Hi!

I think there are some points here that need clarification.
Since the original discussion is in English, I think some facts from the
Encylopaedia Britannica might be helpful:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the
principal formal body embracing Mormonism,
had more than 7,000,000 members by the late 20th
century and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah. About 60 percent of the church's members live in
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the United States, with the rest in Latin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
America, Canada, Europe, and parts of Oceania. The
^^^^^^^^
next-largest Mormon denomination, the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, is headquartered in Independence, Mo.,
and had a membership exceeding 200,000 in the late 20th
century.
[...]
The Mormons believe that spiritual
perfection and thus godhood can be attained
through a process of spiritual evolution. They are
millennialists, that is, they believe in the Second
Coming of Jesus Christ, which will usher in a
1,000-year period of peace under his rule.
[...]
The Mormon way of life is still distinguished
by order and respect for authority, church activism,
strong conformity within the group, and vigorous
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^
proselytizing and missionary activities.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
Young men between the ages of 18 and 20
come under strong pressure from
the Mormon community to
temporarily serve abroad as missionaries.


>From the above it seems to me that they are a rather aggressive group of
people when it comes to missionary activities.
The carets (^) are my emphasis.

As for Sam Stowe's comments. . .

These are from the Merriam-Webster. Sorry about the line breaks. Netscape
and pine are refusing to cooperate.

twit n (1528) 1: an act of twitting: taunt 2: a
silly annoying person: fool
twit vt twit.ted ; twit.ting [ME atwiten to
reproach, fr. OE aetwitan, fr. aet at + witan to
reproach; akin to OHG wizan to punish, OE witan to
know] (1530) 1: to subject to light
ridicule or reproach: rally 2: to make fun of as a fault

dull.ard n (15c): a stupid or unimaginative person

ensnare vt (1576): to take in or as if in a snare syn see catch

men.dac.i.ty n, pl -ties (1646) 1: the quality or
state of being mendacious 2: lie

I guess claiming that Janos is a stupid and unimaginative liar doesn't
quite belong in a rational argument.

Truly,

Peter Stefanics     "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious
    people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of
(413-597-6723)       any other."  - John Adams, 1798

            "When rap is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it."

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

Priority:
   normal

Background:
  Hungary's position in the Danube lawsuit at the International Court
of Justice in The Hague is very promising. However, even if the court
rules in favour for the environment it is possible that the Slovak
government does not accept the verdict.
  It would be useful if the World Court threatens with UN sanctions in
case of non-compliance, since this would force Slovakia to respect the
decision of the court.

What to do:
  Please ask the president of the International Court of Justice, Mr.
Schwebel, to incude a recommendation for United Nations sanctions in
case of non-compliance. Feel free to use the attached form letter.
Note that Schwebel will only take notice if he receives numerous
letters.
  Unfortunately we do not have the e-mail address. Please
do not hesitate to send him a fax or a snail mail.  PLEASE
ACT!! ASK YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN YOUR REQUEST!!
  Fax number:  ++31-70-3649-928

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

<date>

The Honorable Stephen Schwebel
President of the International Court of Justice
Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ,
Den Haag
The Netherlands
(FAX:  011-31-70-3649-928)

RE:  First Environmental Lawsuit (Danube) in The Hague

Dear Mr. President:

Congratulations on your well-deserved appointment as the new
President of the International Court of Justice.  During your tenure
you will set new precedents in many areas of international law,
including the much neglected area of international protection for the
environment.

This year, for the first time in history, your Court will decide on an
environmental lawsuit concerning the Danube. The precedent you set
will affect all humankind.  In ruling on the dispute between Hungary
and Slovakia, you and your fellow judges can establish that rivers,
forests, and oceans are not the sole properties of nations, and that
national governments do not have the right to destroy the planet's
unique ecosystems, even if these natural treasures are within their
borders..

