In Denich "Jeg elsker dig"

>In article >,
>T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>>Ez egy buta kerdes: egy 1000 eves allamisaggal rendelkezo orszagnak
>>szok lenni mar valami nemzetfogalma, rendszerint egy szerves fejlo-
>>des eredmenyekeppen kialakult, tehat koronkent valtozo.

>De hat ha a "proletar internacionalizmus" ideologiajat (barmit is jelentsen ez
)
>sikerult a "nemzetfogalom" fole helyezni (amint irtad), akkor szerintem
>legalabbis gyengus volt a "nemzetfogalom". 

Ne felejtsük el, hogy kinntről történt a dolog, nem a választásunk
eredmények
képp lettünk szovjet alattvalók.

>>Naggyabol ennyi is Mexiko tortenelme, ugyhogy nem erdemes osszevetni
>>Magyarorszaggal.

>Szerintem ez messze nem Mexiko tortenelme, es csak azert hoztam fel a peldat,
>mert itt is visszaelt a hatalommal az uralkodo part, es ezek az emberek nem a
>"proletar internacionalizmus" ideologiaja szerint mukodtek, hanem egyszeru
>hatalomvagybol; mint ahogy a kommunistak.

Akkor nem jó a párhuzam, mert a PRI mexikói párt volt, legfeljebb nem tel-
jesen demokratikus :) :) értékeket képviselt. Attól mert elnyomás van, meg
diktatúra, attól még lehet egy hatalom nemzetbarát. Említhetném, ha már
azon a kontinensen vagyunk- Pinochetet...

>Akkor a Hunyadi Matyas halala utan miert esett szet az orszag 40 ev alatt?
>Miert tudott csak 26 000 katonat osszegyujteni II Lajos Mohacsnal? (Valami
>ilyesmi adatokra emlekszem, lehet, hogy tevedek.) Ha lett volna valamifele
>(nemzeti) ideologia, ami osszetartja a rendeket, akkor szerintem nagyobb
>ellenallast fejtenek ki a torok ellen.

Sok oka van ennek, amelyeknek semmi köze nincs a nemzetfogalomhoz.
Induljunk ki abból, hogy abban az időben Magyarország nagy ország volt
ugyan Európai lépték szerint, de az Oszmán Birodalom lakossága túllépte
már akkor a 10 millót, ráadásul a Birodalom a berendezkedése miatt faj-
lagosan is (katona/lakos) lényegesen több katonát volt képes harcrendbe
állítani. Mátyásnak nem volt törvényes örököse. Az az államalakulat, amit
Mátyás összekapart, (és esetleg alkalmas lett volna gazdasági erejét te-
kintve egy elegendően nagy hadsereg eltartására) szétesett. Az európai
normák szerint folyó hatalmi harcban megsemmisült a fekete sereg (Ki-
nizsi szétverte, fizikailag felszámolta, hogy ne juthasson Korvin János
kezére), az ország egyetlen modern zsoldos serege.

Lényeges a megfelelő örökös hiánya: ez volt a középkori európai államok
gyenge pontja, ha nem volt örökös (kihalt egy királyi család), akkor anar-
chiába torkollhatott - évtizedekre -az ország sorsa, amíg ki nem alakult
az új hatalmi centrum.
Ha a hatalom öröklődése zavartalan volt, akkor nagyon ügyes önszabályzó
mechanizmus gondoskodott arról, hogy a nemzet fejlődjön, ne eshessen
szét: Ha gyenge volt a királyi hatalom , akkor a főnemesi ligák kormányoz-
ták az országot, nem volt háborúskodás a szomszédokkal, a liga tagjai az
ország keretein belül gondolkodtak, gazdagodtak. Ha erős kiráy volt hatal-
mon és a ligák fölé tudott kerekedni, az új hódításaihoz nem nélkülözhette
a királysága erőforrásait, rákényszerült az ország jobbítására . Ezen
kere-
tek között a 'nemzetellenes' politika értelmezhetetlen.

>>>Aztan kaosz Matyas kiraly halala utan.
[..]
>Arra, hogy ha lett volna valami fele "nemzetbarat" politika, vagy valamifele 
>"nemzetfogalom" akkor nem hiszem, hogy a torokok olyan gyorsan hatalomhoz 
>jutnak Magyarorszagon.

Lásd fenntebb.

