Dear Gabor:

A If anyone is
>interested, please write to me and I will lend you my translation for
>review.

Yes please! I would be interested to read it.

Thank You,
Aniko Dunford
I

-cut-
> spent your whole life in "existing socialism." In school they filled your
> head with all sorts of Marxist ideology, but you look around and there is a
> terrible discrepancy between idology and reality. And you say to yourself:
> maybe the problem is that we are not good enough Marxists. Perhaps if we
> were more faithful to the teachings of Marx things would go better. We would
> have a better society. I find that kind of thinking almost natural. Then a
> few more years go by and you do a little bit more thinking and then you say
> to yourself: Oh, God, that's all crap actually. One has to attack the
> problem from another angle.
>
>         Eva Balogh

... and than you think, hey, this other angle didn't work for
ages now, and turning the world insane, perhaps we should re-assess
our earlier thinking or look for yet another new angle... I hope.
Most young people here (used to) start from the left, too.
When you manage to make a living in the system, you convince yourself,
that you are in some way better/luckier than others, and get
yourself some comfortable ideas, that doesn't involve any radical change
in your (cosy) setup... Having a few self-assuring futile gestures
to some charity, recycling your paper and being sympathetic to
non-grumbling animals...

Eva Durant

At 07:43 PM 5/1/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        I missed Joe Szalai's sentence in which he expresses the feeling
>that "occasional name calling" is perfectly all right. No, it isn't. Amos is
>100 percent righ. Have you ever heard of formal "debate" in which there is
>name calling? No, not in Canada, not in England, and not in the United
>Statess. (Sorry about countries I didn't mention here.) Name calling is not
>part of civilized debates.

This newsgroup follows the rules of formal debate as much as it follows
Roberts Rules of Order.  It does neither and those who wish to control this
group only end up frustrating themselves.  And then they blame others for
their discomfort.

Those who want a formal debating society should set up their own group
because they sure aren't going to find it on any of the existing newsgroups.
Joe Szalai

Well, in this case I think Hungarian skepticism with
the establishment is a healthy leftover, and one
that is badly missing from the UK and what I know of it,
the US, though as more of the dirt reaching the surface,
this is changing.   It is civil here to cheat and get away
with it if you  stealing millions,
but if you are a petty tax-evader or thief, than you
are jumped on - if you are not particularily good at it.
(Yesterdays news: tory MP owes the banks 6 million pounds,
was expected to pay back 1000/week - I wish I had terms
and patience like that from my bank. And he defaulted for ages
before the banks decided to take some action allegedly - but
I have the feeling they would have let the matter rest longer
if their wasn't a "leak". )

Eva Durant

>
> Eva Durant asked what I meant by "civic culture."  The real question should
> be, what did TGM mean by it.  I gathered from his article [actually, edi-
> torial] that the meant what most contemporary Western political scientist
> mean by it--a public cutlure of tolerance for political differences, of
> respect for the rights of individuals, and most especially, one with a sense
> of civic responsibility, i.e., the idea that the "state" is not some alien
> "them" but is in fact "us," including "me", and that we/I have a responsibi-
> lity to participate in its functioning by voting, having informed opinions,
> joining like-minded others to influence its direction, and even more
>  par-'ticulalarly respecting its laws.  TGM's primary target, if I remember
>  correctly, was
> the widespread and casual disregard of the law that he believed character-
> ized a majority of his countrymen/women, which he saw as a most unfortunate
> holdover fromthe period of Communism, when the law was indeed made by "them"
> for their benefit exclusively.
>
> Udv.,
> Be'la

Friends,

    Thanks to Gabor Fencsik,  we had a discussion,  a short one but
    a discussion,  about free speach.  Gabor has  given  us a short
    summary of the  legal history  of free speach  in the US.  This
    history indicates that free speach, just like freedom in gener-
    al, is not limitless. It is important, therefore,not to confuse
    freedom with license. Freedom, at any level,  is an action with
    responsibility. Freedom is not a license to do anything accord-
    ing to one's whim. This is the rule that is, or should be,  ap-
    plied to any debate. It is that simple - or that difficult.
                                                               Amos

>
> >  Hungary is in my heart.  There is zero likelihood that anyone will
> >  change my views about hungary, in as much as their is any likelihood
> >  that somebody could shake my belief in God.  Therefore, I do not engage
> >  in such matters.
>
>         There is always room to change one's opinion about this or that. Of
> course, Hungary is in your heart but, at the same time, you might understand
> Hungary better if you understand its history or its current politics better.
> And, yes, you ought to be able to change your views at any time at any
> thing, including Hungary.
>
>         Eva Balogh


I find myself agreeing with this notion. I am suspicious
of anyone with 100% certainty of their own views. Even about their
country, and especially about their god.

