was always a willing ally who could way the
political expedience of military help with the effects of the local
populations opinions in the polls. All the initial raids I am aware of were
in fact as allies of one side or the other. With Saxons against Czechs and
the remnants of the Moravians, than against the Saxons, than with Bavarians
aginst others and so on. I can just imagine in some of these "expeditionary
forces" coming of the realization that it is more beneficial to lessen the
actual fighting on one side or the other and "due to budgetary reasons"
increase the looting portion of the excursion. This early tourism
unfortunately for the locals did not bring in as much in the local coffers
than what was being taken out in the coffers. However, I wouldn't be
surprised if there were signes hung out in some places that fermented
horsemilk is available perhaps even carved in a log hanging across the
gate. Interestingly all through the ages trade was also a significant
influence in these relationships, early treaties of which we are aware of
have a pervasive thread and that is that "fairs" had to be held in the
border areas for the exchange of goods. When these fairs were denied a raid
followed to obtain the goods that were not available at the "fair". This
type of "treaty" language is available from the time of the Hsiunnu with
the Chinese and the Romans and the Huns and so on to the GATT days. Now, my
library is still in boxes, but with springs arrival I will start to get
shelves and organize  (start organizing!) the accumulated stuff, and can
post in the near future (if there is interst in details all of the known
raids paired with all of the known alliances.

I am not going to go over the comment response relating to that the X
century Hungary had no strong neighbors. While I do not take everything
that Porphyrogenitus wrote without a rock of salt, I tend to agree with him
that the Hungarians were not belittling the Pecheneg neighbors to the East
of them, who basically bought the tickets for them to travel to Hungary. I
am aware that there are records claiming that there were indications af
cooperation with the Pechenegs against the Byzantines for that time, but
heck, even Churchill and FDR allied with Stalin when politically
convenient.


I would like to cover the Rakoczy times in another posting soon just to
keep the discussion in the historical sequence.

In article >, Andras Kornai
> writes:

>Well, yes, true. But can't we just keep them out? Make that "faculty
longue"
>a "faculty club", with rules of conduct. Virtual blackballing software is
>what we need. Let's say everyone has three blackballs per year, and can
>award them, without any need to justify this decision, to anyone s/he
cares.
>Any member collecting N blackballs is suspended for six months. How's
that?

If we do this, I want our virtual faculty club to have a virtual bar in
it.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- And a virtual golf course.

P.S.S. -- And a virtual swimming pool with virtual lifeguards where my
kids can hang out safely in summer while I'm teeing 'em up on the virtual
golf course.

Cecilia:


>Ok, for the subject itself.  The consensus is that the Szeklers are the
>remnant of an Asian/Eurasian people that inhabited Transylvania before the
>Magyars got there.  Maenchen-Helfen seems to suggest they are the remnants
>of the Avars.

        I am afraid there is no consensus on this. Maenchen-Helfen obviously
is convinced that the Szekelys were actually Avars. But there is one very
serious problem with this theory: the szekelys are and were
Hungarian-speaking! It is very unlikely that a fairly large Avar-speaking
group within one hundred year suddenly forgets its mother tongue and becomes
Hungarian-speaking. The fact is that there is no real proof for any of the
theories concerning the Szeklers/Szekelys.

>Actually, if someone in Hungary
>would like to do so, combine Sisa's sources with the solid anthropology
>research previously done and mentioned by Maenchen-Helfen and the answer
>becomes just one, not either-or.   Here's how to find the answer.

        I think Cecilia underestimates the research done in Hungary. There
have been quite a bit of archeological and anthropological research
conducted and yet, the origin of the Szeklers is still an unsolved mystery.


        Eva Balogh

In article >, Andras Kornai
> writes:

>You seem to forget about our long arrows and swift horses!
>
>Andra1s Kornai

Yeah, yeah, yeah...all of which was used for strictly defensive purposes.
Right?
Sam Stowe

"First at Bethel, Furthest at Gettysburg, Last at Appomattox"

P.S. -- Excellent use of alliteration in the header line. We'll have you
saying "nattering nabobs of negativity" in no time.

At 12:19 AM 5/10/96 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>I think there is one misinterpretation of the 'PgDn' option in the post and
>in the debate afterward. What happened on the forum (as far as I understood
>because at that time I did not read it) is just the opposite of 'PgDn' option,
>i.e everybody tried to argue with the 'intruders' and soon or later took their
>debating style.

        What I would like to know is what Janos means by "intruder." To my
mind "intruder" means someone who enters without an invitation and therefore
I don't think that Janos's choice of word is quite apt. Nobody needs an
invitation to join either this list or any other. Unless, of course, what
Janos means is as follows: there was a nice group of like-minded people, who
although they didn't agree on everything the general thrust of their
political thinking was more or less the same. And then came an "intruder,"
in the sense of someone with a different set of ideas.

>Beside I cannot imagine how can you speak out of the list someone who does
>not coperate. What if he/she just ignore your post even if it is overhelmed
>with four letter words. In this case such a 'crusader' effort turns out to
>be the situation of a dog on chain. You just bark but cannot bite, and let the
>intruder playing innocent victim.

        Just as I said earlier. The readership is in constant flux. One
particular group is familiar with the "intruder's" tactics and decides to
ignore it. But who can guarantee that tomorrow there will not be another
person freshly arrived on the list who will say: hey, that is outrageous.
Nobody.

        Eva Balogh

While I was recovering from surgery (an event not made better by some acts
and expressions of blatant insensitivity by a sister of mine), I read a book
called _Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ_ by Dr.
Daniel Goleman (formerly a Harvard professor, now associated with the "New
York Times.")  This book is one of a group of books and articles reviewing
the breakdown of societies all over the world, and the increase in violence,
that often is disproportionate to numbers of people, density of population
or anything else that we've often blamed for these things.

This book is the best one I've read on this subject and goes to the heart of
some rather serious happenings in this group.

What is currently being discussed in this group, as a result of these
happenings is whether to blackball people, or when and how they should be
dropped from the group.  Some people do not seem to think it is right to bar
a person from a group because the rules may be subjective to an individual's
thinking, or a particular political persuasion.

Recently, in Chicago, a similar debate took place on ethics and how all
people should treat one another.  It was found that among all the world's
religions (and representatives of all were indeed present) that there were
some basic rules of behavior that were common.  Everyone could agree on the
idea of "doing unto others as one would have done unto his own self or her
own self."

In some anthropology courses I took years ago, a similar discussion occurred
in the courses, "the anthropology of law" and the "anthropology of
religion."  We studied not only the evolution of institutions and concepts,
but similarities around the world, and why the institutions and concepts had
evolved.  It goes back to a fundamental fact about human beings.  We are
social creatures, our survival has depended upon our so being.  Social
creatures absolutely need voluntary cooperation and _mutual respect_ to be
most successful.  Mutual respect is an integral part of building voluntary
cooperation.

It is also recognized that there will be occasions when the more primitive
"dinosaur/reptilian brains" of self-interest, individual emotions and
reactions to immediate gains for individual needs will be in conflict with
the later evolving social mammalian brain parts.   All societies have
determined there must be some rules--and enforcements--to minimize these
conflicts.  Rules are totally ineffective without consequences for their
violation.

OK, so what should the rules be in a list-serv?  When should the ultimate
consequence of expulsion be used?  The answer is in what is common of the
feelings of the overwhelming majority of participants in the group.  I am
only one person, so this is just one opinion, but here is what I think the
majority would support.

