on Feb 11 10:45:31 EST 1997 HUNGARY #912:

>>P.S.  My apologies to the innocent bystanders.  This whole thing started
>>after a disagreement on a historical fact.  Sam simply could not forgive
my
>>correcting his notion of Jelacic, whom he thought to be a victorious Serb
>>general in 1848.

>You didn't "correct" anything, Frank. You simply tried to reverse-engineer
>the historical record and I caught you doing it and showed how little you
>actually know about the events of 1848. (or are willing to address those
>events in an even-handed, honest manner) You are indeed living proof that
>a fool and his misconceptions are not soon parted.
>Sam Stowe

Now, Samu, this takes the cake.  Not only will you not acknowledge that you
were wrong on Jellacic (which is no mortal sin), but you actually state that
you know more about 1848 than I.  Permit me to say that, being an engineer, I
probably have a better understanding of what reverse engineering is than you
do.  Your own pronouncements actually come pretty close to it.

One more thing, if I may, Samu: Your tactic of attempting to silence your
critics with pseudo-witticisms is not only pitiful, but self-defeating.  To
wit: your last sentence fits you perfectly.

Ferenc

Mr Peter Orban proposes a letter to be sent to the new President of
the International Court at the Hague:

>    The International Court of Justice has elected a new President,
> the American professor of law (the Johns Hopkins University) Stephen
> Schwebel. Since the new President probably does not know the details
> about the upcoming Danube lawsuit yet, it is important that we inform
> him. It is likely that the new President is sensible to a letter campaign.
>    We have to convince President Schwebel about the Compromise
> Plan proposed by Bela Liptak and environmental organizations. This
> plan ensures the survival of the Danube Wetlands.
>    What to do:
>    Please send a letter to the new President of the World Court, Stephen
> Schwebel. Ask him to rule for the environment, that is to consider the
> Compromise Plan. Feel free to use the sample letter below.

I do not doubt the proposed letter was written with the best of intentions.
I am all for lobbying presidents, vice-presidents, legislators, journalists,
and diplomats, but judges are a different matter altogether.  I think this
form of political pressure on judges and justices is a very questionable
proposition.

Judges are affected by politics, but they are not politicians.  The main
thing, indeed the only thing, expected of a judge is to be impartial in
the weighing of the evidence presented in his court by advocates of the
opposing sides.  The only legitimate way of influencing a court decision
is by being party to the case, or joining it as amicus curiae and arguing
it in the courtroom.

Applying public pressure on a judge in a case currently being adjudicated
is likely to be counterproductive.  A judge subjected to such pressure
may reasonably feel his integrity is under attack.  The most likely reaction
of a judge under these circumstances is to bend over backwards to be seen
to be impartial, and demonstrate judicial impartiality by being harsher on
the litigant that he believes is putting extra-judicial pressure on him.
Remember, judges are mere humans who resent being taken for a dope, and
may not take kindly to attempts to push them around.  And they are not
running for re-election either.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

I was considering to say somthing to the same effect.
Exerting pressure on courts is a very problematic issue
- to say the least - per se.
As a judge, I would be prejudiced against to issue of
those trying to influence me from the outside...
( As Gabor put it : it is likely to be counterproduc-
tive ). This was already the case when demo was to
be organized in Szigetkoez...
I fully subscribe to your remarks, Gabor, though I
share Peter Orban4s feeling on the case.
Miklos Hoffmann

<Mr Peter Orban proposes a letter to be sent to the new President of
<the International Court at the Hague:

>    The International Court of Justice has elected a new President,
> the American professor of law (the Johns Hopkins University) Stephen
> Schwebel. Since the new President probably does not know the details
> about the upcoming Danube lawsuit yet, it is important that we inform
> him. It is likely that the new President is sensible to a letter campaign.
>    We have to convince President Schwebel about the Compromise
> Plan proposed by Bela Liptak and environmental organizations. This
> plan ensures the survival of the Danube Wetlands.
>    What to do:
>    Please send a letter to the new President of the World Court, Stephen
> Schwebel. Ask him to rule for the environment, that is to consider the
> Compromise Plan. Feel free to use the sample letter below.

<<I do not doubt the proposed letter was written with the best of intentions.
<<I am all for lobbying presidents, vice-presidents, legislators, journalists,
<<and diplomats, but judges are a different matter altogether.  I think this
<<form of political pressure on judges and justices is a very questionable
<<proposition.