Mr. President. Your Court has already set a precedent, when it
accepted the Memorial of the international NGOs. You have established
a second precedent by visiting the Danube wetlands during the first
week of April. You have seen that the ecosystem of the Szigetkoz is
dying due to the loss of groundwater, caused by the rerouting of the
Danube. This region used to supply the Danube with the oxygen needed
to digest the organic wastes. Now the "lung" of the river has been cut
out and the dammed up river has been turned into an open sewer.
Shipping has suffered because of flimsy construction and because the
dam can not handle ice. In addition, half of the populations of
Dobrohost, Vojka, and Bodiky have already fled because of their
isolation and because the physical danger they face.

Dear Mr. President. You are fully aware of the above and it is
certainly not our intention to belabor the obvious or to try to
influence your decision. What we are concerned about is not the
ruling you will make, but the enforcement of that ruling. If in the
fall you rule that the Danube must be returned into its natural
riverbed, that ruling might not be carried out, if not backed by
sanctions. Therefore, Mr. President, we would respectfully suggest
that you consider setting yet an other precedent by including in your
ruling a recommendation for United Nations sanctions in case of
non-compliance.

Respectfully,

<Your name, title and address>

At 2:28 PM +1000 5/2/97, Denes BOGSANYI wrote:
>My statement was based on official reports via the csendörség that church
>goers were gunned down. I certainly consider those reports as reliable.
>
>Dénes

The report, especially public report, of the Hungarian gendarmerie, serving
the puppet Sztojay government, is not a reliable source. But we should
mention that the Allies did not bomb Hungary between 1941 and 1944 despite
of the fact that Hungary declared war on them.

Peter I. Hidas
Montreal

At 9:11 AM +0200 5/2/97, Miklos K. Hoffmann wrote:

>
>And wasn4t it that, the US Airforce did more daylight bombing
>because of the visibility and the planes of butcher Bomber Harris
>the rather blind night attacks.
>MKH

In 1944 neither the Hungarian nor the German air force could defend
Hungarian air space. It was easier to find targets during daytime.

Peter

At 07:42 PM 5/1/97 -0400, Eva Balogh  wrote:
>At 08:15 AM 5/2/97 +1000, Denes Bogsanyi wrote:
>
>>The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
>It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from
>the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport" to
>machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not only industrial
>and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small town just to the
>south of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if we had enough
>warning.
>
>        After the German occupation of Hungary Allied planes did bomb
>Hungarian targets: they were both British and American planes. As far as I
>remember there was no machine gunning people on the street "just for fun,"
>but they tried to bomb targets they considered important. In my hometown of
>Pecs, they tried to bomb the railway station but they missed. They missed a
>lot because in those days it was impossible to drop bombs with great
>precision. ESB
>
>
>
>

I would also add that it was Hungary that declared war on the United States,
not the other way around, so the word "attack", which is technically
correct, was not an unprovoked act.  And, as Eva points out,  the German
Army, which also decalred was on the US, was actively fighting in Hungary,
thus making a viable target.  Unfortunately, the bombs dropped on German
troops and transportation lines happened to be Hungarian buildings and people.

Charlie Vamossy

E.S. Balogh wrote:
>
> At 08:15 AM 5/2/97 +1000, Denes Bogsanyi wrote:
>
> >The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
> It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from
> the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport" to
> machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not only industrial
> and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small town just to the
> south of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if we had enough
> warning.
>
>         After the German occupation of Hungary Allied planes did bomb
> Hungarian targets: they were both British and American planes. As far as I
> remember there was no machine gunning people on the street "just for fun,"
> but they tried to bomb targets they considered important. In my hometown of
> Pecs, they tried to bomb the railway station but they missed. They missed a
> lot because in those days it was impossible to drop bombs with great
> precision. ESB

And wasn4t it that, the US Airforce did more daylight bombing
because of the visibility and the planes of butcher Bomber Harris
the rather blind night attacks.
MKH

George Antony wrote:
>
> Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> > At 10:24 AM 5/1/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:
> > >It is clear that the populist 'policies' preached by Torgyan are
> > >attractive to a significant segment of the Hungarian populace.
>
> > And Vladimir Zhirinovsky's policies are attractive to some Russians.  And
> > Gheorghe Funar is popular with some Romanians.
>
> > Torgyanism is not unique to Hungary.  A lot of Eastern Europe is still
> > confused, nervous, and rudderless.   Demagogues in Eastern Europe are a
> > dime a dozen.
>
> Zhirinovsky and Funar are more like Csurka in the Hungarian political scene.
> Torgyan is a more sophisticated demagogue, making him much more dangerous.
> I think he is closer to Meciar than to the ones you mention.