>Matyas halala utan nagyon gyorsan romlott a helyzet. Amennyire a 
>tortenelmet ismerem, Szapolyai es a rendek inkabb a sajat hatalmukat probaltak
 
>megvedeni, es nem az orszagot. Ezek szerint ok "nemzetidegenul" gondolkodtak. 

Kimaradtak itt az Ulászlók. A rendek választották az új királyt,
értelemszerüen
a lehető leggyengébbet fogadták el a külföldi kinálatból. Mohács előtt
rendkívül
rosszul taktikázott a király, össze volt veszve a rendekkel, persze, hogy
azok
cserbehagyták. Nem lehet Mohácsot egyértelmüen a nemesség nyakába varrni,
egy keménykedő, új (és idegen) király hibás lépései vezettek Mohácshoz, a
ne-
messég kiszámíthatóan szüklátókörüen reagált hasonló királyi lépésekre
mindig. Ha a török támadás várható volt, akkor a királynak nem szabadott
vol-
na a nemességgel konfliktusba kerülnie. Ha nem tudott a török támadásról,
az
is az ő 'szakmai' hibája, mert nem külpolitizált megfelelően.

>De lehet, hogy ez sem segitett volna a tulero ellen, mint ahogy 1956-ban sem 
>sikerult.

De. Mohács önmagában nem volt katonailag akkora vereség, hogy ne lehetett
volna kiheverni. A halálos csapást az jelentette, hogy török kézre jutott
a
hatlamas pénzekért épitett végvárrendszer, és ez volt pótolhatatlan.
Valamint
odaveszett az ország nemesi irányításának katonai és politikai vezető
rétege
is, amely lényegesen nagyobb veszteség, mint egy patakba fulladt szláv
király.

>>Szerintem Horthy politikaja nemzetbarat volt..
>Szerintem nem.

Pedig így van. Nagyon egyszerü dolga volt:  elveszett az ország
kétharmada, 
nagyon könnyü volt nemzeti célt kitüzni. Visszaszerezni, amit lehet.
Horthy
ebben nagyon következetes, meg nem alkuvó volt. A század legnemzetibb po-
litikáját csinálta. A végére sajnos a körülmények támasztotta követelmé-
nyek túlnőttek rajta, meghaladták politikusi képességeit, és elvesztette
na-
pok alatt, amit 20 év munkájával visszaszerzett az ország.

>Gabor

T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>Hermes1,  writes:
>>It would bring joy to our Christian hearts knowing that the good bishop
>>  To"ko"s has gone, minding the gospel for a change,
>
>Basicly what's your problem with Tőkés beside the fact that he
>is not neocommunist ?

Isn't that obvious, Tamas?  They just can't get over the fact that it was a
Hungarian pastor who showed more guts against Ceausescu than all of them
put together.  This is why all the mud throwing at him now.

BTW, I wonder why they don't say about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jesse
Jackson that they, too, should have minded the gospel.

Joe

In >,  writes:
>[...]
>segitsegevel mehet fel a "Soc.culture.magyar"-ra, amelynek segitsegevel
>azok is bekacsolodhatnak ebbe a cenzurazatlan listaba, akik a "usenet"-
>et nem erik el.
>
>cikkfelkuldes:  
>e-mail bulletin megrendeles: 

Engem egy picit (tenyleg csak egy picit) irrital ez a nev:
"nemzetiforum".  Talan egy hagyanyit tullo" a celon, ugy erzem.  Tovabba
indokolatlannak erzem a soc.culture.magyar newsgroup "atnevezeset"
(kifele): ha csak egy gateway-rol van szo, marpedig ez all fenn, akkor
nem artott volna a semlegesseg jegyeben (pl.) ha egy mod van ra, a nevet
megtartani.

A dolog ugyanis ugy all, hogy a soc.culture.magyar nem a magyar nemzet
(vagy valamilyen mas nemzet) foruma, mint ahogy a gateway cime sugallja;
hanem egy vilagszerte elerheto newsgroup, amelyben barki - igy "nemzeten
kivuliek" is - barmikor kifejthetik nezeteiket.  Hat ennyiben nem
nemzeti.  Forumnak forum, de meg mennyire!  Uton is van a FORUM jellege
fele, sajnos... :-)

>Aki figyelemmel kiseri a HIX ujabban mar cenzurazott listait, lathatja
>hogy azt ellepi a hazudozas es ultraliberalis szoszolok "kek" maszlaga.
>(Konnyu cenzura mogul "vitatkozni"!) Erdekes az is, hogy mig a HIX

