Doepp James > wrote:
>I'm still lurking here in the background, getting the digest form (don't
>have the time to be active on this list anymore).Sometimes, however, I
>cannot keep quiet.

Neither can I any longer on this *subject* if one wants to even call it
that!

Dear Jim and entire group:

Given due consideration to the long known fact that to be human is to err;
I for one, cannot understand or even remotely fathom all the attention
being drawn to a mistake so obviously innocently or neglectfully,
committed by any human.  Especially given special consideration to the
fact, that acknowledgement of that very humans' error was publicly stated
as well as corrected by her through a subsequent posting shortly after
having been informed of her mistake - quite some weeks ago.

Big deal!  So! Eva, in her attempt at addressing an issue, which was
obviously more important to her, forgot/neglected/erred; so what? She
forgot to prorate some percentages!  I am sure that just about all of us
recognized that fact and obviously ended up treating it much in the manner
we would do so; when cathing some spelling or grammatic errors.  To
others, it was important enough to bring it to forefront; which got
addressed and handled in a humane manner.  Still I say "So What"?  A
person makes an error and thereby is subjected to being publicly accused
of being a pathological liar amongst other choice & descript adjectives?

I think, that it is a very sorry state indeed, when we, as other "humans"
have to resort to repeatedly correcting an innocently or neglectfully
made error, and standing by silently, while tremendous injustice is being
committed.  Whether or not one decides to agree or to disagree, like
or dislike the flow of any debate, or the viewpoints and/or personalities
of the debator(s), does not give them the right to openly, maliciously
accuse, undermine and utilize severe character assassination in the manner
which this "alias Mr. Szucs" has done so in this instance.  I find this
behaviour and tactic absurd, inexcusable, abhorable, and amongst all
subhuman. Especially in this instance when considering the nature of the
accused's "crime".

That's all.
Regards,
Aniko Dunford

In article >, Dunfords >
says:
>
>Doepp James > wrote:
>>I'm still lurking here in the background, getting the digest form (don't
>>have the time to be active on this list anymore).Sometimes, however, I
>>cannot keep quiet.
>
[snip]
>Given due consideration to the long known fact that to be human is to err;
>I for one, cannot understand or even remotely fathom all the attention
>being drawn to a mistake so obviously innocently or neglectfully,
>committed by any human.  Especially given special consideration to the
>fact, that acknowledgement of that very humans' error was publicly stated
>as well as corrected by her through a subsequent posting shortly after
>having been informed of her mistake - quite some weeks ago.
[snip]

Yes, I too find this hounding of Ms Balogh somewhat unsavoury, She's
outspoken and sometimes wrong, but then aren't we all ;-) and since
she's acknowledged the error, what is the point of going on and on about
it, except to prove something about the depths to which human nature
can descend....

Regards,

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

At 02:14 PM 4/15/96 +0000, James Doepp  wrote:
>I'm still lurking here in the background, getting the digest form (don't
>have the time to be active on this list anymore).Sometimes, however, I
>cannot keep quiet.

It shows (that  you are getting the digest form, but also that you are not
getting it all the time). This topic was discussed in detail when it first
happened (in March), Eva Balogh accepted her error, apologized for it too.

Paolo Agostini chose to unearth it, ignoring all the discussions about it
and picking up the silicon.valley tone, while doing it.

Gabor D. Farkas

If I have a little free money I'd like to invest in Hungary, how do I go
about doing that? What types of investment vehicles are open to the
average American with an interest in Hungary? And is Hungary a good place
to invest money right now?
Sam Stowe