Eva Durant

In article >, S or G Farkas
> writes:

>I doubt that anyone on the list feels uncomfortable with free speech.
>
>What a lot of us feel uncomfortable is the style of the speech.
>
>In civilized debate one uses arguments and maybe a limited dose of irony.
>But ad hominem attacks, character assasinations, rude words and the like
>bother some of us.
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
How much will it bother you when Szucs returns under some other guise and
resumes his character assassination on some other hapless victim? Do you
think argument and a dash of irony will turn him aside? How about ignoring
him? Until you've shown some willingness and capacity to engage Szucs and
his ilk directly, toe-to-toe, don't hector the rest of us. His target this
time around was a list member who practices the kind of restrained,
dispassionate academic approach to debate that you seek. And you and some
of the other seekers after civility let Szucs drag her through the mud
without a murmur of protest. I'll let Eva speak for herself, if she wants
to, about how she feels, but I think you ought to be ashamed of
yourselves. Only now that the boogeyman is back safely in his cage do you
dare to come out of hiding and comment. And you still can't even muster
the moxie to admit that Szucs came in with an a priori attack on Eva's
character. If there is any justice in the world, the next time Szucs or a
successor personality shows up here, one of you will be his intended
victim. Hope you enjoy it.
Sam Stowe

In article >, S or G Farkas
> writes:

>Getting back to the TGM article for a moment, I was very surpised at the
>vehement reaction of those who opposed it. After all the maint thrust of
the
>article is that those opposed to the extreme right do not have to
passively
>watch it. They have the right to stigmatize those who advocate facsist
and
>racist ideas.
>
>I have been practicing this on the HIX Forum because I think that
watching
>the extreme right silently gives them an aura of legitimity (if no one
>speaks up, they must be right...).
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
I find this fascinating, since you so obviously disapprove of stigmatizing
those on Hungary like Szucs who appear and attack your fellow list
members. Do you have two different sets of rules of engagement -- one for
one list and one for the other? If you have so much experience with
practising your debating skills against the extreme right, why didn't you
use them against Szucs when he began attacking Eva over and over again? If
you hadn't told all of us otherwise, I'd swear your store of debating
points against the extreme right boils down to some version or other of
"couldn't you please take this unpleasantness outside? I don't want to
have to deal with it."
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- I would like a copy of the TGM article in English, please, since
it appears that he may actually understand what it takes to successfully
deal with the more unsavory members of the extreme right.

In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:

>I find myself agreeing with this notion. I am suspicious
>of anyone with 100% certainty of their own views. Even about their
>country, and especially about their god.
>
>Eva Durant
>
>

How about Marx?
Sam Stowe

At 07:19 AM 5/2/96 -0400, Sam Stowe wrote:

>How much will it bother you when Szucs returns under some other guise and
>resumes his character assassination on some other hapless victim? Do you
>think argument and a dash of irony will turn him aside? How about ignoring
>him? Until you've shown some willingness and capacity to engage Szucs and
>his ilk directly, toe-to-toe, don't hector the rest of us. His target this
>time around was a list member who practices the kind of restrained,
>dispassionate academic approach to debate that you seek. And you and some
>of the other seekers after civility let Szucs drag her through the mud
>without a murmur of protest. I'll let Eva speak for herself, if she wants
>to, about how she feels, but I think you ought to be ashamed of
>yourselves. Only now that the boogeyman is back safely in his cage do you
>dare to come out of hiding and comment. And you still can't even muster
>the moxie to admit that Szucs came in with an a priori attack on Eva's
>character. If there is any justice in the world, the next time Szucs or a
>successor personality shows up here, one of you will be his intended
>victim. Hope you enjoy it.
>Sam Stowe

I am sorry to disappoint you but I always did and always will speak out
against  Szucs and his ilk. Maybe you missed some of my brief responses to
their mud-slinging.