I think this is an important differetiation. The Zhirinowskis, Funars
and Csurkas are - in a sense - to "frank" and turn off people earlier.
The Torgyans are more cunning.

>
> His party is nowadays at the top of the opinion polls, hence dismissing him
> just like another irrelevant soap-box stomper is a great mistake.
> Especially that the peculiarities of the Hungarian electoral system lead to
> the disproportionately large representation of the best-polling party in
> Parliament.
>
> > If Torgyan is taken seriously don't we risk giving his ideas credibility.
> > I remember that Zhirinovsky's popularity in Russia rose when the West was
> > reporting on his antics.
>
> I would think that he was given increasing coverage in the West BECAUSE
> his popularity rose at home, not vice versa.  If you think that the type
> of East-European voter that contemplates voting for Zhirinovsky or Torgyan
> gives a stuff about what the foreign press says you need more sense of
 reality.
>
> > For sure, I'd keep a close eye on these guys, but
> > I wouldn't take their ideas seriously.
>
> Yep, this is pretty well the stand so many people took about Hitler.
>
> Now, Torgyan is no Hitler, but he is still dangerously unpredictable and
> has the potential to set Hungary back by many years, economically, socially
> and in her international position, instead of continuing on the path of the
> current tentative recovery.  Again, Meciar's Slovakia is the relevant
> comparison.
>
> George Antony

E.S. Balogh wrote:
>
> At 07:45 PM 4/30/97 +0200, Miklos Hoffmann wrote in connection with my note
> on a popular historical magazine:
>
> >Eva, I couldn4t follow back the thread. What is this?
>
>         A few weeks ago we had a discussion on the numerus clausus and
> during debate Janos made some reference to "entrance examinations." I
> expressed my doubt about the existence of entrance examinations in those
> days. As it turned out someone sent me a couple of issues of *Rubicon,* the
> popular magazine in question and in one of them I found a reference to this
> very question. The answer is: No, there were no entrance examinations.
>         And by the way, Denes Bogsanyi suggested during the debate that the
> number of university students had to be restricted because of the
> overproduction of university graduates and the economic difficulties of the
> country. Hence, the introduction of the numerus clauses. Although there was
> some reference to overproduction of university graduates as a reason for the
> law, the fact was that the number of graduates didn't diminish. On the
> contrary, they produced as many graduates as before the war but for a much
> smaller country. ESB
Thanks, Eva. I am back on the thread.
Miklos

Denes BOGSANYI wrote:
>
> And we have our equivalent in Australia even. The problem with these populist
s
 is that their program is "logical"

Provided, one has no slightest idea about logics, fact &c

and "makes sense"

Provided, one lost his senses.

and most important is they appeal to the gut feeling and emotions of
people who do not think ideas through.

Indeed, here you have THE point.

MKH
They come and they go.
>
> Dines
>
> ----------
> From:  Joe Szalai[SMTP:]
> Sent:  Friday, 2 May 1997 0:22
> To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
> Subject:  Re: Torgyan
>
> At 10:24 AM 5/1/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Yes, but.
> >
> >It is clear that the populist 'policies' preached by Torgyan are
> >attractive to a significant segment of the Hungarian populace.
>
> And Vladimir Zhirinovsky's policies are attractive to some Russians.  And
> Gheorghe Funar is popular with some Romanians.
>
> Torgyanism is not unique to Hungary.  A lot of Eastern Europe is still
> confused, nervous, and rudderless.   Demagogues in Eastern Europe are a
> dime a dozen.
>
> >It is also clear, however, that there are many people who are attracted by
> >his policies but repulsed by his personal record.  (Those not attracted to
> >his 'policies' tend to find him unattractive too, as a rule.)  Apart from
> >a minority of the populace, he is not considered Prime Minister material.
> >Hence, it remains to be seen how effective he really is as a political
> >leader and how many votes he will gain for his party.
> >
> >But Eva is right: he has to be taken seriously and has to be taken on
> >seriously by his political opponents.
>
> If Torgyan is taken seriously don't we risk giving his ideas credibility.
> I remember that Zhirinovsky's popularity in Russia rose when the West was
> reporting on his antics.  For sure, I'd keep a close eye on these guys, but
> I wouldn't take their ideas seriously.
>
> Joe Szalai

