In article >,  says...
Johanne wrote:
<snip>..
>>>- but with that acute intelligence comes acute awareness and thus
>>sometimes acute unhappiness - but also joy, passion, love and all those
>>good things, too.

Yes! All that passion and...life.

>I, like Johanne, have always been fascinated with and impressed by
>Hungarians. I wouldn't spend so much time debating on this list if I
>didn't. Hungarians do tend to be more rambunctious, argumentative and
>romantic than their surrounding neighbors.

Yep, Hungarians definitely have more than their fair share of cantankerous
types... ;-)  But why are Hungarians so impressive? (This is a serious
question, believe it or not.) Genes? Diet? Ancient behaviour patterns
mimicked down the centuries? This ethnic characteristic trait thing is
weird.

>In this respect, they have much
>in common with Southerners. But they will never cut it in the cultural
>superiority sweepstakes. They're much too pragmatic and down-to-earth to
>ever get swept up in that particular rat race....

(PS you nearly caught me out, too: I was just about to jump to Joe's
defence.) ;-)

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

I saw a news message said: You can get over $50,000
for just $5

I thought it was a huge joke. I spoke to my mother,
friend and wife
about
it, and they all agreed it was some kind of scam. I
can't stand scams,
because it usually means that someone is making
really easy money, and
I
wanted it to be me. After rejecting the idea at
first, I realised that
there were a lot of suckers in the world, and all I
had to risk was
$5. So
wanting more than $5 and a usable conscience, I
figured what the heck,
and
gave it a shot.

Two weeks later, I began recieving money in the
mail!  I could not
believe
it! Soon, hundreds, and then thousands of dollars
began to roll in.
Within
4 weeks, I realised that there were more idiots in
the world than I
had
originally thought as I had recieved $1 from a
total of 32,445 people!
Suckers are everywhere.

If you follow the three steps below, there is no
reason why the same
shouldn't happen to you! This is a legitimate
investment opportunity
in me.
You invest $5, and you might recieve a return on
your investment. So
might
the next investor. NOT ILLEGAL IF YOU ARE NOT
CAUGHT, NO TAX IF THEY
DON'T
KNOW - PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE.

If you are not interested, then you are smarter
than I gave you credit
for,
but please print this article and give it to your
most gullible friend
so I
can take advantage of them.

The procedure is simpler than some of the
respondants:
1) Write your name and address on 5 sheets of
paper. If you don't want
to
be indicted, use an alias but don't forget to write
your address.
Below
that, write the words, "Please add me to your
suckers list." Fold $1
coin
in each piece of paper and mail them to the
following 5 addresses:

        1. Amy Jones, L.P.O BOX A97, ANU, CANBERRA
2601, Australia.
        2. Denny Jordon, L.P.O BOX A97, ANU,
CANBERRA 2601, Australia.
        3. Amanda Hill, L.P.O BOX A97, ANU,
CANBERRA 2601, Australia.
        4. Jane Harderway, L.P.O BOX A97, ANU,
CANBERRA 2601,
Australia
        5. Michael smclalm, L.P.O BOX A97, ANU,
CANBERRA 2601,
Australia

2) Now remove the top name from the list, and move
the other four
names up.
In other words, #5 becomes #4 and so on. Put your
name as the fifth
one on
the list so everyone knows how stupid you are. You
can do this by
simply
retyping the article or reposting it to other
newsgroups with the
edited
addresses.

3) Post the article to at least 200 newsgroups.
There are 17,000, so
it
shouldn't be hard to find that many. Even for
someone like you...

You are now a sucker whom everybody knows about. Of
course, the more
newsgroups you
post to, the more people know about you. If you
wish to remain
untraceable
(like my income) use an alias, but make sure your
address is correct.

Now, here is why I make money:

-Of every 200 posts I made, I found 5 suckers. Yes,
only 5. You make
$5 for
every 200 posts with your name at #5.

-Each sucker who sent you $1 now also makes 200
additional postings
with
your name at #4. ie. 1000 postings. On average
therefore, 50 suckers
will
send you $1 with your name at #4. $50.

-Your 50 new suckers make 200 postings each with
your name at #3 or
10,000
postings. Average return 500 people= $500. They
make 200 postings each
with
your name at #2=100,000 postings=5000 return at $1
each=$5000.

-Finally, 5,000 people make 200 postings with your
name at #1 and you
get a
return of $50,000 before your name drops off the
list. AND THATS IF
EVERYONE DOWN THE LINE MAKES 200 POSTINGS! Total
shakedown in one
cycle=$55,000.