<<Judges are affected by politics, but they are not politicians.  The main
<<thing, indeed the only thing, expected of a judge is to be impartial in
<<the weighing of the evidence presented in his court by advocates of the
<<opposing sides.  The only legitimate way of influencing a court decision
<<is by being party to the case, or joining it as amicus curiae and arguing
<<it in the courtroom.

<<Applying public pressure on a judge in a case currently being adjudicated
<<is likely to be counterproductive.  A judge subjected to such pressure
<<may reasonably feel his integrity is under attack.  The most likely reaction
<<of a judge under these circumstances is to bend over backwards to be seen
<<to be impartial, and demonstrate judicial impartiality by being harsher on
<<the litigant that he believes is putting extra-judicial pressure on him.
<<Remember, judges are mere humans who resent being taken for a dope, and
<<may not take kindly to attempts to push them around.  And they are not
<<running for re-election either.

<<-----
<<Gabor Fencsik

On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

> Mr Peter Orban proposes a letter to be sent to the new President of
> the International Court at the Hague:
>
> >    The International Court of Justice has elected a new President,
> > the American professor of law (the Johns Hopkins University) Stephen
> > Schwebel. Since the new President probably does not know the details
> > about the upcoming Danube lawsuit yet, it is important that we inform
> > him. It is likely that the new President is sensible to a letter campaign.
> >    We have to convince President Schwebel about the Compromise
> > Plan proposed by Bela Liptak and environmental organizations. This
> > plan ensures the survival of the Danube Wetlands.
--------
>
> I do not doubt the proposed letter was written with the best of intentions.
> I am all for lobbying presidents, vice-presidents, legislators, journalists,
> and diplomats, but judges are a different matter altogether.  I think this
> form of political pressure on judges and justices is a very questionable
> proposition.
--------
>
> Applying public pressure on a judge in a case currently being adjudicated
> is likely to be counterproductive.  A judge subjected to such pressure
> may reasonably feel his integrity is under attack.  The most likely reaction
> of a judge under these circumstances is to bend over backwards to be seen
> to be impartial, and demonstrate judicial impartiality by being harsher on
> the litigant that he believes is putting extra-judicial pressure on him.
> Remember, judges are mere humans who resent being taken for a dope, and
> may not take kindly to attempts to push them around.  And they are not
> running for re-election either.
>
> -----
> Gabor Fencsik
> 
> --------------

   I completely agree with Gabor, but he is way too kind.  This
campaign reveals, if not a complete, at least partial ignorance
about our constitution based judicial system.  Therefore,  this
proposed activity ignores  the basic tenents  of democratic be-
havior.
   Mr. Orban, in a recent letter,  has praised the judge's pro-
fessionalism and still wanted  to influance his decision in the
same sentence.
   Such behavior  makes certain  that outsiders  will view such
action as unfair and undemocratic.  It will alienate especially
those domestic and  international leaders whose  help Mr. Orban
tries to solicit. Very sad.
   And I resent that all these unsolicited proposals mess up my
mailbox.  I am not a member  of the HL and  I prefer not to re-
ceive info., unless I request it.
                                   Amos

At 06:27 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>ARCHDUKE FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE --
>    FIRST WORLD WAR A MISTAKE
>
>More details will follow!
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>

I may have been the only one who thought that Joe Szalai has great promise
and one day he will surprise all of us, but I am glad to see that he did not
disappoint me.

Great going Joe....


Charlie Vamossy

Dear friends,

to a certain point I agree with the arguments of Gabor. However - I
wish to emphasize these words of Gabor - even judges are humans and
thereby influenced by their environment.

For instance:
Last year the former colonel of the SS Priebke was accused in Italy
for being responsible for war crimes. The highest Italian military
court acquitted him (I think it was because of the lack of evidence).
The indignation of the Italians brought the court to charge him in a
new lawsuit.

Even at the recent lawsuit we have already reached al lot by our
letter campaign. Thanks to the public pressure the court decided that
environmental organizations (including the Foundation for the Hungarian
 environment
lead by Bela Liptak) can join the lawsuit as a third party.

Thus, I think we should continue our letter campaign.