However, I don't think that speaking up against them should mean lowering
myself to their style. I can just call them Nazis. And I think if they, or
anyone else drags someone through the mud we should all protest.

When I called for civilzed debate, I meant it for reasonable people, not the
Szucses of the world.

Please read the TGM article in Magyar Narancs, he talks about this issue
much more eloquently than I can (after all he is a philosopher/journalist
and I am an engineer).

Gabor D. Farkas

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> At 07:43 PM 5/1/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
> >        I missed Joe Szalai's sentence in which he expresses the feeling tha
t
 "occasional name calling" is perfectly all right. No, it isn't. Amos is 100
 percent righ. Have you ever heard of formal "debate" in which there is name
 calling? No, not in Canada, not in England, and not in the United Statess.
 (Sorry about countries I didn't mention here.) Name calling is not part of
 civilized debates. This newsgroup follows the rules of formal debate as much a
s
 it follows Roberts Rules of Order.  It does neither and those who wish to
 control this group only end up frustrating themselves.  And then they blame
 others for their discomfort.



Eva,  Before you attempt to describe what constitutes civil debate in
the U.S. and U.K.  maybe you should check out C-Span or read a few
newspapers.  I've spent some mirthful hours watching the House of
Commons during Question Time and have observed the "formal debate" and
"civil discourse" that you mention.  In my own country I've watched
members of the House of Representatives, Bob Dornan of California to
name one, do everything from calling the President a dope smoking liar
to accusing him of giving aid and comfort to "the enemy". I think you
should reconsider your remarks.  If you really want this list to emulate
the groups I've noted, you're in for an even worse time. Roberts Rules
of Order??  Let's get serious.

Regards,

Doug Hormann

On Wed, 1 May 1996, Janos Zsargo wrote:

> There are some problem with your point of view. First you should know, we
> (at least me) not arguing about what the Hungarians fought for in 1848-49,
> but why the hostilities broke out and whose fault was it. In this sense
> your post is supporting my point, i.e not the agressive behaviour of the
> Hungarians but rather the blindness and rigidity of the Habsburgs caused it.
[...   ]>
> P.S: I guess your misunderstanding come from that I compared the Hungarian
> Constitution to the French, American one. I ment with this comparision the
> civil rights, the elected government ('felelos kormany') and not the republic
.
> Also, I would like to remind you that the French revolution began as Constitu
-
> tional Monarchy!
>
Kedves Janos, I do not disagree with you about the rigidity of the
Habsburgs at that particular time. But the cause of the fight is not
going to be ease to pin down, because no matter how you approach the
question, you have to simplify. Why was the Metternich system
established? And why, indeed, did Eruope reject it? Any reference to the
events of March 1848 that focuses on Hungary only is bound to be
misleading: there was a new revolution in France, an unheard-of one in
Vienna, reform/revolution in the extra-Austrian German states, perpetual
revolution in Polish hearts and minds, revolution in Italy: it is this
that 'the Habsburgs' (whatever we mean by the term) defended themselves
against, and if we allow this, then anything they did in Hungary becomes
- at first - defensive offense. (Actually, the Hungarians made a feeble
attempt to go to the aid of the Viennese rebels first). At any rate:
there is no end to the 'oknyomozas' if we try to establish causes, and
assign faults. Just maybe it could not have been otherwise.

But I was (as you observed) reacting really to this sentence of yours:

 >> The hungarian constition (written or unwritten) and  what march 15
> >>represented was based on the ideology of French Rev. (and also > the
> >>American Constitution).

And within that sentence, to the phrase 'what march 15 represented.' I am
particularly interested in March 15 as a Hungarian symbol, in history,
but also in the present tense, i.e., what it represents. And that does,
indeed, go to the heart of the nationalist/royalist debate, although
rolyalist is really not the right term to use, I should think. It makes
little sense to ask whether you are for Kossuth or Franz Joseph,
precisely because the latter became dear old Ferenc Jooska in our
folklore. They are both a part of Hungarian history, and I find it very
difficult, in view of that, to say 'we' to Kossuth and 'they' to Ferenc
Jooska. My great-grandfather remembered the guns of Gabor Aron; my
grandfaher was a soldier of Kaiser Franz Joseph; my father of Kaiser
Franz Joseph and Ferenc Jozsef I., the King. All that is, in a unique
Hungarian way, mine, and in a very tiny way my responsibility. And yours.