A teljesseg kedveert itt nem artana azert a mult esemenyeire is utalni.
Kedves Pannon Joe, javits ha valamit rosszul talalnek irni.  Tehat a
mostanaban uton-utfelen kritizalt rendszergazda, Hollosi Jozsi
jovoltabol tudott eveken keresztul a kulfoldon, majd az internet hazai
elterjedesevel egy utemben az otthon elo magyar, ill. magyar nyelvu
internet-kozosseg tobbek kozott politikai temakrol eszmet cserelni.  Ezt
azert szogezzuk le.  Tovabba: volt idokozben legalabb egy katarzis,
amikor a vitatkozok nem birtak mar magukkal, lehetetlenne valt a
parbeszed.  Ekkor a rendszergazda, aki ujsagjait egyebkent ingyen adja,
nem azt tette, amit a mostani vadak alapjan gondolnank: nem szorta ki a
neki nem tetszoket, nem tiltotta le oket, nem cenzurazott, hanem
bevezetett egy uj lapot.


>cenzurajanak bevezeteset azzal "indokolta" hogy a Nemzet es Hirmondo
>anyaga egyes reszeiben kozelitoleg azonos, most kiderult hogy a
>Hirmondo anyaga egyes reszeben szinte identikus a Battyany Alapitvany
>anyagaval. A Hirmondonal ez azert lenyeges, mert ok penzt szednek
>a masoltnak tuno anyagert!

Ezt nevezik csusztatasnak.

A HIRMONDO-ert nem szednek penzt "ok".  Senki sem szed erte penzt.
Adakozni lehet, onkentes alapon.  Valaki valahol szerkesztgeti a
HIRMONDO-t is, s felteszem, az o munkajat megfizetendo van ez az
adakozas-dolog.  Namarmost ilyen hatter elott miert nem tokmindegy a
HIRMONDO olvasojanak, hogy az illeto ujsagkivagasokat gepel-e be, vagy a
mar valaki altal legepelt anyagot illeszti be cut&paste-tel???

Udv,  ,
Nagy Peter

On 14 Jan 1996, Andras Nagy wrote:

>  I do think that since you are posting on soc.culture.magyar most on the
>  group will not give a rats ass of other countries record on minorities.
>  Most will pay a very serious attention to Romania and specifically the
>  conditions of Hungarians there. 

I see wisdom here ! Perhaps we should extend  Hungarians in 
Transylvania the golden opportunity to emigrate to Irak.
This could make everybody happy. 

- Transylvanian Hungarians would enjoy the kind hospitality and policies
  of Saddam !

- The, US rabble rousing Magyars  would no longer need to waste there 
  energies hating us, and could go delve and focus on the Hungarian 
  government, and hopefully improve the life of the average Hungarian,
  living in Hungary.

- It would bring joy to our Christian hearts knowing that the good bishop
  To"ko"s has gone, minding the gospel for a change, briging the peace of 
  the Lord, and the good word to the heathens of Irak ! 


m. cristian

On 13 Jan 1996  wrote:

> Alexander N. Bossy > wrote:
> > 
> >Actually, they only gave women the vote in 1975. :-(  However, each canton
> >was ruled by the locals for centuries, and central government actions have
> >to be accepted by the cantons. 
> 
> Sure.  After all, Switzerland WAS set up as a federation of cantons.

I thought that happened in 1971 or 1972; but in any case, that was only 
about the federal elections.  For cantonal elections, many cantons held 
to the male vote up to the late 80s.  Currently, there is still one 
canton where women can't vote: it's one of the two Appenzeller cantons- 
but I forget which one.  It is incidentally that canton where men meet 
once a year in the town square and vote by voice or by raising their hands.
Very picturesque - and they also have the best Swiss cheese.

	-MPM

In article >,
    (Gabor Barsai) wrote:
>Csak nem az Alannis Morisette?
>
>"...when you go down on her..."
Ha nem tudom, hat nem tudom, de a sor : "...when you fuck her" (ez egy 
cenzurazatlan valtozat volt) es meg toredekek jutnak eszembe:
"You seem very well
I'm not quite as well" az elejen csendesen, majd kesobb
"I'm her to remind you about the mess you left.."

Ilyesmi, de befejezhetjuk ezt, egy slager nem erdekes.

Visszaterve a filmekre, en mindig ugy kepzeltem, hogy a szerzo kikotheti a 
vagatlan jatszast, maximum nem jatszak, es a szerzo csendben ehenhal.