No one likes to be abused as a person--especially since this abuse is a form
of public humiliation.  Everyone in the group gets to read this junk.  If
one were to do this even in the form of private e-mail, in some states the
perpetrator could literally be sued for harrassment or hate crimes.  Why is
it even less of a crime to publicly try to humiliate someone by a personal
attack?  People don't mind criticism of their views--separate from their
persons.  However rather than vitriolic personal opinion they would rather
see citations of good academic resources and human experience, and use of
logic and politeness.  Satire and even a certain amount of sarcasm are
acceptable, but toward a view, not a person--and it should be tempered by
serious academic and experience comments.

There is a particular problem with people who fervently believe extreme
political perspectives as being the one and only reality.  It is not limited
to one political persuasion.  That is the greatest danger to regulation of
this list.  I think the basic way the U.S. and certain other countries are
run when it comes to allowing the existence of certain political parties is
the answer here.  Both the communist and Nazi party are allowed to exist,
but they cannot advocate the overthrow of the constitution, democratic
government or free elections or the use of violence toward others.  However,
each incidence of hate or violence is treated, and punished, not the party
as a whole--although these parties (along with "militias, etc.) are
certainly monitored.   An individual, or group, has to cross a line related
to specific acts of abuse.  Otherwise, the individuals or groups are simply
ignored or ostracized.  No one listens to them, no one responds.  They talk
or write to themselves, only.

For those who hold such myopic, extreme views in this group, perhaps the
following should be done.  When a view first appears, someone can try to
rationally present some well supported countering.  If the person presenting
the extreme view continues, without acknowledgement, or friendly discussion
of the alternatives, then all should just ignore that person. Don't bother
to respond.  A person whom is just trying to get attention and provoke
others to  conflict will go away when he/she sees that he/she is not
succeeding--that no one is paying the attention that he/she craves--or
responding to give him/her whatever jollies he/she gets from starting
conflicts (rather like literary arsonists).

The emphasis should be on how ideas are presented as well as what is
advocated.  Rational discourse that develops solutions to problems and
conflicts depends upon sensitivity (empathy) and civility.  If this is to be
a "living room" and not a nursery school, then rules of manners, not just
subjects need to be made and enforced.

I'd suggest a temporary suspension also for people who consistently abuse
others as persons in their discussions, as their primary expression of
opinions of disagreement.  If these people continue this activity, they
should be dropped permanently just as the person who advocates the
irrational hatred and violence of complete anti-Semitism, anti-any ethnicity
as a whole, etc..

By the way, although I am not anti-Semitic (it's a little hard to be with
Crohn's disease in the family...) nor really anti-English/British (as I've
mentioned before, I have an awful lot of British in the family too), I do
think we should be careful to not overreact to one's personal experiences
that might cause at least wariness or a certain caution toward one or
another but does not advocate violence or hatred.  All people, if they are
truly honest about themselves and really examine their own patterns of
thought and behavior have at one time or another generalized a group based
upon personal experiences, and possibly even interpretations of one or
another period of human history.  It's simply part of the way our brains and
emotions behave to help us discern between people we think are most helpful
or less helpful to our own individual/family/whatever survival.  Caution
based on experience does not necessarily mean prejudice or hate.

I strongly suspect that Sam Stowe and Joe Szalai may have had some very
unpleasant experiences with certain types of people,particularly females,
that cause them to react very strongly to certain comments coming from
certain people, but I don't believe either of them really hate females in
general, or even people who hold certain political views.  I do want to
politely suggest to you gentlemen, however, it is sometimes hard for me to
maintain belief in your basic "innocence."  (Maybe I just have to read the
e-mail more often rather than several hundred pieces all at once, so it's a
little less overwhelming on large general impressions--a little less
"sensory overload" needed?...) ;-)

Well, that's the end of my 2 cents on this subject.  This listgroup has
often demonstrated some fine intelligence, rational discourse on important
subjects and sensitivity.  This discussion about how to manage itself is
itself a good example.  We just need to consider, and act upon, how we may
promote more of that, rather than the behavior that prompted this
discussion.  I'd like to feel comfortable in continuing to recommend this
group to other people to read and join, and I'm reasonably sure many others
feel the same way.  Another fact about human nature is everyone _wants_ to
feel good about himself/herself--and the groups to which one chooses to belong.

Respectfully,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA
tel./fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: 




N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

At 07:47 AM 5/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>If Hungary is re-writing the constitution, I suggest they follow South
>Africa and Canada and make discrimination based on sexual orientation
>illegal.  Yesterday, Canada's parliament gave third reading to a bill that
>gives gays and lesbians equal rights.  The vote was 153 for and 76 against.
>Seven of Canada's ten provinces already have such a law.  It's not very
>often that I can say that I'm proud to be a Canadian, but yesterday I could.
>My only regret is that my younger brother, Tibor, who died of AIDS eight
>years ago, was not with us to celebrate.
>
>Any chance that Hungary will be the third nation in the world to have such a
>human rights law?

        Since I don't have the text of the draft consitution I don't know
what is the situation. However, I do know that the Constitutional Court
ruled not a long time ago that gay couples living under the same roof have
the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

        Eva Balogh

At 02:07 PM 5/9/96 EST, Bela Batkay wrote in connection with genetic typing:

>Unlike Eva, however, I am not persuaded that a
>putative lack of intermarriage between Hungarians and Romanians would\
>have had the slightest impact on the distribution of genetic types.  Re-
>member the infamous *jus primae noctis* (the right of the landlord to have
>sex with the bride of his tenant/serf on the wedding night)?

        I think that this infamous law was not too often acted upon.

        Eva Balogh

I have promised a list of pairings between the raids and the allies.

Date         Ally         Vacationland

837       Bulgars          Lower Danube
862       Moravians        E Frank areas
881                        Vienna
882       Moravians        E Frank areas
892       Arnulf           Pannonia
894       Svatopluk        Pannonia
895       Leo              Bulgaria
898       Arnulf           Moravia
899       Arnulf           Italy
904       Berengar         Italy
906                        Saxony
908                        Thuringia
909                        Schwabia
910                        E Frank
911                        Gallia
915       Arnulf II,       Thuringia, Schwabia, Denmark
917       Arnulf II        Bavaria/Lotharingia
918       Berengar         N Italy
918       Arnulf II        Saxony
919       Arnulf II        Saxony, Lotharingia, Alsace
921       Berengar         Italy
924       Berengar         Saxony
926       Hugo             Lotharingia,France
927       Hugo             Italy
934       Arnulf II        France
935       Arnulf II        Burgundy
935       Phokas           S Italy
936       Eberhard         Schwabia,Franconia, Saxony
937       Hugo             Italy, Burgundy
942       Hugo                 Iberia, Provance
951       Berengar II      Bavaria/Aquitenia
953       Eberhard         Bavaria, Saxony
954       Arnulf II        Schwabia, Lotharingia
955       Count of ScheyernAugsburg (uh)

Now, we can argue whether these trips took place as zsoldosok, mercenaries,
segedcsapatok, faithful allies, robbing raids, defensive surgical strikes.
peacemaking missons or drang nach anywhere. Please keep in mind that after
the western countries consolidated it was not in their interest to discuss
in detail how the looser or the winner of their own ilk used foreign troops
to slaughter part of their own population or at least relieve them of some
of their earthly goods (christian acts, or marxist equalization of economic
status). Just look at the Revolutionary War and how the French are
considered by various parties.
The list is not complete but it should give a flavor of the have soldiers
will travel events of bygone days.