>From time to time, when you see your name is no
longer on the list,
simply
repost the article and ignore all the idiots who
are currently listed
on
it. Tell everybody you sent out another $5 and
start posting again.
Remember, 200 postings is only a guideline. the
more you post, the
greater
the chance of people giving you money.

Lets review why I want you to do this. THE ONLY
COST IS $5, AND 5
STAMPS,
AND 5 ENVELOPES.  Even a sucker can afford $5 for
such an mindless
investment with such SPECTACULAR RESULTS FOR ME.

Some people have said to me, "Do you think I'm an
idiot? What if no
one
sends me any money?" So what? I made MY fortune...

There are millions of internet users, and millions
of new net surfers
every
month. All of them are potential suckers.

Remember - read the instructions carefully, and
send me money. That's
the
only way I will make any because I am lazy and
don't want a real job
(this
way, I can also collect the dole). Get a printout
so you can remind
yourself how stupid you were if you actually wake
up to the scam.

Try to keep a list of everyone that send you money
because you can
always
target them again. Know where they live.

REMEMBER-HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY (for everybody
else).

> ------------------------------------------------

I once read an article about a guy who placed ads
in commercial
newspapers
all over the US. All they said was:

        LAST CHANCE!
        This is your last chance to send
        $5.00 to this address now!
                <address>

He made a *fortune* :-)
---
john andrewson

>Andy wrote:
>If I made some mistakes maybe Peter Hidas could give some more
>information,since
>I am not a historian,but only a spectator.
>
>I am also a spectator and a victim as well. My children and grandchildren are
>on their way to a more promising land - Ontario. Quebec will leave Canada
>regardless of the cost of separation. The French-Canadian elite will benefit,
>they will obtain full control of their land. I estimate the cost at 20% in
>decline in living-standard. Remember, Quebec is a rich province and can
>cope with independence far better than let's say Slovakia. After a few
>angry years business will be as usual. The farmers and unionized workers
>will suffer the most, but by the time they will realize that it will be
>too late.
>The above is an original chrystal ball statement.
>
>Peter I. Hidas, Montreal
>
>Peter:first of all I did'nt immagine your age,with grandchildren arround.I
remeber once to say you must be a young man,wich Eva B.hastily rectified.
Anyway,I just hope your chrystal ball prediction will not come thruogh.I am
and was allways an optimist,and I sincerley hope this prediction will not
happen.
It would be terrible to ruin a marvelous Country Canada for what reason?
We know that it is one of the best places to live,we are allways happy even
after a short tripp to come Home.I just hope our politicians don't srew this
one up.
Andy Kozma Toronto.

Zoltan Szekely writes:

>>Sam, let me put it this way: If Heidegger for you is
>>a Bavarian peasant, then you are below the level of
>>a karakoszorcsogi paraszt. Clear now?       (Sz.Z.)
>>

Don't rely just on my opinion. George Steiner basically says the same
thing in his book about Heidegger. One of these days you may learn to
appreciate people like Heidegger without glossing over their faults. Until
then, you'll remain an idol-worshipping little weenie. Got that?
Sam Stowe

"What a bunch of
 idiots!"
-- Raleigh Mayor
Tom Fetzer during
a recent city council
debate. The comment
was picked up by
Fetzer's microphone
and broadcast on the
city's public access
channel.

Zsargo Janos on 20 Aug 96 wrote:

<It does make some difference if a soldier is 'coward' thousands
<of miles from his/her home, or do the same in the middle of
<it ....

While this sounds like a reasonable premise, in fact, in combat whether
you are in your own backyard or in the jungles of Guadalcanal, cowardice,
i.e. putting the survival of an individual's group at risk, is not
judged differently. Parenthetically, as many studies have shown, a
soldier fights for personal survival and for his immediate group;
"homeland" and other abstract ideas are rather remote at the sound of
of "incoming"!

Eva S. Balogh on 20 Aug 96 wrote:

<(1) How frequent or infrequent such summarily executions were
<    during the First World War...
<    ......
<    .....
<(5) What was his exact role?....did he himself suggest such moves?
<
<    Without such investigation, I don't think that we can make any
<    final judgment on the incident.
<

In a military organisation, a commander is responsible for what he and his
subordinates do or fail to do. Commissar Lukacs was in charge. It was
under his command that eight of his men were executed. The
responsibility is unequivocal.

During the quoted interview, Lukacs only corroborated what others have
previously stated. The story was out long before the interview.

If one subscribes to the notion of personal responsibility, then what
happened elsewhere in 1919 is totally irrelevant in judging this man's
actions, character and ethics. No argument based on situational ethics
can exonerate Lukacs.