Best wishes
Peter

Mr. Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
> I do not doubt the proposed letter was written with the best of intentions.
> I am all for lobbying presidents, vice-presidents, legislators, journalists,
> and diplomats, but judges are a different matter altogether.  I think this
> form of political pressure on judges and justices is a very questionable
> proposition.
>
> Judges are affected by politics, but they are not politicians.  The main
> thing, indeed the only thing, expected of a judge is to be impartial in
> the weighing of the evidence presented in his court by advocates of the
> opposing sides.  The only legitimate way of influencing a court decision
> is by being party to the case, or joining it as amicus curiae and arguing
> it in the courtroom.
>
> Applying public pressure on a judge in a case currently being adjudicated
> is likely to be counterproductive.  A judge subjected to such pressure
> may reasonably feel his integrity is under attack.  The most likely reaction
> of a judge under these circumstances is to bend over backwards to be seen
> to be impartial, and demonstrate judicial impartiality by being harsher on
> the litigant that he believes is putting extra-judicial pressure on him.
> Remember, judges are mere humans who resent being taken for a dope, and
> may not take kindly to attempts to push them around.  And they are not
> running for re-election either.
>
> -----
> Gabor Fencsik
> 
>
>

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
 normal

Background:
  Our thousands of letters and nearly a dozen newspaper advertisements
have reached President Clinton and we stand a good chance that
American support for COLLECTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS will become an integral
part of American foreign policy. The people who took the trouble to
write deserve our thanks. The continuation of this effort is the prime
task of the Hungarian Lobby. 

What to do:
  Please write President Clinton and ask him to make the collective
human rights an integral part of American foreign policy. Please send
them out every day(!)  Please, distribute them to all your
acquaintances who care about human rights. 
  Feel free to use the attached sample letters: letter #1 is 
applicable for Hungarian-Americans, letter #2 for non-American 
citizens.
  Address of Clinton (e-mail):
    

**************************************************************

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #1 for Hungarian-Americans:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

President Bill Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, D.C.
(e-mail: )

RE: Support Collective Human Rights in Central Europe

Dear Mr. President,

Every culture is sacred. The destruction of a single one mutilates the
heritage of the entire human race. International standards are needed
to protect them all. We Americans must accept the historical
responsibility of leading in the development of international
standards which will protect the collective human rights of all
indigenous minority groups.

We must lead as we pass on the bridge to the 21st century, just as we
led during the Second World War when we decided to protect the
individual human rights of all. Collective human rights flow from
those of the individual because such basic rights as the use of one's
language can only be practiced in groups. There is no other choice.
There are no melting pots in the Screbenicas of the world. The
alternative to cultural autonomy is mass graves and cultural genocide.

Mr. President: In this century the United States was obliged to
intervene in Europe three times. The only way to permanently 
eliminate the need for sending our troops on similar missions in the
future, is to eliminate the cause of these conflicts. This should be
done by uniformly satisfying the aspirations of all indigenous
minority groups. If, as the President of the United States, you would
make the defense of collective human rights and cultural autonomy a
cornerstone of your foreign policy, you would permanently eliminate
the need for our G.I.s to get entangled in future European conflicts.

As a member of the 1.58 million community of Hungarian-Americans, I
ask you to make the cultural autonomy of all indigenous national
minorities of Central Europe an integral part of your foreign policy.

Respectfully yours

Your name, address and title. If this letter is signed by many, please
use the attached form to list the names and addresses.

cc: Vice President Al Gore
)

NAME                                  ADDRESS
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #2 for non-American citizens:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

President Bill Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, D.C.
(e-mail: )

RE: Support Collective Human Rights in Central Europe

Dear Mr. President,

Every culture is sacred. The destruction of a single one mutilates the
heritage of the entire human race. International standards are needed
to protect them all. The Americans must accept the historical
responsibility of leading in the development of international
standards which will protect the collective human rights of all
indigenous minority groups.

USA must lead as we pass on the bridge to the 21st century, just as
you led during the Second World War when we decided to protect the
individual human rights of all. Collective human rights flow from
those of the individual because such basic rights as the use of one's
language can only be practiced in groups. There is no other choice.
There are no melting pots in the Screbenicas of the world. The
alternative to cultural autonomy is mass graves and cultural genocide.

Mr. President: In this century the United States was obliged to
intervene in Europe three times. The only way to permanently 
eliminate the need for sending our troops on similar missions in the
future, is to eliminate the cause of these conflicts. This should be
done by uniformly satisfying the aspirations of all indigenous
minority groups. If, as the President of the United States, you would
make the defense of collective human rights and cultural autonomy a
cornerstone of your foreign policy, you would permanently eliminate
the need for our G.I.s to get entangled in future European conflicts.

As a human right activist, I ask you to make the cultural autonomy of
all indigenous national minorities of Central Europe an integral part
of your foreign policy. 