Regards,Jeliko

At 08:39 AM 5/10/96 +0100, Eva Durant wrote:

>I admit, I didn't follow this thread carefully,
>but just to annoy Eva, let me tell you howI was taught
>about 1848 in the "atkos" school...
>I recall being told, that if the hungarian
>troops would have continued all the way to Wienna to help
>the revolution there, and if their politicians would have
>managed "kiegyezes" with the other nationalities, than
>that region would have become a democratic bourgois
>republic on French or at least the brit pattern.

        And if the sky weren't blue and if people lived for ever, and if the
Russians didn't get as far as Germany in 1945 . . . This is not history even
if it was taught in your favorite "atkos." For the sake of simplicity, let's
leave out the possible consequences of a Hungarian occupation of Vienna.
Let's just concentrate on the happy "compromise, kiegyezes, Ausgleich" among
the nations of the Danubian Basin. In your opinion, who would have been the
master mind behind such an arrangement in 1848? I can't see one Hungarian
politician in 1848 who would have been ready for a federative type of
solution suggested by your naive socialist history teacher. But let's assume
that the Hungarian politicians in a moment of change of heart agreed to this
arrangement. And what would have happened when the Romanians of Hungary
suddenly felt that it would be a much more patriotic thing to do to join the
Romanians of Moldavia and Wallachia and establish a nation state, a Greater
Romania. Or perhaps the democratically minded Romanians of these provinces
would have joined the happy bourgeois state of Hungary! And what about the
Serbs--they would have been basking in their happy, conflictless existence
within Hungary while the Serbs were gathering the lands of their old
medieval kingdom which they had reconquered from the Turks in a series of
rebellions and wars? Or perhaps all the Serbs could have been invited to
join this happy paradise. And the Croats? Would they have been satisfied to
live within Hungary, even if with home rule? The recent history of a
multinational state in Eastern Europe, that is of Yugoslavia, amply
demonstrates that what you learned in school was totally unfeasible.

>OK, start shouting at me... I still find
>this reasonable...

        I am not shouting at you, but I don't find it reasonable, at all.

        Eva Balogh
'

What comes below is some addition to the discussion between Sam and
Andras concerning civilized conduct on these lists

AK:

>Ignoring the
>offender in stony silence, the PgDn option, doesn't work because such people
>always take silence as tacit approval. Rebuttals don't work either, because
>then the offender gained a "heckler's veto" and dominates the whole list.

        I have been agonizing over this whole problem as far as it is
applicable to the Forum and I cannot come up with any satisfactory solution,
short of booting these people out, which, unfortunately, Jozsi Hollosi
refuses to do. To my "dictatorial" mind the issue is relatively simple: The
offending people abuse those who disagree with their political views. They
use foul language (and believe me when I say foul I mean foul), they call
their opponents ignorant; they make attacks on other peoples' integrity and
honor, and, they lie. The situation on the Forum is quite unbearable.

        And this is just the description of how the message is delivered.
But then there is the message itself. It is practically impossible to have
an intelligent discussion because it really doesn't matter where we start,
we end up at the question of Hungarian Jewry and their role in Hungary and
their attitude toward the "nation." The people who usually instigate that
kind of discussion steadfastly maintain that they are not antisemitic at
all. Yet, one of this non-anti-semites claimed that in the middle ages and
later, Jews actually killed Christians and drank their blood! All this
garbage is couched in pseudo-scientific language and a written demeanor
which seems to attract followers: mostly from Hungary. Nowadays from every
nook and crany there is a new antisemite who creeps onto the list and these,
mostly fairly young, people are convinced that our pseudo-historian/s is/are
the supreme authority on all matters relating to history. As opposed, of
course, to this ignorant so-called historian (that's me!) who usually have
no idea what she is talking about. A real ignoramus! I find all this quite,
quite dangerous. Yet, I am getting nowhere, although in the last two weeks
at least some of the moderate conservatives felt that they no longer could
stay quiet when the extreme right is praising Szalasi as the savior of the
nation!

        In my opinion, Jozsi Hollosi is making a mistake when he refuses to
act. This is not a question of freedom of speech. This is a question of
libelous verbal conduct. I wrote to Jozsi several times. At the beginning he
gave his usual answer: this is not a moderated forum, if you don't like it,
leave. Later, he didn't even answer. At the same time the most outrageous
four-letter words, the most outrageous accusations are flying all over the
place. And, let's add, there are at least 5,000 readers of the Forum!

>Be1la Lipta1k is lucky that so far his list has not been subjected to very
>extensive harrassment. But of course he has it coming, leaving the door open
>and the key in the ignition, so to speak.

        Yes, Be'la has been fairly lucky. He received one ugly personal
letter from Hungary and another from Pellionisz addressed to Ge'za
Jeszenszky, the former foreign minister who happened to be staying in this
country and contributed a piece to HL. But, I must say, I was disheartened
by seeing Pellionisz's netcom address (one of his many!) in Bela's last form
letter published on this list. Perusing the list I found at least one more,
at least in my eyes, objectionable address. Be'la obviously is a busy man
and does not follow what's going on in internet circles and because he
doesn't read the Forum or soc.culture.magyar he has no idea with whom he is
trafficking.


>> Martha Bihari and her
>> legion of unstated followers want a virtual faculty lounge.
>I hereby state it. I'd much rather hang out at a virtual faculty lounge than
>at a virtual OK Corral.

>Well, yes, true. But can't we just keep them out? Make that "faculty longue"
>a "faculty club", with rules of conduct. Virtual blackballing software is
>what we need. Let's say everyone has three blackballs per year, and can
>award them, without any need to justify this decision, to anyone s/he cares.
>Any member collecting N blackballs is suspended for six months. How's that?

        Intriguing idea.

>> The same thing which destroyed Forum could destroy this newsgroup.
>I don't think so. Jo1zsi was unwilling to ever throw anyone out, so there
>wasn't, there couldn't be, any maintaining of any norms whatsoever. The result
>is a cesspool. HUNGARY, on the other hand, seems to carry quite reasonable
>traffic most of the time. I certanly don't feel like being engaged in trench
>warfare, which I was, back in the FORUM war of secession.  Actually HUNGARY
>is not a newsgroup (though it is gated over to usenet) but a listserv, which
>confers quite an advantage compared to unmoderated groups.

        Yes, very true about the cesspool. However what happened there? The
Fencsiks, the Hetyeis, the Kornais, the Rona-Tasok, the Radnais etc. left
the Forum and established their own moderated list. The Forum went on its
merry way, really unchanged because the readership is always in flux and
there will be always people like me who will arrive naively out of the blue
and will think that this is actually a place where meaningful discussion
takes place. Jozsi Hollosi doesn't state at the beginning of his daily
postings: Beware, you innocent bystander, you are taking your life in your
hands! If you enter here, the wolves will eat you and your honor will be
trampled on! So, basically, they won and will win again because I am tired
of holding the fort with two or three other people. And of course I am tired
of the libelous accusations thrown at me. So, most likely I will do the
same: leave, although I swore that I wouldn't do that. But without Jozsi
Hollosi's cooperation the Forum will remain what the Forum had become at the
time of the arrival of Csornai, Egyed, Pellionisz, just to mention a few of
the original crusaders. Now there are others: many, many more.