Denes BOGSANYI wrote:
>
> The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant. It
 happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from the
 airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport" to
 machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not only industrial
 and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small town just to the south
 of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if we had enough warning.
>

Hey, you in the Outback, ye never heard about? There was a war
back in those day. And the US were not involved earlier than Hungary.


>
> ----------
> From:  Peter I. Hidas[SMTP:]
> Sent:  Thursday, 1 May 1997 0:51
> To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
> Subject:  Re: NYTimes on NATO
>
> At 8:18 AM -0400 4/30/97, Joe Szalai wrote:
> >At 07:35 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>Hungary was attacked in 1849...Poland...Sweden...Alexander I marched with
> >>his troops all the way to Paris; not a particularly defensive action. The
> >>Danubian Principalities (present day Romania) was attacked several times by
> >>Russia...The list can be made longer.
> >
> >Fair enough, Peter.  Since we're talking about the prowess of big powers,
> >do you know how many countries in Latin America have NOT experienced US
> >military intervention.  Do you know how many have experienced intervention
> >more than once?
> >
> >Joe Szalai
>
> I thought we were discussing the importance of Hungary joining NATO. If
> that is the case I do not see the relevance of US policies in South
> America. When did the US attack Hungary? In fact, many Hungarians would be
> happy to see a little American "occupation". We were certainly hoping for
> it in 1945.
>
> Peter

Denes BOGSANYI wrote:
>

I was one of the first questioning the more than naive statement about
peacefull Russia. YOUR exemples however sound more than propaganda.
We extremely good intention we might call them arguable. They are
boomerangs in a debate.

> I wonder who attacked Hungary in 1849 to crush the Hungarian Revolution then.

Well, they were called in BY HABSBURG.

 And who attacked in 1914 when the Russian troops were all drawn up for
the attack months be for the assassination started WW I.
>

In a period of growing tension they just had to draw up troops in the
West. I don4t think Russia was innocent, nor the West. But the
Central Powers by no means, whatsoever!

----------
> From:  Joe Szalai[SMTP:]
> Sent:  Tuesday, 29 April 1997 8:48
> To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
> Subject:  Re: NYTimes on NATO
>
> At 12:57 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>
> >E.Durant wrote:
> >
> >>tremendous expence, nuclear weapons and troups
> >>to be stationed in Hungary? I don't think so.
> >>Who is the enemy exactly?
>
> >Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States or
> >whatever is her actual name.
>
> Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of
> attacking Europe.  On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia
> often.
>
> Joe Szalai

Andrew J. Rozsa wrote:
>
> At 08:15 AM 5/2/97 +1000, you wrote:
> >The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
> It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew
> from the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a
> "sport" to machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not
> only industrial and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small
> town just to the south of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if
> we had enough warning.
> >
> >Dines
>
> Denes,
>
> Your particular choice of words and use of orthography
> reveals a kind of animosity toward Americans that caught me
> totally by surprise. Given that I lost my only sibling and a
> set of grand-parents to Anglo-American bombing raids, I
> would have thought that perhaps such bitterness would be
> justified. Yet I fail to understand you. Stating that Americans
> airmen killed for fun in WWII is beyond my comprehension.