Respectfully yours

Your name, address and title. If this letter is signed by many, please
use the attached form to list the names and addresses.

cc: Vice President Al Gore
)

NAME                                  ADDRESS
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
 normal

Background:
  Our thousands of letters and nearly a dozen newspaper advertisements
have reached President Clinton and we stand a good chance that
American support for COLLECTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS will become an integral
part of American foreign policy. The people who took the trouble to
write deserve our thanks. The continuation of this effort is the prime
task of the Hungarian Lobby.

What to do:
  Please write President Clinton and ask him to make the collective
human rights an integral part of American foreign policy. Please send
them out every day(!)  Please, distribute them to all your
acquaintances who care about human rights.
  Feel free to use the attached sample letters: letter #1 is
applicable for Hungarian-Americans, letter #2 for non-American
citizens.
  Address of Clinton (e-mail):
   

**************************************************************

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #1 for Hungarian-Americans:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

President Bill Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, D.C.
(e-mail: )

RE: Support Collective Human Rights in Central Europe

Dear Mr. President,

Every culture is sacred. The destruction of a single one mutilates the
heritage of the entire human race. International standards are needed
to protect them all. We Americans must accept the historical
responsibility of leading in the development of international
standards which will protect the collective human rights of all
indigenous minority groups.

We must lead as we pass on the bridge to the 21st century, just as we
led during the Second World War when we decided to protect the
individual human rights of all. Collective human rights flow from
those of the individual because such basic rights as the use of one's
language can only be practiced in groups. There is no other choice.
There are no melting pots in the Screbenicas of the world. The
alternative to cultural autonomy is mass graves and cultural genocide.

Mr. President: In this century the United States was obliged to
intervene in Europe three times. The only way to permanently
eliminate the need for sending our troops on similar missions in the
future, is to eliminate the cause of these conflicts. This should be
done by uniformly satisfying the aspirations of all indigenous
minority groups. If, as the President of the United States, you would
make the defense of collective human rights and cultural autonomy a
cornerstone of your foreign policy, you would permanently eliminate
the need for our G.I.s to get entangled in future European conflicts.

As a member of the 1.58 million community of Hungarian-Americans, I
ask you to make the cultural autonomy of all indigenous national
minorities of Central Europe an integral part of your foreign policy.

Respectfully yours

Your name, address and title. If this letter is signed by many, please
use the attached form to list the names and addresses.

cc: Vice President Al Gore
)

NAME                                  ADDRESS
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #2 for non-American citizens:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

President Bill Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, D.C.
(e-mail: )

RE: Support Collective Human Rights in Central Europe

Dear Mr. President,

Every culture is sacred. The destruction of a single one mutilates the
heritage of the entire human race. International standards are needed
to protect them all. The Americans must accept the historical
responsibility of leading in the development of international
standards which will protect the collective human rights of all
indigenous minority groups.

USA must lead as we pass on the bridge to the 21st century, just as
you led during the Second World War when we decided to protect the
individual human rights of all. Collective human rights flow from
those of the individual because such basic rights as the use of one's
language can only be practiced in groups. There is no other choice.
There are no melting pots in the Screbenicas of the world. The
alternative to cultural autonomy is mass graves and cultural genocide.

Mr. President: In this century the United States was obliged to
intervene in Europe three times. The only way to permanently
eliminate the need for sending our troops on similar missions in the
future, is to eliminate the cause of these conflicts. This should be
done by uniformly satisfying the aspirations of all indigenous
minority groups. If, as the President of the United States, you would
make the defense of collective human rights and cultural autonomy a
cornerstone of your foreign policy, you would permanently eliminate
the need for our G.I.s to get entangled in future European conflicts.

As a human right activist, I ask you to make the cultural autonomy of
all indigenous national minorities of Central Europe an integral part
of your foreign policy.

Respectfully yours

Your name, address and title. If this letter is signed by many, please
use the attached form to list the names and addresses.

cc: Vice President Al Gore
)

NAME                                  ADDRESS
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Kadar Gyoergy wrote :

<        3) I mentioned "conservative morality" and not "moralism". The
<distinction in my mind is important. I mean by that much more a practical
<style, a norm of behavior, than a doctrine. The word "moralism" (as any
<"-ism") involves an ideological doctrine. That is not, what I mean...

I noticed that. But did anybody mention moralism? I must have missed it.

Miklos Hoffmann

Kadar Gyoergy wrote :

        2) I mentioned several facts of the beginnings of the 1989-90
political changes. It is a pleasure for me, that nobody wanted to
reinterpret those facts so far...