Dear list members,
     I have followed with interest the ongoing discussion
concerning the religion of the Magyars, and I find that Paolo
Agostini has in fact, set the mark.  We cannot reject Arab,
Byzantine or whichever foreign evidence exists, when we have no
parallel native to contrast with.  As a professional medieval
historian (Byzantinist who has devoted his academic pursuits to
research of Byzantine-Magyar relations especially of that early
period), I have often felt that we are only too keen to reject
the evidence supplied by our sources, simply because we do not
appreciate what sort of knowledge they actually have.
     Hence the point I wanted to comment on.  It is only too easy
to criticize the reference of Byzantine sources to "Turks" for
the Magyars, but let us not forget that this name sprang from a
treatise, the Tactics of Emperor Leo VI the Wise, which referred
to various methods of fighting, including those of Turks, Franks,
Lombards etc.  Much of this material simply copies earlier data,
which were found to apply to the Magyars as well.  So in a sense
I feel the Byzantines were right in classifying the Magyars as
Turks (i.e of Turcic origin, as opposed to say Slavonic or
Germanic).  This trend went on simply because Byzantine sources
stick on precedence and to the extend they can, tend to ignore or
avoid vernacular names.  Surely it would be too much to expect
the Byzantines to be able to distinguish between Turcic and
Finno-Ugrian descent.
     The second point I would like to touch is Gyorfi's statement
that for the Roman Church it would not matter whether the Magyars
were pagans or Orthodox Christians.  Gyorffy has been an eminent
scholar and I have not seen the evidence he procures, but I
suspect that we are viewing the situation as it would appear
after the mid-eleventh century.  This is not likely to have been
the case in the tenth century.  It is political antagonism, not
ecclesiastical which brings this question.  Were it not for the
antagonism towards the eastern Slavs and for the desire of
extending the political influence of the German Empire, the Roman
Church would seem to me to be quite happy to tolerate the
Magyars' entry into the orbit of Byzantium, especially as
relations between the ruling Macedonian dynasty and the Papacy
were not as bad at the time.  In an article of mine (Byzantium,
the Magyar raids and their consequences.  [Byzantinoslavica 54/2
(1993) p254-267]) I have argued that it was the Byzantine court's
fault that the Magyars were not converted to Orthodoxy, as they
preferred to convert Bulcsu and Gyula, the most dangerous
chieftains for Byzantium, rather than the Arpad family.
     As a congenitally blind scholar I have been unable to access
all the relevant works, particularly those of Hungarian scholars,
so I would be most grateful if Mr. Agostini or anyone else, could
inform me of those works or periodicals such as Szazadok, Magyar
Nyelv etc, exist on line.
     Finally a question.  There are references in the chronicles
that during the revolt of 1046 which brought Andrew I to the
throne, the people reversed to pagan customs, including eating
the flesh of horse.  In an article I wrote in Greek (Two
important observations on friar Richard's Relatio.  (Text in
Greek, Summary in English).  [Dodone 21 (1991) p87-95.]), I have
argued that the evidence comes from the longer Life of St.
Gerard.  My question is whether we have evidence of eating
horse's flesh being an existing pagan practice, or simply
something that was considered abominable by Christians of the
a2th and 13th centuries.
     Please accept my apologies for the length of the message.
                    Regards,
                    Dr. Panagiotis Antonopoulos

Paolo Agostini wrote:
>
> On 19 Mar 1996 14:21:52 -0800,  wrote:
> >Reply-To: Hungarian Discussion List >
> >
> >Only a few days ago BLA electronic news service reported the findings of the
> >Hungarian Gallup Institute concerning antisemitism in Hungary on the basis
> >of voting patterns. The results are as follows. The question inquired about
> >"dislike of Jews," "nem kedveli a zsidokat." The list is as follows. KFGP
> >voters = 12%; KDNP voters = 11%, MSZD voters = 7%; MDF voters = 6%;
> >FIDESZ voters = 6%;l SZDSZ voters = 4%. One's first reaction is: that's not
> >too bad. But then add up these percentages to get the reaction of all
voters:
> >it is 46%.
Please check your math!!! You can not add percentages of percentages!! I.e. if
the
KFGP represents about 25% of all of the voters, then the 12% of their voters
represent
only 3% of all of the voters!! So on so forth. Therefor your 46% figure is
closer
to 7 or 8!! I suggest you do like Karinthy Frigyes and ask to have your tuition
refunded.
(Vissza ke'rem a tandijjamat!) Or is the old "Figures don't lie, but liers
figure" syndrome?

JUH

Gabor,

> Paolo Agostini chose to unearth it, ignoring all the discussions about it
> and picking up the silicon.valley tone, while doing it.

I had the opposite impression!  He went to the trouble of copying the
Karinthy essay that was the ultimate satirical example of antisemitism
hard at work.

Martha

JUH ( "Joseph U. & Sharon W. Hill" <"http://candles"@COMMUNITY.NET>) writes
(while getting on the silicon.valley bandwagon):

"(Vissza ke'rem a tandijjamat!) Or is the old "Figures don't lie, but liers
figure" syndrome?"

Hey, JUH, I had the impression that on this list one is expected to use
either Hungarian or English grammar at high school graduate level. But
neither? This is too much (at least for me).

Gabor D. Farkas

At 09:09 PM 4/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Gabor,
>
>> Paolo Agostini chose to unearth it, ignoring all the discussions about it
>> and picking up the silicon.valley tone, while doing it.
>
>I had the opposite impression!  He went to the trouble of copying the
>Karinthy essay that was the ultimate satirical example of antisemitism
>hard at work.
>
>Martha

I would agree if it weren't for the Subject line he used. Somehow the two
things did not match. And just look at the reactions from others.

Sorry,
Gabor D. Farkas

On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, S or G Farkas wrote:

> >> Paolo Agostini chose to unearth it, ignoring all the discussions about it
> >> and picking up the silicon.valley tone, while doing it.
> >
> >I had the opposite impression!  He went to the trouble of copying the
> >Karinthy essay that was the ultimate satirical example of antisemitism
> >hard at work.

> I would agree if it weren't for the Subject line he used. Somehow the two
> things did not match. And just look at the reactions from others.
>
> Sorry,
> Gabor D. Farkas
>

Upon reading the *whole picture,* it makes no more sense to me.  I tend to
agree that it is ambiguous, to say the least...   I suggest we drop the
subject and not react more to anything that comes in a glass jar of vitriol.
They do not deserve our attention.

BTW, Thank you, Paolo Agostini, for the pleasure of re-reading that
masterpiece!

Martha