Carefull! In every war, this happens. But I agree with you, as
far as the air raids are concerned, not at the scale Bogsanyi
is talking about.
MKH

> Maybe I am in denial, given that I have been an American
> citizen for 30 years. Maybe I am a Pollyanna
>
> But I am also very disappointed. It appears that I have
> misjudged you.
>
> My loss.
>
> Bandi

And the official reports ( via the csendvrsig (?!)) said that
as sport church goers were gunned down mostly at night just for fun
when USAF flew raids. Certainly they must have been very official and
very reliable reports. We never stop learning about the information
policy and media of the Hungarian Government of those days.
MKH

Denes BOGSANYI wrote:
>
> My statement was based on official reports via the csendvrsig that church
 goers were gunned down. I certainly consider those reports as reliable.
>
> Dines
>
> ----------
> From:  E.S. Balogh[SMTP:]
> Sent:  Friday, 2 May 1997 9:42
> To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
> Subject:  Re: NYTimes on NATO
>
> At 08:15 AM 5/2/97 +1000, Denes Bogsanyi wrote:
>
> >The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
> It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from
> the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport" to
> machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not only industrial
> and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small town just to the
> south of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if we had enough
> warning.
>
>         After the German occupation of Hungary Allied planes did bomb
> Hungarian targets: they were both British and American planes. As far as I
> remember there was no machine gunning people on the street "just for fun,"
> but they tried to bomb targets they considered important. In my hometown of
> Pecs, they tried to bomb the railway station but they missed. They missed a
> lot because in those days it was impossible to drop bombs with great
> precision. ESB

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> At 12:40 PM 5/1/97 +0200, Miklos Hoffmann wrote:
>
> >E.S. Balogh wrote:
> >>
> >> At 09:07 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
> >>
> >> >Religion is just so much piffle.  I have no use for it.  Mind you, I
> >> >believe in freedom of religion.  I also believe I have a right to
> >> >express my thoughts on the topic.  Religion and religious people do not
> >> >agree with me.  Does that make me intolerant?
> >>
> >>         Yes, I think so.
> >
> >Me, too.
>
> I don't.  Besides, some of my political and economic ideas don't agree with
> you.  Does that make you intolerant?

I think we - again and again - objected when you were attacked
in a dirty and primitive fashion. Not because of sharing your views,
but because of respect for who you are and how you are ( however you
are ). I could criticize religious institutions ( the ones I grew up
with as well as their advisories ) nonstop for hours. Still I have no
right to attack anybody for his religious views, unless he is actively
intolerant. I think in that case I have to fight him if I have the
possibility.

Or do you put religious ideas on a
> higher level than political ideas?
>

No. I think real nuisance and mostly even real danger is there when
somebody, anybody is convinced, he is in the possession of truth.
I believe, most misery in history was caused by people being convinced
of their truth.

> I'm a recovering Catholic, and I have no religion.  I profess no faith.
> I'm drawn to politics and political ideas because I'm committed to making
> this a better world than the one I was born into.  Some of my ideas, which
> go to the core of my being, are routinely and severely criticized.  I
> expect that.  It's the nature of the beast.
>
> Many people are religious and believe that their faith will make this a
> better world.  Why is it that I can't criticize them

How about criticizing just their ideas, provided they try to intrude
into your life. Without ridiculing them? Without calling them stupid?
phony? or what you have?

without people calling
> me intolerant?
>
> Religious ideas

OK

and people are not sacred cows to me.

Yes. But you must respect their dignity, which they have
by birth and not by their opinions.

  Neither are
> political ideas or people.  Heroes are for other people, not me.
>
Sorry if it sounds as if it was for Sunday.
MKH

Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 May 1997, George Antony wrote:
>
> > Now, Torgyan is no Hitler, but he is still dangerously unpredictable
> > and has the potential to set Hungary back by many years, economically,
> > socially and in her international position, instead of continuing on the
> > path of the current tentative recovery.  Again, Meciar's Slovakia is
> > the relevant comparison.
>
> I'm not sure the the comparison to Meciar is entirely fair.  After all,
> Slovakia has seen political murders, kidnappings, bombs exploding under
> people who are disliked by the authorities, and other heavy-handed
> tactics.  I am not aware of anything in Torgyan's record that would
> show strong authoritarian tendencies.