I think, I interpret 1989-90 similarly to you. That doesn4t
mean, that we are both right.
Nor is valid, that qui tacet consentire videtur.

Miklos Hoffmann

Now let4s handle different issues separately :

Kadar Gyoergy wrote :
<        First of all let us clear several points:
<        1) The name of a person is his/her most private property. I happen
<to know personally Gyorgy Jalsovszky (not Jelsowsky!) and for him I am
<(and for me he is) Gyuri. But I am not Kadargyorgyevics for anybody, who
<might wish to communicate with me. Even if otherwise I like the postings
<of Miklos Hoffmann (who is certainly not an Udvaronc ;-) for anybody.
<Am I right, Miklos?).

Certainly, if you wish.

Jelsowsky was a misprint.

I am not going to tease you again, but Udvaronc
wouldn4t do it, either  : as you probably speak
German, you know, Hoffmann would have to be writ-
ten with one "f". Double "f" come from Hoffnung,
hope, reme4ny.

Miklos Hoffmann

Joe Szalai wrote
<<ARCHDUKE FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE --
    FIRST WORLD WAR A MISTAKE>>

So why don4t you call it off?
Poor Otto, no longer Head of thge House...

Miklos Hoffmann

Kadar Gyoergy wrote :

<<<        And at last: What I mean on conservative morality?
<        The balance of rights and duties and responsibilities. Rights
<without duties are characteristic of dictators. Duties without rights are
<characteristic of slaves. Now we are approaching a social separation
<between a small group of irresponsible dictators and the rest of the
<<Hungarian population.
<        The balance of individual and public interests. The balance of
<autonomous communities and national solidarity among them. Now we are
<<approaching a separation between a small number of (mainly Transdanubian)
<<flourishing communities and the desperate rest of Hungary.
<        At the moment I stop here with theoretical desciptions. All kinds
<of balances (and checks...) could be mentioned but I am not good enough in
<creating a social theory, I am more at home with facts...
<        Specific examples of conservative morality:
<The most relevant in our case: No right for anybody to publish lies and
<falsifications in the public media without serious consequences.
<And some others:   No right for anybody to refuse to be subjected to the
<examination of a parlamentary committee without serious consequences.
<No right for the criminals to follow the personal data of the victims and
<witnesses. No right for financial and economic criminals to continue or to
<restart their activities after caught in criminal act (in delicto
<flagrante). No right for anybody to think that money can buy anything in
<Hungary (certificates of high-school maturity or university degree,
<passports {even with obviously false identity from an official Hungarian
<consular office}, policemen, custom's officers, etc. etc.).
<        All these examples are taken from the actual everyday life of
<Hungary. From the return of some of "conservative morality" I expect
<more equal chance for the start of more democratic (i.e. fearless, see
<Istvan Bibo) citizen's life for the vast majority of Hungarian citizens
<irrespective of their residence place, their social heritage, their
<nationality, their sex, etc. I expect from citizens the respect of Law and
<staying far away from e.g. the above mentioned "No right..." phenomena. I
<expect that citizens will approve more the actions of a honest policeman
<that those of a "clever" criminal. I expect a way of life which I was
<fortunate enough to experience for shorter or longer periods in Italy, in
<France, in Canada and in the USA, or which I could sniff for some days in
<Germany, Switzerland, England, etc. These countries are not the heavens as
<we all know. The economic state of Hungary is to be accepted as it is and
<improved as much as possible, as soon as possible, with all available
<possible means.
<        But all the good intentions for economic, social, political,
<cultural, etc. improvements are in vain without a firm system of moral
<values (or for the beginning well enforced legal rules), and for us such a
<<system can be most easily constructed on the basis of traditional
<European, that is conservative, moral values (and legal rules).

No objection at face value. We most people would agree...
Who is against...country? For my perception, it4s less the
definition of a conservative ( it4s traditional, indeed. I
wouldn4t call it conservative ) morality than the descrip-
tion of the some consequences of it.

To get there, it would be necessary to talk about "a
firm system of moral values" ( see above ). And it would
be necessary that there is a wide consensus in society
about values. On that consensus are social systems built
upon.

There is a fundamental problem with "No right for every-
body to publish lies without serious consequences" :
Us two we probably agree...but : Comrade Rakosi could have
said that with the same words and yet meant something dif-
ferent. I think there is no way aroung the freedom of opi-
nion, not just correct opinion.