        Eva Balogh

Dear Jeliko, Eva, et al;

At 09:44 AM 5/10/96 PDT, you wrote:

>I am not going to go over the comment response relating to that the X
>century Hungary had no strong neighbors. While I do not take everything
>that Porphyrogenitus wrote without a rock of salt, I tend to agree with him
>that the Hungarians were not belittling the Pecheneg neighbors to the East
>of them, who basically bought the tickets for them to travel to Hungary. I
>am aware that there are records claiming that there were indications af
>cooperation with the Pechenegs against the Byzantines for that time, but
>heck, even Churchill and FDR allied with Stalin when politically
>convenient.
>
>
>I would like to cover the Rakoczy times in another posting soon just to
>keep the discussion in the historical sequence.
>
Pardon my "field" (left, right--whatever, it's just out there, somewhere)
question to this thread.  Why in the blazes are we treating in our
discussions any single group in the 10th century CE as somehow more
civilized, humanitarian, organized, etc. than any other?  Yes, one could
argue the Byzantine empire was more "civilized--in the sense of urbanity,
general use of a set of rules of behavior or manners, and strong and
numerous political and economic institutions.  However, more tolerant?
Probably not--they just had a different way of expressing or acting on
intolerance.  And they were great with poison of all sorts--literal and
figurative.  Tell me, is it better for victims to be killed by a sword or
poison?  Better to be publicly denounced and expelled, or better to be lied
about discredited and then ostracized?  Aren't the more important measures
the results--that often the means betray the goals?

Regarding the Franks, oh how I wish you all could have enjoyed Professor
Bachrach's lectures about them and Europe in general between the time of
Rome and the real, modern nation states (post Rennaissance).  I particularly
enjoyed his description of the response the King of Asturias sent to
Charlemagne when Charlemagne offered "to help the King of Asturias drive out
the Moorish raiders/invaders at the edge of Asturias."  The king of Asturias
told Charlemagne essentially, "thanks but no thanks, we'll keep our gold to
ourselves."  As Bachrach explained it, the Franks were often considered just
as bad as the Moors.  It was noted that in exchange for "helping" other
areas --they had ransacked and pillaged them for treasures, destroying
churches, towns, etc., worse than the Moors...

The facts of history show that few borders of European nations were set any
earlier than modern Hungary's and most a good deal later.  While the peoples
were all settling themselves into permanent homes they all freely abused on
another and extended borders wherever and whenever they felt like it on any
particular occasion.  Hungarians were no worse--and no better--than anyone
else--and vice-versa.  We were and still are all human beings with a heck of
a lot of failings along with our virtues.

May I also point out that when Hungarians, or any other ethnic group do a
general "mea culpa" act and accept an attitude of inferiority, or praise any
other group as being superior, or both, it tends to encourage others to
treat us exactly how we have expressed ourselves--whether that be inferior
or not.  We haven't gone an massacred any entire ethnic or religious group
in our history, nor have we gone and brutally colonized the better part of a
continent or two.  True, some our ancestors about 800 years ago, did
something of that kind, but that was 800 years ago, and it was only part of
our ancestry--probably a rather small part.  However, a lot of other
countries can make the same claim, and even the late developers who have
been slow to admit colonialism probably wasn't/isn't such a great idea after
all have been changing.  We're a good country, but not perfect, if one
counts basic behaviors of the majority of people and track records.  Most
other countries are the same as we are.  We have almost always basically
been that way, and so have most others.  Let's not set up any irrational
heirarchies of nations based on mythologies of inherent or general practice
of a national character.  Haven't we had quite enough of that stupidity
_within_ nations, considering the history of the relationships of such
things to class repression or warfare and genocide?  Shouldn't we then
rather avoid extending it to the nuclear-armed macro-level--and the
destruction of entire generally accepted as inferior nations (because even
their own people know they're inferior...)?...

Thanks for reading this "outfielder" question/comment.

Respectfully,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA
tel./fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: 

Mark Twain:  "The meek shall indeed inherit the earth--all six feet of it."
(Puddinhead Wilson's Calendar)

Anthony J. Becker addendum: "and only if they insist upon it."


N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

At 08:55 AM 5/10/96 +0100, Eva Durant wrote:

>If you fail to notice poverty in Britain or France,
>not to mention the US, it is you, who'e burying your
>head, and very deep indeed.  The relatively better
>conditions in Germany and Sweden were achieved by your
>worst nightmare - strong unions and lots of govt. intervention,
>and the most progressive taxation.

        Nobody says that poverty is completely gone, but if you bother to
make the comparison, let's say, between the industrial revolution in England
and today there is, I venture to say, a bit of difference.

>If it wasn't for Marx, the workers would have taken longer to
>organize and fight for every little inch they forced on the
>system, and whenever there is an economic crisis, these gains
>evaporate, if they cannot maintain their industrial/political
>strength.

        Well, here I even partially agree with you. Marxism (not so much
Marx) was certainly responsible for social legislations in Germany, but you
mustn't forget that it was a revisionist marxist (social democratic) party
which practically abandoned class struggle and struggled instead for higher
wages, shorter hours, medical insurance and so on and so forth. I don't
think that Marx would have been terribly happy with that party if he lived
to see how it developed.

        Eva Balogh

This is re the discussions whether there was a possibility of a "what if"
in history of Hungary could have separated from the Habsburgs in the good
old days.

First the economic and social commentary. Yes, Hungary was at a different
level "culturally" than several of the western European nations. What is
the significance of this difference, Who knows? I am always bemused by some
of the "current" historical concepts relating to Hungary and the
Hungarians. In the very early days, there were Slavs in the north, west and
south of the country, the southeast was Romanian. Then some folks showed
up who were about one third khabar, then after a complete extermination of
the population residing in the accessable areas by the Mongols, the center
was loaded with Cuman and Jasz or a became wasteland mixed with some latter
day Pechenegs, the modern elite was Saxon or other German, the industrial
and mining class was also Saxon and other German and somehow there
developed (must be by consumption of extensive literature and forced
education in Hungarian) a population developed that had as its prime cause
the extermination of the culture of all the other folks.

Or did this event occur because the upper classes had undue influence, but
a large part of the upperclass was also of foreign descent. Just take the
Zrinyis, the Frangepani, the Gutkeleds and so on. Many of the church
leaders were also foreign. Where were the Hungarians? How come that the
language survived (sometimes one thinks reading the so called "histories"
that the term should be developed) and started to become a dominant
communication method in the region? But back to the subject at hand.

I do not think that the incorporation of the Languedoc, the Provencal, the
Savoyard, the Alsacian or Norman folks into France took place because of
the fairly good university in Paris. I do not think that the French clergy
switched the sermon to French from Latin a little earlier than the Vatican
dictum required it. The whole thing happened because there was a central
power that was capable of holding it together for its own interest. Just
imagine what would have happened in France if the English won a little more
often than they did. Possibly the same thing that happened in Hungary,
there would be a rump French speaking area and many of the "minorities"
could  have maintained or developed their own culture, because the two pole
power would not have been culturally strong enough to generate the
assimilation that a single power can generate. The development of France
was also iffy at times, not as bad as that of Hungary but not smooth
sailing either.

Now for Rakoczi. He was a weak man. As an example he never played the
religion card which was so successful in many parts of Western Europe. He
remained a staunch Roman Catholic ( I don't want to get into the moral
discussion of changing or favoring one religion or the other, I am just
stateing my recollection of events), thus the religion issue could not
played against the Habsburgs, not that it would have necessarily worked.

He was also tied closely to other regional oligarchs, which were not well
exploited. The Turkish play was porbably overstated and certainly
overestimated, at that time as far as European expansionism is concerned,
Turkey was not strong enough anymore. It was eventually OK as a refuge, but
it was a totally useless potential ally. This maybe hindsight, but it is a
fact.