Carefull! The logic is rather fuzzy ( I didn4t want to say more ) :
Not that I am sure disagree, but since he was not in power thus far,
he had little chance thus far to misuse it.

> He has always professed adherence
> to constitutional principles.  He has made one rabble-rousing speech
> (where various unspecified vermin were threatened with bodily harm)
> but then quickly backtracked, seeing as how his popularity declined
> as a result.
>
But I he backtracked for popularity reasons, he didn4t do so due to
his allegiance to democratic and constitutional principles.

> So what is the worst thing than can happen if Torgyan comes to power?
> I'd be curious to know.  His party program has nothing earthshaking
> in it that I can see.  He proposes direct election of the President
> (an eminently sensible idea), an upper house of some sort (less
> sensible, but still well within reasonable political discourse), and
> a smaller lower house (eminently sensible).  These would, of course,
> require a bunch of constitutional amendments which he may or may
> not have the majority to push through.  He also proposes the abolition
> of the Constitutional Court, and transferring its function to the
> Supreme Court.  I see nothing absurd in that either.
>
> His economic ideas are a bit more on the loony side, but his hands will
> be tied far too tightly to implement them.  He proposes a strong anti-
> corruption campaign (another eminently sensible idea, provided

PROVIDED

it is done
> without trampling on people's constitutional rights).  The centerpiece of
> his economic plan, as far as I can see, is a massive nationalization
> effort, intended to undo a good part of the privatization of state firms
> since 1990.  This is much like Mitterrand's program of re-nationalization
> at the start of his term.  The Socialist government of France had to
> abandon the re-nationalization effort in less than a year, after a major
> run on the French Franc.  Which is exactly what would happen if
> Torgyan would try the same policy, except it would happen much quicker.
> Nationalization without compensation is unthinkable,

UNTHINKABLE?! Who the heaven told you that?

and nationalization
> with compensation is impossible.  There is no one to finance it.
> You can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool
> the bond markets.
>
> Also keep in mind that below the noise and fireworks of Parliament,
> the day-to-day running of the government is done by an entrenched
> bureaucracy that has many years of cumulative experience in sabotaging,
> delaying, and otherwise obstructing the wishes of their political
> masters.  Nothing can happen without them, and nothing much can
> happen with them either.
>
> The upshot is that Hungary, being a sovereign democracy, will get
> the government she deserves.  The voters gave an absolute majority
> to Horn in 1994, and they have been rewarded with four years under
> Horn.  If in 1998 the voters give a majority to Torgyan, then by golly
> they'll be rewarded with four years under Torgyan.  Such are the joys
> of democracy.  Think of the American voters: they voted for Jimmy
> Carter, and were rewarded with four long years under Jimmy Carter.
> But the Republic still stands.

Yes. But it stands for more than 200 years, which is a hell of a
difference.

> Democracy is one gigantic collective
> learning experience.
>
And why don4t you add - realistically "...unsuccessful.."?

Mind you, we don4t differ ye much. Its 4just the arguments
I have problems with.
Peace be with ye:-)
MKH

Peter I. Hidas wrote:
>
> At 9:11 AM +0200 5/2/97, Miklos K. Hoffmann wrote:
>
> >
> >And wasn4t it that, the US Airforce did more daylight bombing
> >because of the visibility and the planes of butcher Bomber Harris
> >the rather blind night attacks.
> >MKH
>
> In 1944 neither the Hungarian nor the German air force could defend
> Hungarian air space. It was easier to find targets during daytime.
>
> Peter
Sorry. I lived there. There was a lot of bombing during night. My
IMPRESSION was, that up until late summer there was more during the
night. And there was a lot of flak and fighter up in the sky hunting
the USAF and the RAF. At least this is what I saw.
Miklos

And we have our equivalent in Australia even. The problem with these populists 
is that their program is "logical" and "makes sense" and most important is they
 appeal to the gut feeling and emotions of people who do not think ideas throug
h. They come and they go.