Miklos Hoffmann

Hugh Agnew writes:

>
>Actually, I saw an article once (my memory let me down so badly on the
>details of Peter Bornemissza's century and religion that I hesitate to
>say more, but I think ;-) that it was in Slavonic and East European
>Review, or some other journal from UK, written by Paul Vysny, that _did_
>compare Slovakia to Scotland in many ways...

My God, next we'll hear that they are eating haggis also?

Regards,Jeliko

On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, jeliko wrote:

> Hugh Agnew writes:
>
> >
> >Actually, I saw an article once (my memory let me down so badly on the
> >details of Peter Bornemissza's century and religion that I hesitate to
> >say more, but I think ;-) that it was in Slavonic and East European
> >Review, or some other journal from UK, written by Paul Vysny, that _did_
> >compare Slovakia to Scotland in many ways...

Jeliko's comments
>
> My God, next we'll hear that they are eating haggis also?
>
> Regards,Jeliko
>


Warning, danger,  geographer pontificating again. Warning, danger will
robinsion :-) (Please forgive the campy sci-fi reference)

Comparisons across countries are totally invalid. This is what drives me
crazy with comparative politics...they haven't a clue about the contextual
factors that make them different, they just explain it away with an error
term in a regression (so do quantitative modelers in geography...but they
bug me as well).

The only thing they really ahve in common is the fact that they are
mountainous, were subject to another ethnic group, and have developed
their own identities. comparing relationships to dominant peoples should
be done only to highlight particularities.

Just my humble opinion...I can't stand those who want to make laws in the
social sciences. There are no hard an fast rules for people.

Darren Purcell
Program for Instructional Excellence
and Department of Geography
Flrodia State University

>Comparisons across countries are totally invalid. This is what drives me
>crazy with comparative politics...they haven't a clue about the contextual
>factors that make them different, they just explain it away with an error
>term in a regression (so do quantitative modelers in geography...but they
>bug me as well).
>
>Darren Purcell
>Program for Instructional Excellence
>and Department of Geography
>Flrodia State University

I know what you mean, but you can't say it in totality. Of course
comparisons can be made and as long as you factor in the unique
circumstances for each location, you can come up with a proper conclusion.
This is all generally speaking, but so was your comment.

Doug Holmes

   ================================================================
Doug da Rocha Holmes            | Doug Holmes - Director
------------------------------- | Hungarian/American Friendship Society
Specialist in Azorean Genealogy | Website: www.dholmes.com/hafs.html
Website: www.dholmes.com        | (Specializing in Hungarian & Slovak genealogy
)
   ================================================================

At 01:59 PM 2/13/97 +0100, Gyorgy Kadar wrote:

>        I am glad, that both my lengthy postings of yesterday and the day
>before yesterday were so much acceptable, that only one point
>(conservative morality) was found worth to be attacked in the first one.

        As I told everybody I don't know enough of the topic to have an
opinion. However, I am sure that there are people on this list who were
around then and followed Hungarian developments. They should be the one to
have a discussion with you.

        As for morality of the good, old days; that is, before the communist
takeover and the corrupting effects of the Kadar regime. I have no doubt
that the corrupting effects are real. However, I have the feeling that you
somewhat idalize the purity of Hungarian morality before 1948. I do remember
how people like wild animals took everything which could be moved from
abandoned manor houses, castles, and everything else during 1944-45. Or, how
Jewish property which had been stored after the Hungarian Jews had to
abandon their houses/apartments was looted. Sure, public officials couldn't
be easily bribed as they can be today. Or doctors were not expected to hold
out their hands for "tips." In general, Hungary still had remnants of high
professional standards of its public servants as a leftover from the days of
the monarchy. We were not the Balkans. Or, we were not Romania between the
two world wars where even ministers could be bribed. But, at the same time,
let's not talk about "our morality" in such glowing terms because I suspect
our former virtues are somewhat exaggerated.