Szoval mi van az alkotas szentsegevel? Vannak elvek, vagy csak reklamok?

SzP.



--------------------------------------
Peter Szaszvari
http://iap11.ethz.ch/users/szp/szp.htm
--------------------------------------

Alexander N. Bossy > wrote:
> 
>In order to make certain that our agreements don't get out of hand, let me
>disagree with this one ;-). 

OK, just this once.

>The majority of the population on the
>territory transfered to Romania under the terms of Trianon was ethnic
>Romanian.  60% of the population on the territory transfered back to
>Hungary under the terms of the Vienna diktat was also ethnic Romanian. 

Is that right?  To my knowledge, it's true that less than half of the
population of transferred territory was ethnic Hungarian (about 1.1
million out of the 2.5 million total), but I doubt that Romanians were
the only other ethnic group there.  If they were, then your 60% Romanian
figure was about right.  I just have a feeling that there were a lot of
Germans, Gypsies, Jews, and even Ruthenians there besides Hungarians and
Romanians.

But in line with my new image with you, I am willing to look at your 
sources for your figure.  Am I easy, or what?

Joe

In >  (ibokor) writes:

>: Zoli Fekete's mother was a Gypsy whore (Roma=Romanian) and his father was
>: the truckload of Russian soldiers who raped her in 1956.

>You seem to have intimate knowledge of his origins. But "Fekete" is a
>rather rare gypsy or Russian name.

"Fekete" is Romanian word ,meaning "fecal matter".  Its Russian equivalent
is "Fekaliya".

>: I urge all honest and honorable hungarians on internet to write a 
>: real FAQ and to retire Zoli Kekete where it belongs.

>I doubt that a large number of readers share your sense of urgency.
>Could you post a list of suggestions and improvements?

Example of a frequently asked question:

Why is Zoli Fekete so stupid?

Because he eats Romanian mamaliga - no food for the brain.
-- 
----
Vladimir Fomin, .  <http://users.aol.com/antisas/oasash.html>;

In article >,  () wrote:

> Alexander N. Bossy > wrote:
> > 
> >Joe, is you argument that since the Algerians didn't gain independence in
> >1920, that Hungary's restive minorities (who constituted three out of every
> >five Hungarian citizens should have been forced to remain under the
> >Hungarian yoke?
> 
> Not at all.  I simply insist on the use of the same time reference when
> making comparisons. 

I think that in this particular case no romanian is going to contradict me.

None of us liked any of the other empires either!! However, the French and
English empires, odious as they were, were not oppressing *US*. The Hungarians
were. I think that this more than adequately explains the emphasis on
Romanian dislike for Hungarian empire building instead of, let's say,
British empire building. 

Joe, can you say 'odious Hungarian empire building'?
I can say 'odious French empire building'.

Does this satisfy your requirement for being consistent in moral judgements
of empires?

> >Not only have I never denied that, but I've also posted it myself.  Sure,
> >Romania got all the borderlands.  If strict ethnic criteria had been used,
> >the border would have been drawn somewhat to the east of where it was. 
> 
> I have to give you a browny point for that! ;-)  Perhaps you might
> explain it to your compatriots, like DB. etc., who _insist_ on proof
> of it.  

Let's take your argument and accept it.

At the end of WWI Alsace/Lorraine went to the French because they won
that war. 

Since we should be judging by the moral standards of the times, Romanian
occupation of equivalent borderlands was morally acceptable. By your own
rules of taking the morals of the times, what's your complaint?

> >Nevertheless, the reason that Transylvania was asigned to Romania was
> >because Transylvania was inhabited by an ethnic Romanian population who had
> >no intention of remaining under Magyar domination any longer.  In an ideal
 
> Well, since there was no genuine plebescite, we'll never really know
> that.  Of course by now, such a plebiscite would indeed be pretty
> predicatable due to the population changes in Transylvania since 1918.
> BTW, if the reason for the transfer was as you state, the transfer
> should have already happened before WW I.  So perhaps the fact that

And what do you think the casualty rate would have been if Romanians 
would have tried this before WWI? Acceptable to you, I'm sure.

> there was WW I and Hungary ended up on the losing side, was the main
> reason of the transfer.  

By your own argument the transfer is morally justified.

> I don't think it's always a given that an
> ethnic minority in one country wants to join the mother country across
> the border.  Just look at Moldova now.

Moldova hasn't lasted as long as the Republic of Texas did. Unification
can take time, especially when the KGB has been working for decades to
make it impossible.