CSABA K ZOLTANI

At 12:30 PM 8/21/96 +1000, George Antony wrote:
>Eva Balogh wrote:

>>I have the feeling that again, the Romanians think one thing and
>> the Hungarians think another and they signed not quite knowing what they
>> signed. See the Slovak-Hungarian treaty.
>
>This is purely for internal consumption.  The Hungarian government has
>already started to attract flak for "abandoning Hungarians in Romania".
>Fronting up and admitting so much publicly would be political suicide,
>even if is obvious that there was no other choice: the only way of saving
>some political capital is straight-faced denial.

        Since I had written the above I read an article in Magyar Narancs in
which it is pretty well spelled out that Hungary gave up the idea of
"collective rights," that is some kind of territorial autonomy for
Hungarians in Transylvania. The article put it that way: if Hungary insisted
on such autonomy there would have been no agreement and without agreement
there is no European Union or no NATO.

        Roman Kanala and I, off and on, have been taking about "collective
rights," versus "individual rights," for at least two years. I am sorry
about bringing up historical examples again but I think they are important.
The nationalities of Greater Hungary demanded territorical autonomy which
Budapest refused to grant. The more they demanded territorial autonomy the
more worried Budapest became and resorted to foolish Magyarization  of the
nationalities which brought about more and more negative reactions from the
Western powers. Today, the Hungarians are claiming the same kind of
territorial autonomy which Budapest then refused to grant. Hungary then saw
territorial autonomy as the first step toward disintegration; today Slovakia
and Romania feel that way. It is very possible that all three countries are
totally wrong and territorial autonomy would not jeopardize their
territorial integrity. Yet, at least 150 years of history proves that
territorial autonomy is a lost cause.

        Eva Balogh

At 09:01 AM 8/21/96 +1000, George Antony wrote:

>The main problem is that the Slovak and Romanian political line is much
>influenced by paranoia about Hungarians and Hungary.  It is perceived that
>if minority Hungarians are given an inch they will want a mile next - which
>is of course conveniently reinforced by the revitalized revisionist noise
>in Hungary.  In contrast, the Italian government was confident enough to
>be generous with its German speakers.

        That is, of course, a very big problem; i.e., Romanian paranoia
toward the whole Transylvanian/Hungarian issue. On the one hand, there are
the repeated assertions that Transylvania as been as Romanian "as apple
pie," to use an American expression ever since God created Earth; on the
other hand, there is a terrible insecurity concerning the Trianon borders.
The same is true about Slovakia. However, there is one big difference
between the two. The Slovak-Hungarian borders dividing the two states could
be drawn in such a way that it would be pretty well following the linguistic
borders. This is not the case in Transylvania. The bulk of the Hungarian
population would remain in the middle of Transylvania even if slight border
revisions could take place.

        I think that it is too bad that very centralized state formations
have been in vogue in that part of the world because I bet that Transylvania
was a very different place from the Regat in 1918-1919. Even the Romanians
of Transylvania must have been very different from their fellow Romanians in
the Regat. In education, in outlook, in everything. I also wonder how easy
or how difficult it was for these Romanians to be integrated into the social
fabric of the Kingdom of Romania. (And again to bring up another example of
closely related people, linguistically and ethnically speaking, who found
themselves far apart. See the Slovaks and the Czechs or the Croats and the
Serbs.) I often wonder what would have happened if Transylvania had been
recognized as something different, something not quite Romanian and
something not quite Hungarian. But something in between.

        These questions concerning possible Transylvanian uniqueness I
cannot answer. Perhaps some of our Romanian friends could.

        Eva Balogh

At 07:51 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Gabor Farkas wrote:
>I have been following the Romanian press's reactions to the negotiations and
>to what transpired about them so far. It is interesting to see the reactions
>of Funar and his group: they are considering that including resolution 1201
>(even with an explanation) is treason. Funar asked to debate Iliescu on TV
>about the treaty.


        Well, perhaps if Funar doesn't like it and Csoori doesn't like it,
it might not be as all that bad.

        Eva Balogh

In > (Maria
Hetenyi) writes:
I know two hungarian channels #hungary and #magyar but those are for
high school or college students.
>
>

I know two hungarian channels #hungary and #magyar but those are for
high school or college students.
>
>

Amos > wrote in HUNGARY #765:
>
>    May I remind you all that Representative Lantos is a US Cogress-
>    man and not a representative of  the Hungarian Government or the
>    Hungarian Lobby? What is this  'even "our own" '  nonsense?  Get
>    real, will you!
May I remind Mr. Amos that the quotation marks around "our own" were
obviously used to reverse the original meaning of 'our own' without
quotation marks. That Representative Lantos is not a representative of the
Hungarian Lobby is more than evident from the result.
George Jalsovszky