        Eva Balogh

>
>        First of all let us clear several points:
>        1) The name of a person is his/her most private property. I happen
>to know personally Gyorgy Jalsovszky (not Jelsowsky!) and for him I am
>(and for me he is) Gyuri. But I am not Kadargyorgyevics for anybody, who
>might wish to communicate with me. Even if otherwise I like the postings
>of Miklos Hoffmann (who is certainly not an Udvaronc ;-) for anybody.
>Am I right, Miklos?).
>        2) I mentioned several facts of the beginnings of the 1989-90
>political changes. It is a pleasure for me, that nobody wanted to
>reinterpret those facts so far...
>        3) I mentioned "conservative morality" and not "moralism". The
>distinction in my mind is important. I mean by that much more a practical
>style, a norm of behavior, than a doctrine. The word "moralism" (as any
>"-ism") involves an ideological doctrine. That is not, what I mean...
>        4) I did not write anything about the question, where Hungary
>should turn/return/go/stay or whatever. I wrote: "without the return of
>conservative morality". Hungary is and stays where she is (Central
>Europe! any objection?)...
>
>        And at last: What I mean on conservative morality?
>        The balance of rights and duties and responsibilities. Rights
>without duties are characteristic of dictators. Duties without rights are
>characteristic of slaves. Now we are approaching a social separation
>between a small group of irresponsible dictators and the rest of the
>Hungarian population.
>        The balance of individual and public interests. The balance of
>autonomous communities and national solidarity among them. Now we are
>approaching a separation between a small number of (mainly Transdanubian)
>flourishing communities and the desperate rest of Hungary.
>        At the moment I stop here with theoretical desciptions. All kinds
>of balances (and checks...) could be mentioned but I am not good enough in
>creating a social theory, I am more at home with facts...
>        Specific examples of conservative morality:
>The most relevant in our case: No right for anybody to publish lies and
>falsifications in the public media without serious consequences.
>And some others:   No right for anybody to refuse to be subjected to the
>examination of a parlamentary committee without serious consequences.
>No right for the criminals to follow the personal data of the victims and
>witnesses. No right for financial and economic criminals to continue or to
>restart their activities after caught in criminal act (in delicto
>flagrante). No right for anybody to think that money can buy anything in
>Hungary (certificates of high-school maturity or university degree,
>passports {even with obviously false identity from an official Hungarian
>consular office}, policemen, custom's officers, etc. etc.).
>        All these examples are taken from the actual everyday life of
>Hungary. From the return of some of "conservative morality" I expect
>more equal chance for the start of more democratic (i.e. fearless, see
>Istvan Bibo) citizen's life for the vast majority of Hungarian citizens
>irrespective of their residence place, their social heritage, their
>nationality, their sex, etc. I expect from citizens the respect of Law and
>staying far away from e.g. the above mentioned "No right..." phenomena. I
>expect that citizens will approve more the actions of a honest policeman
>that those of a "clever" criminal. I expect a way of life which I was
>fortunate enough to experience for shorter or longer periods in Italy, in
>France, in Canada and in the USA, or which I could sniff for some days in
>Germany, Switzerland, England, etc. These countries are not the heavens as
>we all know. The economic state of Hungary is to be accepted as it is and
>improved as much as possible, as soon as possible, with all available
>possible means.
>        But all the good intentions for economic, social, political,
>cultural, etc. improvements are in vain without a firm system of moral
>values (or for the beginning well enforced legal rules), and for us such a
>system can be most easily constructed on the basis of traditional
>European, that is conservative, moral values (and legal rules).
>
>        Istenvelunk...                  kadargyorgy
>
>

At 08:50 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Charlie Vamossy wrote:

<snip>
>I may have been the only one who thought that Joe Szalai has great promise
>and one day he will surprise all of us, but I am glad to see that he did
>not disappoint me.
>
>Great going Joe....
>
>
>Charlie Vamossy

To say that someone does not show "promise", because they use humour, is
sad.  If that's how you feel, I'm happy that you don't agree with the
contents of my posts.

Joe Szalai

Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking
ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not.
          Vaclav Havel

I have to make a confession:I was in correspondence with this person for a
very short period of time.
My reason was to see behind him,and find out who and what he is.
In our first correspondence I did not tell him too much about myself.
Then he awnsered me I am OK as a hungarian.
I wrote him another note,where I told him 1 being Jewish,born in Hungary.
I also mentioned the attrocitys myself and our family suffered from some
hungarian hands,including the Nazi regime,followed by the Rakosi regime.
His awnser was largly to say good buy.Now all of a sudden I wasn.t OK.
I am positive he is still lurking arround here,and still tries to influence
people on the new Szabad.
Well now that he is retired from the Forest service,he can put his energy to
blame evryone on this list to be anty Hungarian.
The people in Hungary have enough problems,they rely do not need this person.
Good riddance.
Andy.

Dear Mr Kozma,
I have been following the newsgroup soc.culture.magyar and in the last =
few days I noticed that Mr Lippai has been particularly active there. I =
must admit that his particular style does not agree with me. What more =
can you expect of one who claims to be from Angyalfold.
Regards
D=E9nes

Thanks=20



----------
From:  Andy Kozma[SMTP:]
Sent:  Friday, 14 February 1997 10:16
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Mr.Lippai.