Dénes 



----------
From:  Joe Szalai[SMTP:]
Sent:  Friday, 2 May 1997 0:22
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: Torgyan

At 10:24 AM 5/1/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:

<snip>
>Yes, but.
>
>It is clear that the populist 'policies' preached by Torgyan are
>attractive to a significant segment of the Hungarian populace.

And Vladimir Zhirinovsky's policies are attractive to some Russians.  And
Gheorghe Funar is popular with some Romanians.

Torgyanism is not unique to Hungary.  A lot of Eastern Europe is still
confused, nervous, and rudderless.   Demagogues in Eastern Europe are a
dime a dozen.

>It is also clear, however, that there are many people who are attracted by
>his policies but repulsed by his personal record.  (Those not attracted to
>his 'policies' tend to find him unattractive too, as a rule.)  Apart from
>a minority of the populace, he is not considered Prime Minister material.
>Hence, it remains to be seen how effective he really is as a political
>leader and how many votes he will gain for his party.
>
>But Eva is right: he has to be taken seriously and has to be taken on
>seriously by his political opponents.

If Torgyan is taken seriously don't we risk giving his ideas credibility.
I remember that Zhirinovsky's popularity in Russia rose when the West was
reporting on his antics.  For sure, I'd keep a close eye on these guys, but
I wouldn't take their ideas seriously.

Joe Szalai

My statement was based on official reports via the csendörség that church goers
 were gunned down. I certainly consider those reports as reliable. 

Dénes 



----------
From:  E.S. Balogh[SMTP:]
Sent:  Friday, 2 May 1997 9:42
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: NYTimes on NATO

At 08:15 AM 5/2/97 +1000, Denes Bogsanyi wrote:

>The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from
the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport" to
machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not only industrial
and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small town just to the
south of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if we had enough
warning.

        After the German occupation of Hungary Allied planes did bomb
Hungarian targets: they were both British and American planes. As far as I
remember there was no machine gunning people on the street "just for fun,"
but they tried to bomb targets they considered important. In my hometown of
Pecs, they tried to bomb the railway station but they missed. They missed a
lot because in those days it was impossible to drop bombs with great
precision. ESB

The problem is that when aircraft dropped down to roof height and the crew star
ted to spray with machine gun and cannon fire anything that moved, I think my s
tatements are justified as statements of fact and deduction. I was very careful
 to use quotation marks so as to lessen the seriousness but I can offer no othe
r conclusion when women and children in the street were hit. Surely they were n
ot military targets. Initially in WW II the bombing raids were directed against
 military targets but by the time the American Air Force became involved and bo
th the British and American bombers started to attack Hungary it was a case of 
hit the target or anything else. I do not have a particular animosity against t
he Americans but unfortunately the facts speak for themselves.

Dénes 



----------
From:  Andrew J. Rozsa[SMTP:]
Sent:  Friday, 2 May 1997 9:55
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: NYTimes on NATO

At 08:15 AM 5/2/97 +1000, you wrote:
>The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew
from the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a
"sport" to machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun". It was not
only industrial and military targets that were hit. We lived in a small
town just to the south of Budapest and we spent many nights in a shelter if
we had enough warning.
>
>Dénes 

Denes,

Your particular choice of words and use of orthography
reveals a kind of animosity toward Americans that caught me
totally by surprise. Given that I lost my only sibling and a
set of grand-parents to Anglo-American bombing raids, I
would have thought that perhaps such bitterness would be 
justified. Yet I fail to understand you. Stating that Americans
airmen killed for fun in WWII is beyond my comprehension.
Maybe I am in denial, given that I have been an American
citizen for 30 years. Maybe I am a Pollyanna

But I am also very disappointed. It appears that I have
misjudged you.

My loss.

Bandi

At 10:22 AM 5/1/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>If Torgyan is taken seriously don't we risk giving his ideas credibility.
>I remember that Zhirinovsky's popularity in Russia rose when the West was
>reporting on his antics.  For sure, I'd keep a close eye on these guys, but
>I wouldn't take their ideas seriously.