As for France and Amercia: their influence is very much present in our
common heritage, in that you are right.

L. J. Elteto

Mid-nineteeth-century Hungarian history is not my specialty. I know
a great deal less about it than about 1918-1919 or the diplomatic history of
Hungary in the early 1920s. The reason for my mentioning it has something to
do with some misconceptions concerning the historian's trade. Readers of
both HUNGARY and FORUM know that currently a savage discussion is going on
about what distinquishes a historian who spent almost a decade studying
history from a layman who "is interested in history." According to the
self-proclaimed historians (far too numerous in Eastern Europe and therefore
in Hungary) there is no distinction between the professional historian and
the layman whatsoever. Any idiot who is capable to read a history book can
be just as good a historian as the one who spent a lifetime studying it.
Roman Kanala will remember well that more than two years ago a Slovak
nationalist, who happened to be an engineer, proudly announced on the Slovak
list that engineers are superior to historians because any idiot can
understand what a historian writes about while those who had not been
trained as engineers surely cannot understand most of what a professional
engineer writes about. Thank God there was a Slovak-American historian on
line who set our fellow straight!

        But going back to 1848. I cannot come up with something really
original about 1848 as I can come up with some original thought on the time
period I concentrated on. History, even the history of a small country, is
too vast for that. Therefore, I am turning to my former professor and
friend, Istvan Deak for help. Istvan Deak was also Be'la Batkay's professor
(in fact that's how Be'la and I know each other. Be'la might not know but it
was Istvan Deak who suggested his name to me when I was organizing a
round-table discussion for the annual meeting of the American Historical
Association). Let me see, in general term, what Istvan Deak had to say about
1848.

        "Because the word `revolution' has and will be bandied about in this
chapter, it should be defined. If by revolution we understand the sudden and
violent overthrow, by an armed multitude, of an established political order,
then the events of March 1848 do not qualify as a revolution. Hungary was,
before 1848, a kingdom under the Habsburg scepter, governed, more or less
constitutionally, by a curious combination of centralistic bureuacracy and
powerful provincial nobility. The events of March 1848 did not change these
facts. Despite, or perhaps because of, what happenend in March, the monarchy
continued to exist under the same king; the ancient liberties of the nation
were reaffirmed and codified into law; the provincial nobility actually
increased its influence and power; and the bureacurats remained in office
(although they were now supposed to take their orders from Budapest, rather
than from Vienna, through the intermediary of the Budapest Viceroyalty).
Furthermore, the very politicians who had created and led the dramatic
events of March 1848 insisted then and forever after that they had always
acted legally. In their opinion, they had done nothing in March 1848 except
restore the historic privileges of the nation, which a callous and
reactionary Viennese administration, the evil `Camarilla,' had violated.
        "Yet the March events can be considered a revolution if we are
prepared to extend the meaning of the term to include sudden and dramatic
concessions wrung from an intimidated central authority by a number of
determined politicians, using the threat of political violence and supported
by a widespread political movement. This is what happened in Hungary, and it
seems reason enough to accept the Hungarian custom of referring to the
events of March 1848 as a revolution. Perhaps it would be better to call it
a `lawful revolution'!"

.....

        "The constitution [April Laws] had other shortcomings of a more
practical than an ideological nature, though this did not make them less
grave. The king's privileges were threated by the special status granted to
the palatine, who might one day be a Hungarian rather than a Habsburg
archduke. The competencies of the `minister near his majesty' were not
specified; the Hungarians would regard him as their foreign representative,
dealing with Austria and even foreign powers. Since Austria now also had a
foreign minister, this meant that the Habsburg monarchy  would have two
foreign ministers, two foreign services, and, conceivably, two different
foreign policies. Nor did the April Laws make clear what the job of the
Hungarian minister of finance would be, or how much the traditional royal
revenues would actually reach the court. In any case, the Hungarians refused
outright to contribute a single penny toward the astronominal Austrian state
debt, which was, after all, also their debt. Finally, there was to be a
Hungarian minister of war and a Hungarian army, but no one had the slightest
idea how this minister would coordinate his activities with the newly
created Austrian minister of war. What troops would belong to the Hungarian
army? How would it be recruited? Would it defend only Hungary's frontiers or
also those of Austria? . . .