But lets say that in spite of himself, Rakoczi succeded and a long term
permanent independence could have been achieved for the area. The following
significant events could have developed, a much better integration of
Transylvania into the rest of the country, the elimination of the
continuous "minority card" by the Habsburgs, the repopulation of some of
the devastated areas by people others than new German migrants. Better
cooperation with Croatia, more direct commercial contacts with neighbors.
Faster development of the country by lessening or redistributing some of
the land of the oligarchs on the loosing side. (Please note that Rakoczi
had a significant middle nobility and freeman following, who probably would
have expected to be rewarded.) It was also the last anti Habsburg uprising
that did not polarize the minorities against the Hungarians and quite
possible a much better minority relationship would have arisen. This is all
looked at from the Hungarian viewpoint, naturally if a French type example
would have occured, the minorities would look at it differently.

But I am absolutely sure that in those days there were no schools in every
French village, and that only a small fraction of the population could read
and write. We are still some 75 years away from the time when the major
social changes will take place in France.

I know this is rambling, but I am writing as I am collecting my thoughts.
There is not enough time in one lifetime to learn or even describe one's
thoughts and my wife tells me that my best chance in the second life is to
come back as a full horse.

Regards,Jeliko

Eva Balogh wrote:

>So, most likely I will do the
>same: leave, although I swore that I wouldn't do that. But without
Jozsi
>Hollosi's cooperation the Forum will remain what the Forum had become
at the
>time of the arrival of Csornai, Egyed, Pellionisz, just to mention a
few of
>the original crusaders. Now there are others: many, many more.
>
>        Eva Balogh
>

I, for one, stopped reading Forum a while ago and now find myself
feeling a thousand times better than before.  I am a great deal less
upset, pessimistic about everything and everyone.  I eat better, sleep
better, why, I think that even some of my hair is starting grow again
:)))

wishing everyone a glorious spring weekend,


Charlie Vamossy

Dear fellow-listmembers,

With regard to the request for train information:  there is an organization
called something like Association of European Railroads, that I think has
a 1-800 number based somewhere out west, in Colorado?  They are able to
give scheduling and price information over the phone, I don't know if they
can also make bookings.

Here in Washington, there's also a local office, the number is (202)
659-2973.  They have a lot of information about various discount
programs like Eurailpass, but also Czech Pass, Poland Pass, European East
Pass, and many others.

Maybe if the original poster tried the 1-800 information number he could
get their free-call line.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

Dear fellow-listmembers,

First of all, as soon as the virtual bar is set up, I'll stand everybody
to a round of Kecskemeti barackpa1linka (OK, for those who insist, a
shot of Unicum instead...)

I tend to agree with Andra1s that Sam's three alternatives don't necessarily
rule each other out.  I think we _could_ have a list (expanded perhaps as
Andra1s describes it--not necessarily "academic", which to my mother-in-
law anyway is a synonym for useless or irrelevant--but just a place where
people sharing a common interest and common culture could hang out, and
where other people who may just have questions like, "How do I get from the
airport to downtown Budapest without being fleeced?" can ask their questions).

The second option, which Sam dismisses as ineffectual bleating, at least has
the effect of restating the majority cultural ideal, the commonly-accepted
and unwritten rules which the force represented by "Szucs" was ignoring or
purposely taking advantage of.

The third option, which is Sam's preferred method, is the attack-the-
attackers approach.  And it has a certain justice to it, as well as the
thrill that dealing out such explosive rhetorical missiles can carry with
it.  I think the problem that Akos Rona-Tas was talking about and that
Andra1s echoes, that of the tiny minority fringe coming to dominate the
entire discourse of the list, is a real one.  Certainly there are plenty
of examples in the recent history of the East Central European region where
the radical extreme succeeded in defining what was talked about and the
terms of the debate, thereby in sense winning much more influence than
would otherwise have been its due in the democratic process.

So a continued barrage of return salvos, while just, and satisfying,
wouldn't really solve the problem, and might result in the traffic on
the list becoming (as was originally the case with FORUM) practically
dominated by the crackpot and his agenda.  Anyone here read soc.history
when they first got access to newsgroups?  Remember Serdar Argic and Dan
Gannon?  How about what happened to MIDEUR-L, when it was hijacked by the
ex-Yugos and others, because the listowner didn't control subscriptions?

Nope, in the end, as long as Hungary functions as a listserv list, and
is housed here, it comes down to me.  I have already personally and
publicly apologized to Eva for holding back for as long as I did, but
I think what Andra1s says about the effect of her response and Szucs
ravings on their respective reputations--scant comfort though it may
seem at the time--was in fact true.  Somebody talking to our department
recently about Joe McCarthy said that his one undeniable achievement was
to discredit completely American anti-Communism.  Maybe Szucs or whatever
he calls himself can eventually do that for his cause.

But, not in my virtual faculty lounge!

OK, since Hungary list came here from Santa Barbara, I have felt obliged
to take a less active role in the list discussions, and concentrate on the
daily quota of undeliverable mail messages and requests by people to take
them off or put them on.  I have always been reluctant to make the list
fully moderated.  I still am.  The situation we are in now is far from
perfect, but I still prefer it to the alternatives, even Andra1s's
suggestion of a "Virtual Blackball"...

There does come a point, though, where I have acted, and will act again, to
preserve Hungary list for what I think it is best suited as, a forum for
the free, open exchange of ideas and opinions, information and questions
(even stupid questions), and sometimes heated argument.  I personally
would indeed feel more comfortable with a style of discourse that resembles
Martha Bihari's ideal more than Andras Szucs's.  But within tolerable
limits I think there's room for a variety of ideas and a range of vigor
of expression.  Maybe it's staid, academic, not a little self-important,
and stuffy, but I certainly consider Hungary list an island of sanity
compared to some of the other things out there in the internet world.
I'd like to keep it that way.

Just some random thoughts on the recent postings on this issue.  Thanks
again to Gabor and Andras for the article by Akos Rona-Tas--it's really
true that there's nothing new under the sun...

Oh yes, by the way--my concern for my institution's good name leads me to
point out that it is the George Washington University, not Georgetown,
even though they may have a better basketball team!

Sorry for the excessive length,

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

The Beckers write:

> Pardon my "field" (left, right--whatever, it's just out there, somewhere)
> question to this thread.  Why in the blazes are we treating in our
> discussions any single group in the 10th century CE as somehow more
> civilized, humanitarian, organized, etc. than any other?  Yes, one could
> argue the Byzantine empire was more "civilized--in the sense of urbanity,
> general use of a set of rules of behavior or manners, and strong and
> numerous political and economic institutions.  However, more tolerant?
> Probably not--they just had a different way of expressing or acting on
> intolerance.  And they were great with poison of all sorts--literal and
> figurative.  Tell me, is it better for victims to be killed by a sword or
> poison?  Better to be publicly denounced and expelled, or better to be
lied
> about discredited and then ostracized?  Aren't the more important
measures
> the results--that often the means betray the goals?

No disagreement here. If I had a choice between the two places, based on
what I know now, I would have chosen the fermented horsemilk rather than
the "sweetened" wine of the Byzantines.


> Regarding the Franks, oh how I wish you all could have enjoyed Professor
> Bachrach's lectures about them and Europe in general between the time of
> Rome and the real, modern nation states (post Rennaissance).

I, again and still, recommend some of the original sources. For the Franks,
I recommend the good bishop of Tours and for Charlemagne the chronicles. If
I remember well, the economic foundation of his realm was the treasure of
the Avars. It did not come as an IMF or Worldbank loan.

Even the local response to the visit to Iberia is explained by the fate
of Roland, but of course the spin doctors changed it slightly for later
students of history (and literature of heroic songs). Or ask the Saxons
about civilized furthering of Christianity among them.