-- 
Sorry I haven't been answering things for awhile, my newsreader 
was on the fritz

It is now a fact of life that citizens of any country (not just 
Hungary) will have to operate on a user-pays system.  This is the most 
logical solution to obtaining new infrastructure in a country.  It is 
also the fairest.  It is unaceptable to expect those taxpayers who do noy 
use a road to pay for its construction indirectly through their taxes.
   Why do the citizens of Hungary expect to be provided with hugely 
expensive freeways for no cost.  Private enterprise (unlike the 
government) is very accountable, and expects payment for services 
delivered.  Also, why does it bother you that the government does not own 
the road.  So what, this means that less recources are used by the 
government, which leads to more money being available for other purposes.
  Here in Australia, tollways have been a fact of life now for many 
years, and believe me, when private enterprise builds a road, it is built 
in one third the time that it would take the government to build it, and 
the roads are much better than the government would otherwise build.  So 
I am more than happy to pay the money to use a better road.

Lee Laborczfalvi
Sydney
Australia

T. Kocsis > wrote:
>In article > , 
>writes:
>>>The 43-kilometer
>>>highway reportedly cost 37 billion forints ($264 million) to complete
>>>and is the most expensive in Europe to use, with passenger cars paying
>>>900 forints ($6-7) for a one-way fare. -- Zsofia Szilagyi
>
>>This comes out about 25 cents per mile!  Are they out of their mind, or
>>this is their secret plan to pay off Hungary's foreign debt?  For I am
>>pretty sure only a part of the collected toll fees go to pay the
>>investors of that short highway.  Come to think of it, this is a cleaver
>>way to raise money by the government; most people hit with it are
>>foreigners, and the Hungarian motorists' anger can be diverted to
>>the private franchisee of the project. 
>
>It is one of the stupidest thing that the MDF government done that they
>sold out the Hungarian highway system. It sounds first strange but exact-
>ly that happened. They sold the only highway connection of Hungary to
>western-Europe. It means the new owner can toll the whole highway traffic
>which goes through Hungary and can ask *any* price because of it.
>
>One of the main reason to build this road was that the traffic previously
>had to go through all the villages along and center of Györ  which made
>the
>air unbearably dirty there. The traffgic was also unbearably  slow because
>the road was not build to such huge traffic volume.
>
>Now, the toll on the highway is  equal to the Hungarian railway prices,
>which most Hungarian could not afford regurarly and they will still
>travel 
>on the old road.
>And there is a big chance that part of the international freight transport
>will choose the cheaper way as well.
>
>The bulding cost of the highway also suggest some 'panama' because it is
>way too high. 
>
>>Look out for more toll roads to come
>
>Yes, it already decided that the Szeged highway will be built the same
>way,
>that who build it will own it for 30 years.
>
>Tamas

This article was sent 16th January to s.c.russian and s.c.nordic

 (Jorma Kypp|) wrote:
>I wrote at first time about the crisis in Chechenya in european newsgroups
>28th November 1994 and made a prognosis, that it will become during 1995
>perhaps the most important crisis in Europe. Even more important than
>Bosnia (look at Kosovo next...).
>Now, after more than one year, I've to confess that the crisis in Chechenya
>has been going on just as expected. The real meaning of this crisis we
>will understand better maybe just after 20 years.
>
>There are several other events which have or will have later strings,
>that connect them to Chechenya.
>Algeria is still going on deep in that same process, that started three
>years ago. France is now "peaceful" for a while, no bombs. When I wrote
>exactly one year ago about the coming GIA bomb attentats in Paris
>before autumn 95, there were people who thought it was utopy.
>Now it is history.
>
>But there's on small country I recommend to look during the spring,
>Bashkiria in Russia. Bashkiria is interesting as it has been for
>a long time a "missing, peaceful, piece" in this sad game, puzzle,
>domino or what so ever.
>
>From Polar Sea to Caucasus there exist a chain of non Russian
>small nations and their more or less autonomy states. In very
>north we have Komi, a state that suffered about the worst
>oil catastrophe ever happened, Exxon Valdes in Alaska is not
>even compared. This oil has been taking from the land far
>from Moscow  who gets the money about oil and far from the
>western Europe, who gets the oil. And far from the western
>Greens, who want to buy Russian gas to avoid nuclear power...
>
>In South we have rich (oil) Tatarstan, who is a peaceful
>bigbrother of Chechenya. There is more population, they
>are Tatars and muslims, and they gave same kind of independence
>announcement like Dudayev in 1991. But they have one
>difference with Chechens.. they are more peaceful.
>
>The question is: how long? There are president elections
>coming in Russia and again Chechens succeeded to attack
>outside of borders of Chechenya, in Dagestan. Now this crisis
>has lasted already more than a week and the great army of
>Russia is helpless. The point is, that what happens when
>Chechens some day attack simultaneously in two three or
>four different places...?!! In Russia.