        "A monarchy consisting of two foreign services, two financial
administrations, and two armed forces was ungovernable. Therefore, it was
only a question of time before the Hungarians would either make some
concessions to sanity, secede from the monarchy, or go to war against Austria.

        "The trouble was that the Hungarian leaders themselves could not
decide whether Hungary should or could stay in the monarchy. Their fear of
Russia, the Pan-Slav movement, and peasant and national minority revolts
drove them toward a close alliance with the ruler and the Austrian half of
the monarchy. Their nationalist ambitions, on the other hand, and their fear
that the monarchy might collapse any day, prompted the Hungarian politicians
to prepare for complete indepence.

        "The result was confusion, which satisfied neither the Austrians nor
the Hungarian nationalists."

        Source: Istvan Deak "The Revolution and the War of Indepence,
1848-1849," *A History of Hungary,* eds. Peter Sugar, Peter Hanak, and Tibor
Frank. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.

       Istvan Deak is an expert, unlike me, on 1848, but it seems that our
assessments are very similar. I suggest to Janos Zsargo, who is interested
in history, to read Istvan Deak's book on 1848. He will acquire a more
balanced view of what was going on in Hungary in 1848-48 by reading Deak's
book than what was offered to him by his high-school history books.

        And one more thing. I am one of the few Hungarians who doesn't think
too highly a Kossuth. Sorry, sorry! This is what happens when you become a
historian and try to develop historical objectivity. According to some of
our "patriots" such objectivity equals treason to the national cause. Or a
historian like Istvan Deak, or myself can be called--as I was called only
today--a foreign mercenary! This is what can happen if you chose the
dangerous historical profession. Damnation in some nationalist purgatory.


        Eva Balogh

And one more thing, Janos. You didn't answer my question about our
possible victory over the Austrians, if Austria did not receive any foreign
help, in this case, Russian. I asked: What would we have done with a
population whose absolute majority was non-Hungarian and who had similar
nationalist aspiration to those the Hungarians had vis a vis Austria?

        Eva Balogh

Kedves Eva,

>        And one more thing, Janos. You didn't answer my question about our
>possible victory over the Austrians, if Austria did not receive any foreign
>help, in this case, Russian. I asked: What would we have done with a
>population whose absolute majority was non-Hungarian and who had similar
>nationalist aspiration to those the Hungarians had vis a vis Austria?
>
>        Eva Balogh

I will, don't worry! But just a reaction to your other post. You did not
answer my previous posts, did not care with my arguments. You simple
covered yourself with an expert (tekintelyre hivatkoztal) and basicly
said to me 'viragnyelven' that 'Kibicnek kuss!'. Well, this was not really
kind.

Janos

In article >, Joe Szalai
> says:

>I am getting really tired of your daily request for a certain kind of
>behaviour on this newsgroup.  This list is not a staff meeting!  If you want
>staff meeting politness and intellectual rigor mortis get off this list.
>This list allows for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and yes, even the
>occasional name calling.  That is what a debate is.  But you wouldn't know
>that as I've not seen you debate anyone.  A debate scares you silly, dosen't
>it?  It's a good thing that you don't remind us daily what the fighters of
>1956 were called.  Get a life, damn it!!

Although I believe that Joe's *get a life*, etc, was rather unnecessary
in reply to Martha's posting, since Martha doesn't normally engage in
slanging matches or use that kind of vernacular (she's a really civilized
and great Lady, Joe, believe me), I still have grave doubts about the
moderation of the group, as seems to be happening. In the big rush to
be seen as the most squeaky clean civilized ng on the net, please be aware
of the very real dangers in making the group a mutual back-slapping society
dominated by a few mega-egos with their lapdog sycophants obediently
applauding. Since most of you seem to think that the USA is where it's
all at, please remind yourselves of the following:

      *IRREVERENCE IS THE CHAMPION OF LIBERTY*

      MARK TWAIN (Notebook 1888)

I think that we're all mature enough to put up with a certain amount of
barracking and rough language, now and again, especially when we know
that it's not coming from the likes of a hysterical fruitcake like Szucs.
I defend Joe's right to post as much as I defend my right to criticize
his posting. Let's not get too self-righteous, pleeeeze.