I have to make a confession:I was in correspondence with this person for =
a
very short period of time.
My reason was to see behind him,and find out who and what he is.
In our first correspondence I did not tell him too much about myself.
Then he awnsered me I am OK as a hungarian.
I wrote him another note,where I told him 1 being Jewish,born in =
Hungary.
I also mentioned the attrocitys myself and our family suffered from some
hungarian hands,including the Nazi regime,followed by the Rakosi regime.
His awnser was largly to say good buy.Now all of a sudden I wasn.t OK.
I am positive he is still lurking arround here,and still tries to =
influence
people on the new Szabad.
Well now that he is retired from the Forest service,he can put his =
energy to
blame evryone on this list to be anty Hungarian.
The people in Hungary have enough problems,they rely do not need this =
person.
Good riddance.
Andy.

Lectoris Salutem!

        I am glad, that both my lengthy postings of yesterday and the day
before yesterday were so much acceptable, that only one point
(conservative morality) was found worth to be attacked in the first one.

        First of all let us clear several points:
        1) The name of a person is his/her most private property. I happen
to know personally Gyorgy Jalsovszky (not Jelsowsky!) and for him I am
(and for me he is) Gyuri. But I am not Kadargyorgyevics for anybody, who
might wish to communicate with me. Even if otherwise I like the postings
of Miklos Hoffmann (who is certainly not an Udvaronc ;-) for anybody.
Am I right, Miklos?).
        2) I mentioned several facts of the beginnings of the 1989-90
political changes. It is a pleasure for me, that nobody wanted to
reinterpret those facts so far...
        3) I mentioned "conservative morality" and not "moralism". The
distinction in my mind is important. I mean by that much more a practical
style, a norm of behavior, than a doctrine. The word "moralism" (as any
"-ism") involves an ideological doctrine. That is not, what I mean...
        4) I did not write anything about the question, where Hungary
should turn/return/go/stay or whatever. I wrote: "without the return of
conservative morality". Hungary is and stays where she is (Central
Europe! any objection?)...

        And at last: What I mean on conservative morality?
        The balance of rights and duties and responsibilities. Rights
without duties are characteristic of dictators. Duties without rights are
characteristic of slaves. Now we are approaching a social separation
between a small group of irresponsible dictators and the rest of the
Hungarian population.
        The balance of individual and public interests. The balance of
autonomous communities and national solidarity among them. Now we are
approaching a separation between a small number of (mainly Transdanubian)
flourishing communities and the desperate rest of Hungary.
        At the moment I stop here with theoretical desciptions. All kinds
of balances (and checks...) could be mentioned but I am not good enough in
creating a social theory, I am more at home with facts...
        Specific examples of conservative morality:
The most relevant in our case: No right for anybody to publish lies and
falsifications in the public media without serious consequences.
And some others:   No right for anybody to refuse to be subjected to the
examination of a parlamentary committee without serious consequences.
No right for the criminals to follow the personal data of the victims and
witnesses. No right for financial and economic criminals to continue or to
restart their activities after caught in criminal act (in delicto
flagrante). No right for anybody to think that money can buy anything in
Hungary (certificates of high-school maturity or university degree,
passports {even with obviously false identity from an official Hungarian
consular office}, policemen, custom's officers, etc. etc.).
        All these examples are taken from the actual everyday life of
Hungary. From the return of some of "conservative morality" I expect
more equal chance for the start of more democratic (i.e. fearless, see
Istvan Bibo) citizen's life for the vast majority of Hungarian citizens
irrespective of their residence place, their social heritage, their
nationality, their sex, etc. I expect from citizens the respect of Law and
staying far away from e.g. the above mentioned "No right..." phenomena. I
expect that citizens will approve more the actions of a honest policeman
that those of a "clever" criminal. I expect a way of life which I was
fortunate enough to experience for shorter or longer periods in Italy, in
France, in Canada and in the USA, or which I could sniff for some days in
Germany, Switzerland, England, etc. These countries are not the heavens as
we all know. The economic state of Hungary is to be accepted as it is and
improved as much as possible, as soon as possible, with all available
possible means.
        But all the good intentions for economic, social, political,
cultural, etc. improvements are in vain without a firm system of moral
values (or for the beginning well enforced legal rules), and for us such a
system can be most easily constructed on the basis of traditional
European, that is conservative, moral values (and legal rules).

        Istenvelunk...                  kadargyorgy