Funny thing is that I wrote and sent this article before
they really did it!

>And now to Bashkiria. The only place in that chain of states
>from Caucasus to Komi, where I've not heard any especial
>news is the one that connects Tatarstan to the northern
>tail of this chain, Bashkiria.
>In this January in Bashkiria were a very bad oil catastrophe,
>even worse than the one in Komi. And whwn the ice melt
>in the spring, this oil will slowly spread in rivers
>to Tatarstan...
>
>Jorma Kypp|
>Laukaa

>
>..also the future of EU will be written in Caucasus.

JK

It is now a fact of life that citizens of any country (not just 
Hungary) will have to operate on a user-pays system.  This is the most 
logical solution to obtaining new infrastructure in a country.  It is 
also the fairest.  It is unaceptable to expect those taxpayers who do noy 
use a road to pay for its construction indirectly through their taxes.
   Why do the citizens of Hungary expect to be provided with hugely 
expensive freeways for no cost.  Private enterprise (unlike the 
government) is very accountable, and expects payment for services 
delivered.  Also, why does it bother you that the government does not own 
the road.  So what, this means that less recources are used by the 
government, which leads to more money being available for other purposes.
  Here in Australia, tollways have been a fact of life now for many 
years, and believe me, when private enterprise builds a road, it is built 
in one third the time that it would take the government to build it, and 
the roads are much better than the government would otherwise build.  So 
I am more than happy to pay the money to use a better road.

Lee Laborczfalvi
Sydney
Australia

T. Kocsis > wrote:
>In article > , 
>writes:
>>>The 43-kilometer
>>>highway reportedly cost 37 billion forints ($264 million) to complete
>>>and is the most expensive in Europe to use, with passenger cars paying
>>>900 forints ($6-7) for a one-way fare. -- Zsofia Szilagyi
>
>>This comes out about 25 cents per mile!  Are they out of their mind, or
>>this is their secret plan to pay off Hungary's foreign debt?  For I am
>>pretty sure only a part of the collected toll fees go to pay the
>>investors of that short highway.  Come to think of it, this is a cleaver
>>way to raise money by the government; most people hit with it are
>>foreigners, and the Hungarian motorists' anger can be diverted to
>>the private franchisee of the project. 
>
>It is one of the stupidest thing that the MDF government done that they
>sold out the Hungarian highway system. It sounds first strange but exact-
>ly that happened. They sold the only highway connection of Hungary to
>western-Europe. It means the new owner can toll the whole highway traffic
>which goes through Hungary and can ask *any* price because of it.
>
>One of the main reason to build this road was that the traffic previously
>had to go through all the villages along and center of Györ  which made
>the
>air unbearably dirty there. The traffgic was also unbearably  slow because
>the road was not build to such huge traffic volume.
>
>Now, the toll on the highway is  equal to the Hungarian railway prices,
>which most Hungarian could not afford regurarly and they will still
>travel 
>on the old road.
>And there is a big chance that part of the international freight transport
>will choose the cheaper way as well.
>
>The bulding cost of the highway also suggest some 'panama' because it is
>way too high. 
>
>>Look out for more toll roads to come
>
>Yes, it already decided that the Szeged highway will be built the same
>way,
>that who build it will own it for 30 years.
>
>Tamas

 (Peter Szaszvari) writes:

>Nem uraim, nem vagyok sem tagja sem berence az SzDSz-nek, csupan egy
>mukedvelo szaros liberalis.

  Ja.  )  Ahogy azt Magyarorszagon mondani szoktak. :)  )



 Hm, egzebkent az egy nagyon talalo es jo megfogalmazas, hogy csak egy 
 ideologia lehet nemzetidegen.  

 
-- 
 Pm
>----
 Miklos Prisznyak   (KFKI RMKI Theor. Dep. Budapest, Hungary H-1525 P.O.B 49)
                     WWW page:    http://sgi30.rmki.kfki.hu/~prisz/prisz.html