The major objection I have, is when Hungarian history is converted into a
pc version and then compared with the glorified history of other folks.
Lets compare the glorified with the glorified and the denuded with the
denuded.

I go for the latter, except when the denuding is onesided and done on a
fictional basis, at that point I consider it slander, regardless of who
practices it.

Regards,Jeliko

>Jeliko:

Let's start with the
>raids. "kalandozasok" (I do not know who came up with this name, maybe it
>was an early TV snippet used to assure the to be raided population that
>they should vote for those who invited the good Hungarian folks, anyway I
>am sure that the word was not used in the actual times.)

        The name "kalandozasok" came into vogue in the first half of the
nineteenth century--the period we call "reformkor."

        From the following it is quite clear that historical imagination can
sore on the subject, simply because we have so little to go on. Out of the
many sources listed here I could check out only Balint Homan (more about his
interpretation a bit later) but, just as a gut reaction, some of the
interpretations listed are simply not convincing.

>Pauler and K.Szabo ascribed to the demonstartion of Hungarian virtue and
>heroism (as if it were a sporting event, like the later meetings of the
>knights at the bar)

        surely cannot be taken seriously.

>Deer and Bogyai claimed that the events were a search
>for finding a better place than the current homeland (maybe they knew that
>the "west" will be more "cultured" and wanted to get "civilized" faster.

        A more plausible exaplantion, except after a few years it should
have been obviuos to these guys that the West was a bit crowded, as opposed
to the rather underpopulated Danubian Basin.


>Homan claimed that the reason was the assurance of their status in the
>current homeland (the new kid on the block philosophy)

        Yes, but I wouldn't call it "the new kid on the block" theory. Homan
says more than that. He describes the surrounding areas as inhospitable or
at least indifferent to the newcomers. The Bavarians were just waiting for
the opportunity to attack. The Italians and Byzantium only used the
Hungarians: they never assisted them although they often asked for their
help. Thus there was an antagonistic atmosphere and they "secured their own
power position" by these western raids. (Homan doesn't use the word
"kalandozasok," but instead "nyugati hadjaratok" (western campaigns). To
"translate" all the above into simple language: although no one was
attacking the Hungarians, the Hungarians were suspicious of their neighbors,
especially the Bavarians and they opted for "preventive strikes." Does this
sound plausible to us? (Also, it reminds me of the nationalistic
interpretation of 1848. Vienna doesn't really do anything, but Hungary is
suspicious of the court.) As far as I am concerned: no. Preventive strikes
in Lotharingia? Preventive strike in Spain?

>Molnar and Elekes
>claimed that the reason was the breakup of the nomad society and the lack
>of employment for the masses (this has been tried by others later on also,
>just see the FDR attempts of the WPA, PWA, etc., alphabet soups until he
>hit on the winning solution of WAR)

        Molnar and Elekes as you could figure were early Marxist historians
(50s, 60s) and lack of employment for the masses sounds off the wall to me.

>Gyorffy and Vajay tried some
>integration of of the causes as weakening the enemy, strengthening the the
>homeland without collecting taxes from their own folks, (again popular
>later on also, even in our days).

        Possible.

>Lately Kristo claimed that it was a
>shopping trip for goods that were not available in Hungary at the time,
>(again still practiced, just look at the LA riots, don't have horse, does
>not need to travel can collect goods close by).

        I can't quite believe it.

>To my knowledge none of
>them stressed that the beginning generally was the invitation to interfere.
>or that probably all of the above were partial reasons for the raids.

        Is it possible that it is almost impossible to prove it?

>It is
>insinuated at times, that it was also caused by an "overpopulation" and not
>having speedy access to PP, temporary foreign employment was sought.

        Overpopulation? No way.

>In my
>opinion, one should not set a starting date for the raids at the point when
>the Hungarians settled in the Danubian plains.

        However, if we do this, you realize that the theory of self-defense
or at least strengthening Hungarian position in the Danubian Basin goes down
the drain!

>I am not going to go over the comment response relating to that the X
>century Hungary had no strong neighbors.

        What I meant and what Pal Engel meant was no strong neighbors in the
direction of Hungarian attacks. The Pechenegs were very strong--after all
the Hungarians decided to move on from Etelkoz because of them--but there
was not one campaign against the Pechenegs. Obviously, they decided that the
Pechenegs were best left alone. According to Homan, the Hungarian tribes
kept a vigilant eye on the East to make sure that no Pecheneg attack was in
the offing. I don't know how he knows this but that is what he says. By the
way, for those Hungarians on the list who didn't learn early Hungarian
history in English, the Pechenegs are the "besenyo"k."

        It is fun to debate an issue with someone who actually knows something.

        Eva Balogh

To ban or not to ban, that is the question:
To ban , to me is autocratic. We want to seem democratic, even if
democratic means a million different things to many million different
people. An imposed democracy is not democracy, and  conditional free speech
is not free speech. Those of us who don't really believe in free speech,
either, because it is a fairy tale, or, because it doesn't really work,
well, do what you want. A free speecher who opens his mouth wide, and all
that comes out is excrement, will soon discover that people don't like to
be near him. It will be obvious to most of us that there is fatal confusion
in his anatomy
I said it before and I say it again: lets not be carried away by our own
view of the truth. A person who thinks to be always right, becomes simply
righteous. I am unhappy not with what people express, but how they express
it. I think Eva touched on this: what are we anyway? A discussion group, or
a debating society? The members of a discussion group put forward their '
input' (what a stupid computer word; why is 'opinion' not good enough. And
do you notice that what goes in as input in the computer world, reappears
as output in the hospital?) , and listen to what the other ones have to
say. Nobody wants to win, even if there is a little secret wish to be the
smartest in the bunch, the process is not competitive. In a debating
society, like the parliaments and councils , everybody trumpets his or her
conviction, or whatever he or she was paid to say by the appropriate lobby,
and nobody even hears what it is. The votes have been decided long before,
and if they don't come out right, a little more money, or at least promise
of money changes hands. I don't think we want to be THAT.  We want to be
people with open mouths and minds, and inform rather than convince.
And again, an other thing: we Hungarians are neither better nor worth than
anybody else. We all belong to humanity, which some think is the crown of
creation, but I happen to think is it's bikini panty. We have to survive as
Hungarians, not as pseudo Russian, pseudo German, or pseudo American. Once
our language is gone, our history distorted, our thinking polluted, we are
not Hungarian any more anyway. So lets stick it out once more. Our
'kalandozasok' were 'betoresek', lets face it, and as so many of you
expressed, there was a time when the whole world was raiding. The Spanish,
the English, and their successors the Americans have gone on raiding their
neighbors and the original inhabitants of their conquests practically to
the present. They, like the ancient Israelites before them, decided that
God gave them a promised land, and they can not only do with it whatever
they want, and change it from forests and meadows to agricultural land, but
also from agricultural land to desert.  Why would we want to imitate that?
Hungary is an agricultural land,  and all during history, since we learnt
agriculture from our German and Slav slaves, only foreigners turned it to
desert.  Concentrate on reviving it as such, and with half of the world
starving, and other half selling it's produce at exorbitant prices, we can
reasonably hope for re-establishing a market. Before W.W.II we exported to
most of Europe. Farming is not a good living; but it is better than
begging.
Once in the near future I will post my thoughts on the prime problem with
humanity. The arrogance of thinking that the ability to speak puts us above
the rest of creation.  Think a little about every word you utter and write:
what does it really mean? Democracy, Christianity, contract, agreement,
conservatism, reactionary. liberal, etc.etc.. One hears nowadays
'homophobic'. A word as idiotic as the people to whom the expression is
applied. It means roughly: hatred of the similar. Has nothing to do, and is
not an antonym of hatred of the homosexual, or homosexuality. .  This type
of distortion of meanings, or perhaps total ignorance of meaning, causes
more trouble in this world than anything else.  More later.
Thanks for thoughts on Teleki. Had the Horthy regime publicized that he had
been shot by the SS, an immediate occupation by Germany would have ensued,.
and the Holocaust in Hungary would have been moved forward to 1940, a time
when Jewish refugees from Slovakia and Rumania still used our country as a
refuge.  - The Communists, on the other hand were not very eager to make
heroes of leaders in the past regime who, to top it all, were aristocrats.
A suicide, as many of us feel, is an honorable exit for a good cause. But
being shot by the SS is even more honourable. Personally, I believe an
electrician a heck of a lot more than an official report.