Regards,

--
 George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
 Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * Cybernautic address: 
 Acorn..RISC OS * IBM PeeCee..PCDOS..Win-OS/2 * NW London Computer Club
 ICPUG..Commodore=64 ** Interested in s/h chess books? Ask for my list!

At 10:57 PM 5/2/96 GMT, you wrote:
>. In the big rush to
>be seen as the most squeaky clean civilized ng
George:

Forgive my ignorance;  but could you expound  on "ng"?
Thanks
Aniko

At 23:50 02/05/96 -0300, Aniko queried:
>At 10:57 PM 5/2/96 GMT, George wrote:
>>. In the big rush to
>>be seen as the most squeaky clean civilized ng
>George:
>
>Forgive my ignorance;  but could you expound  on "ng"?
>Thanks
>Aniko

Hali, Aniko!

That's an abbreviation for "Newsgroup". Was that what you wanted to know?

Uh, George, just let me put in my two cents. I don't think there's any
danger of the intellectual life of the List getting stifled by sycophantism.
There is a vigorous debate on most issues, and lots of room for disagreement
without getting into personal vitriol, which tends to turn me off even when
I agree with the point of view of the writer.

Joe's animosity toward the desire for order suggests to me that he probably
has his fill of order during his day job - you can't be more structured than
a library, now can you? - and wants to cut loose with wild anarchy on his
own time. Speaking for myself, however, I can say that a sense of order and
security seems to be something that is sadly lacking in my life these days.

One thing about the Net - it may be anarchistic, but at least everyone has a
chance to speak their peace without being shouted down - one difference
between the Net and the debates in Parliament.

Is it just my perception, or does it really seem that some of this dichotomy
about politeness break into gender lines?

TTFN :-)

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
>
>

Dear fellow-listmembers,

And a footnote to the footnote:  there's at least one quite reasonably-well
respected British historian who wrote a specialized monograph on Radetzky's
victory over the Italians in Italy, who maintains that the eventual Austrian
victory over the Hungarian revolution in 1849 was ensured by the defeat of
Charles Albert and the Piedmontese, in the long run, whether the Russians
had intervened or not.  He is Alan Sked, and the thesis is argued in his
book on the Habsburg monarchy whose exact title I can't remember at this
hour.

The emperor who as legitimately crowned King of Hungary signed the March
(April) Laws was Ferdinand, I as Emperor of Austria, V as Czech King, and
I don't know what his number was as King of Hungary.  He was Franz Joseph's
uncle, not his father.  He was epileptic and mentally incapable of ruling,
so the imperial council established by his father, Franz I (II), chaired
by Archduke Ludwig (often called the least intelligent of all Franz's
brothers), with Metternich and Franz Anton Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky serving
on it, actually ruled while Ferdinand merely reigned.  He abdicated in
December, 1848, and was replaced by Franz Joseph, who was not crowned
until 1868, so when the Hungarians finally deposed the house of Habsburg
and elected Kossuth Governor, it was Franz Joseph who claimed to be the
King, but he had not been crowned and hadn't sworn the coronation oath.
What that means in international jurisprudence, I'm not sure...

I think maybe Bela Batkay is a little too nostalgic for the old Kakania.
But that's a subject for another post, which I'll try to work on tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

I might only add to Eva Balogh's masterful citation from Istvan Deak's
chapter that Deak used the term "lawful revolution" in the title of his
book on the events of 1848-49.

Udv.,
Be'la

Hi all,

If you have a moment, drop the kids a line.  Then, post it to as many
lists and as many people as you can.  Since the answers are simple, they
can be sent in most any language.

It would be nice to translate the message and post it in many different
languages - if you have the time.

Make their project a great success.  Remember - we were also kids once!  :)

Martha

> =================================================
---------- Forwarded message ----------
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