At 02:31 PM 5/10/96 PDT, Jeliko wrote:

>I have promised a list of pairings between the raids and the allies.

        First of all, thank you. Very impressive. Certainly more than I
could come up with. If I recall Jeliko really likes this period and
obviously read a lot on the subject.

[And follows a very impressive list of raids.]

>Now, we can argue whether these trips took place as zsoldosok, mercenaries,
>segedcsapatok, faithful allies, robbing raids, defensive surgical strikes.
>peacemaking missons or drang nach anywhere.

        According to Pal Engel (and the reason I am quoting him is because
(1) I have his book right in front of me and (2) because he wrote his book
in 1990, and (3) because his book is supposed to be a brief overview of
current accepted views. Nothing revisionist or unproven.), yes, in the
Italian case, the Hungarians undertook these raids often at the request of
this or that prince against some other. But more often than not, these
princes whom you call allies were simply paying tribute to the Hungarians
for being spared. Often, they simply allowed the Hungarians to pass through
their lands for the promise of mercy. Somehow I have the feeling that if it
was possible to prove that the Hungarians actually were allies of this or
that prince during this or that raid, Hungarian historians wouldn't have
missed the opportunity to point this fact out.

        What I like about this list that during most of the discussions one
actually learns a lot. Something I learned this time I would like to share
with the other Hungarian speakers: around 910 the Hungarians had to give up
a territory called Ober-Enns (that is the territory around the nothern parts
of the Enns river). From this designation came the word "Operencia" of those
tales we all heard when we were children. "Hol volt, hol nem volt, az
Operencias tengeren is tul."

        Eva Balogh

In > George Frajkor
> writes:
>
>>
>> I fail to understand the legal process used in Slovakia.  I all
>> civilized countries a contract is a contract, both parties agreeing
to
>> the same exact words, each party ratifying the same exact contract.
>....
>
>> Can somebody then explain to me how can the Slovak Parliament come
up
>> with changes/addenda to the treaty and submit to the President a
>> so-called "Slovak version of the treaty"? Isn't there only one
version?
>> Are the Hungarians supposed to accept a treaty that is different
from
>> the one they signed and approved?
>
>         It is true that there is only one version of contracts.
>However, contracts (in Western law, at least) are described as
>'meetings of the mind'.  Which means that both parties understand the
>contract in exactly the same sense.   It is possible for a contract to
>be enforced even if there is nothing in writing, provided a court is
>satisfied that the two parties understood each other.  And it is
>possible for a contract to be broken even if both parties signed it,
>provided a court is satisfied that the two parties did NOT understand
>each other.
>     I can give you an example from personal experience.  In my
>days as a negotiator for the Journalists union at the Canadian
>Broadcasting Corporation, we and the company agreed that a clause in
our
>contract would lose force "at the expiry of the current labor
>contract".   It was a three-year contract, to be in effect (let's give
>a random date since I have forgotten the exact one) from June 30, 1992
to
>June 30, 1995.  On July 1, 1995, the union deemed the clause to have
>expired and stopped respecting it.  Thwe company threatened
>retaliation including possible dismissal if workers did NOT respect
>it.
>      Here is why:  under Canadian law, the terms of a
>labor contract continue in force until all steps leading to a legal
>strike or lockout have been taken or until a new contract is signed.
>    We, the union, maintained that  "expiry of the current
>labor contract "meant "expiry DATE of the contract". (June 30)
>   The company maintained that it
>meant "expiry of the TERMS of the contract."  We never settled the
>issue because a new contract was signed.  But it was clearly not a
>meeting of the minds.
>     That is what the Slovak government is maintaining today.  It has
>accepted article 1203 of the European Union declaration on minority
>rights, so has Hungary. So they both signed the acceptance.
>    Hungary  says it believes the articlem gives minorities the right
to
>autonomous territorial government.  Slovak says it believes the
>article guarantees minorities the right to self-governing cultural
>institutions.
>    The Slovak government proposes attaching to its ratification a
>clause explaining in what sense it interprets the article, just to
>make it clear what it thought it was signing.
>   Hungary does not agree with the interpretation being part of the
>agreement, but does not want to put in writing what IT thought the
>article to mean.
>    It is probably a case for the World Court to decide.
>
>> Also: as far as I remember (it's has been many months now) the
>> Hungarian Parliament has long ago ratified the Treaty with Slovakia,
>> while the Slovak Parliament is still in the process of reporting it
to
>> the President.
>> Can somebody then explain how is it that Hungary -- and not Slovakia
--
>> that is delaying ratification?
>> Charles Vamossy
>
>      I would guess that what the Slovak government means is that
>Hungary is refusing to put in writing its interpretation of the
>article, and that until it does, either side can argue that there has
>been no meeting of the minds.
>
>
>    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
> School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
> 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
> Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
> Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
>       /   
>  o: 613 520-7404   fax: 613 520-6690  h: 613 563-4534

Mr. Frajkor, I appreciate your thoughtful and thought-provoking reply
and I understand your point.  Sometimes people are, to misquote Winston
Churchill, separated by common words.

Still, I think you'll agree that it is rather unusual to wrangle about
paragraphs and interpretations of international treaties AFTER they
have been negotiated.  If the Slovak government had a different
interpretation to
EU Recommendation 1201 than Hungary, the parties should have resolved
that during the negotiation phase and include in the treaty language
both parties agree with.

Apparently the problems of different interpretations were well known
from the start.  Nevertheless, after protracted talks, boths sides
declared themselves satisfied with their work.  Then as I recall, the
Slovak Governme
nt surprisingly tried, at the signing ceremony in Paris, to first
include and when that was rejected, attach a paragraph to the treaty
-- a rather unusual procedure, to say the least.  The French
Government, who was admi
nistering the ceremony, rejected the Slovak request, correctly
suggesting that if they did not agree with the Treaty, they should not
sign it but go back and re-negotiate.  Finally, the Treaty was signed,
but the Slovak G
overnment "paper clipped" their paragraph onto their copy.

Having failed to include the interpretation, the Slovak Parliament then
tried to attach it to the Treaty and passed it in the modified form.

Fortunately, President Kovac had enough common sense to remove the
paragraph, and, as I just read in OMRI, the Treaty was signed by him in
the original form, thus making it possible for this much needed Treaty
to finally
come to force.

I am not sure if, at the end, we should rejoice or remorse at this
Treaty.  If it finally brings about good neighborly relations between
peoples with long shared history and living space, then we should
indeed applaud.  B
ut if the repeated attempts in the past by the Slovak Government  to
put a different spin on it is a harbinger for future disagreements,
maybe it would have been more honest and straightforward for the
Slovaks to reject t
he Treaty and direct the Slovak Government to renegotiate the Treaty so
that it is more precise.

And let's remember, that even Treaties are no better than the will and actions
 of the people who live by them, enforce them, or choose to disregard them.   I
 hope that having exhausted themselves in the "war of words", bo
th sides now sit back and enjoy the peace and prosperity this Treaty could brin
g
 to both Slovakia and Hungary.

regards,


Charles Vamossy

To all distinguished members of this virtual lounge, may I command your
attention for a brief moment:

I want to thank the wise and patient Hugh Agnew for his generosity in
buying all of us a round of barack palinka and propose that we raise
our glasses, look him in the eye and say

    Egeszsegedre, Hugh!!!



Charlie Vamossy

-who, although not a member of the faculty,
-still posesses at least remnants of his faculties
-provided he does not make it a habit of drinking barack palinka

I wrote this when I got back to *HUNGARY*, but because of the rule changes
in my absence, it never showed up, now that I am officially subscribed I
wanted to repost it becse there is still some echos lingering on the net.

Path: news.worldlink.com!usenet
From: "Jeliko" >
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.hungary
Subject: Just a few words.
Date: 23 Apr 1996 20:16:30 GMT


Having returned for a few days, I looked up good old *hungary*
and found that some folks treat others in a strange way.

While I participated in the 56 revolution, I am not expecting an
apology from anyone over names, particularly when the play is on sematics
and not on facts.

To my knowledge, during the revolution in 56, nobody called us
"szabadsagharcos" in Hungary. *Forradalmar* was most common, but
often it was only *fiuk* (I am not claiming that there were no girls
involved, but even then I would have been upset if somebody would have
mistaken me for a girl.)  It was outside Hungary that I have first heard
the term *freedomfighter*. It maybe more appropriate in English than just a
*revolutionary*, which can have several other
connotations.*Szabadsagharcos* was not a well sounding term
in Hungary in those days, particulary if one considers that there
was a *szovetseg* by that name which did not have the best credentials
for fighting against either the AVH or the Russians. No wonder the
name did not catch on in Hungary. Please remember, that some words should
not be translated as exact replicas, because they have different
meanings in different languages. If *forradalmar* was good enough in 1848,
it was good enough for me in 1956. At the same time, I do not consider the
term *freedomfighter* revolutionary enough to upset me either.

I just hope that most good folks realize that hair splitting is
not a good enough reason to go for the jugular, particularly with a rusty
knife, even if the long winter got on everybody's nerves. By the way,
anybody ever studied why some revolutions start in the spring while others
start in the fall? It may be a good PhD thesis for environmentally oriented
boilingsers, I mean revolutionaries.

A Happy Global Warming to All!
Regards,Jeliko.
----- End of Forwarded Message

At 02:26 PM 5/10/96 -0700, Charlie Vamossy wrote:

>I, for one, stopped reading Forum a while ago and now find myself
>feeling a thousand times better than before.  I am a great deal less
>upset, pessimistic about everything and everyone.  I eat better, sleep
>better, why, I think that even some of my hair is starting grow again
>:)))
>
>wishing everyone a glorious spring weekend,
>
>
>Charlie Vamossy

        Charlie you made me really, really laugh. You are certainly right
about "pessimism." I used to get terribly pessimistic about the future of
Hungary because of the Forum's daily upsetting messages. As for my hair, I
still have a lot of it, and it still quite waivy, but I bet that not reading
the Forum would even help with the greying process; i.e., it would slow it down
.

        Eva Balogh

At 01:43 PM 5/10/96 -0600, Cecilia wrote:

>Why in the blazes are we treating in our
>discussions any single group in the 10th century CE as somehow more
>civilized, humanitarian, organized, etc. than any other?

        I really don't know whom you are talking about. I certainly never
entertained such thought and therefore I couldn't have said anything of the
sort which would have indicated that one group of tenth-century people was
any better than any other. It was a pretty brutish world all around.

        On the other hand, the Hungarians arrived from the East; most likely
they looked different from the Indo-Europeans. They had a different
civilization (not necessarily less of anything but different): they were,
for the most part, still nomadic. They settled in an area which was less
advanced than territories west of it. They employed a different form of
warfare, different types of horses, they had a different diet. They had
different clothing. And one could go on and on. It would be foolish to
pretend that our Finno-Ugric/Turkic ancestors were exactly the same as the
more or less settled Indo-Europeans in Western Europe. I might add that they
were not terribly different, in spite of their relatively late arrival, from
the Western and Eastern Slavs. All East-European people (Hungarians and the
Slavic peoples) established states about the same time whether they had been
around for a longer period of time (the Slavs) or they were newcomvers like
the Hungarians.

        Eva Balogh

Eva Balogh writes:

>         First of all, thank you. Very impressive. Certainly more than I
> could come up with. If I recall Jeliko really likes this period and
> obviously read a lot on the subject.

As it so happens you are corect, I do like this period, because in school I
learned a lot of junk about it.


> But more often than not, these
> princes whom you call allies were simply paying tribute to the Hungarians
> for being spared. Often, they simply allowed the Hungarians to pass through
> their lands for the promise of mercy. Somehow I have the feeling that if it
> was possible to prove that the Hungarians actually were allies of this or
> that prince during this or that raid, Hungarian historians wouldn't have
> missed the opportunity to point this fact out.

Even Homan in the Nyugati hadjaratok covers some of the alliances. I think it
is not a good history book, even to him there were many refernces available
that he did not use.

Sorry, but I did not read Engel yet. There are several thousand pages of work
to read each month and I am becoming dumber every day.

Unfortunately, one does have to get to the Chronicles discussing western
European events and match them up with the time periods.

But let's take the Provence and Iberian excursion, Hugo was pressed by the
Arabs in Italy, what better way to divert some of their activity than to ask
the Hungarians to mosey over to Iberia. The fascinating part of those days is
in fact trying to unravel the politics of the events. With the limited
communication methods, there had to be a lot of ambassadors running around.
To me, it appears that the Hungarians published an 800 or an 888 number that
one called if troops were needed. Probably they did not have air cav,at the
ready, so the planning of these trips to thousands of miles away, had to be a
reasonably interesting accomplishment.

> around 910 the Hungarians had to give up
> a territory called Ober-Enns (that is the territory around the nothern
parts
> of the Enns river). From this designation came the word "Operencia" of
those
> tales we all heard when we were children. "Hol volt, hol nem volt, az
> Operencias tengeren is tul."

Maybe the Enns was a bigger river those days, I often wondered how it became
an ocean. As discussed above, in my opinion, the folks were more
sophisticated than to assume that everything between the ocean and the Enns
was merged into a single place. But maybe it was an early verbunkos.

Note to readers who were not on when I was contributing earlier. Sometimes, I
am not serious, even if I could keep a straight face even without a smiley
Oh well just keep adding black balls.

Regards,Jeliko

My son Adam Liptak asked me to pass this on, so I am:

>Hi, our names are Stevie and Amanda. We are in the 5th grade at
> >the Phillipston Memorial school, Phillipston, Massachusetts, USA.
> >We are doing a science project on the Internet. We want to see
> >how many responses we can get back in two weeks. (We are only
> >sending out 2 letters).
> >
> >Please respond and then send this letter to anyone you
> >communicate with on the Internet.
> >
> >Respond to .
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >1. Where do you live (state and country)?
> >
> >
> >2. From whom did you get this letter?
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Stevie and Amanda
> >