        The logic escapes me. Torgyan's party is leading at the polls at the
moment and he is learning English--I assume preparing himself for the day
when he is prime minister of Hungary. (God saves us!)
        Until very recently newspapermen had a wonderful time making fun of
Torgyan and describing him as a clown or as a morning entertainer on tv. (He
speaks every day in parliament before the official schedule begins.) Some
people even recently said something to the effect that Torgyan actually
doesn't really want to win the elections because he himself knows that his
place is in the opposition where he can shine. Of course, this is a lot of
nonsense. He is a dangerous demagogue and should be portrayed as such
instead of butt of jokes. ESB

At 11:56 AM 5/2/97 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:
>At 2:28 PM +1000 5/2/97, Denes BOGSANYI wrote:
>>My statement was based on official reports via the csendörség that church
>>goers were gunned down. I certainly consider those reports as reliable.
>>
>>Dénes
>
>The report, especially public report, of the Hungarian gendarmerie, serving
>the puppet Sztojay government, is not a reliable source. But we should
>mention that the Allies did not bomb Hungary between 1941 and 1944 despite
>of the fact that Hungary declared war on them.

        That's correct. Air attacks on Hungary began only after the German
occupation in March 1944. ESB

At 01:13 PM 5/2/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

>As I said, they don't go door-to-door around here.  The Jehovah's
>witnesses do.  When they show up, we have a very short conversation, to
>which I contribute exactly six words: "Thank you, I am not interested."
>I recommend smiling while you say that.

        I am a real coward when it comes to such encounters. My very first
one was in Canada about two years after my arrival and I thought that the
best way out of the situation was to claim that my English was too poor.
(Well, it was poor but not so poor that I couldn't understand their stuff.).
However, it was no good. The next question was: "What is your mother
tongue?" I said that it was Hungarian, hoping that that would be the end of
it. But no, they smiled and they assured me that they have the Hungarian
version and they will return! And they did!!
        Nowadays I get Jehovah's witnesses rather frequently. Always two
women: one white and one black but not necessarily the same ones. They start
telling me their story, pull out the last issue of Watch Tower. I keep
smiling and nodding when they tell me about how relevant the Bible is to the
modern world. And they give me the Watch Tower or some other publication. I
thank them and they leave. Sometime they return and ask whether I read the
Watch Tower or not. I tell that that yes I did and it was very interesting.
I simply don't have the heart to tell them to get lost. They look so earnest.
        And that reminds me of what was going on in 1956/57. After arriving
in Austria we were most surprised to find out that suddenly religion was an
important consideration. It made a huge difference whether you were a
Catholic, a Protestant, or a Jew because most of the charities were
organized through church organizations. This could be a real nuisance. For
example, a group of us, who were eventually tired of "waiting for Godot" in
the Austrian Alps decided to travel to Vienna and expedite matters, were
sent to several different organizations to get the money for the train
tickets!! Of course, this system was open for abuse. The word spread in
Vienna: the Lutherans are giving away this or that. Suddenly a lot of people
became Lutherans.
        In any case, after arriving in Canada, the churches started
pestering you. If the Catholic priest phoned, I was Hungarian Reformed
(which I was) but when the Hungarian Reformed minister phoned suddenly I
became a Catholic. That system worked very nicely. ESB

>
>>>The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT pleasant.
>>It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at night flew from
>>the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities and as a "sport"

It should be noted that allied bombing was not confined to "enemy" areas.
Friendly, but occupied countries (Norway, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc)
suffered from "collateral damage". It is true that major cities there were
not subject to "saturation bombing" (like Dresden or Berlin), but railroads-
of military significance- were attacked and their route typically traversed
cities. The Hungarian railroads were particularly attractive military
targets, since they were used to ship oil from Romania to Germany:
indispensable for the war machine. Budapest was not subject to saturation
bombing either. The damage there was mostly from artillery and mortar
shelling during the siege. I visited Budapest in August 1945 and can assure
you the type and amount of damage did not approach what some of the German
cities suffered (like Kassel, Frankfurt -cities I also saw that same year).
Andy.

In article >,
Peter Stefanics > writes:

>
>I guess claiming that Janos is a stupid and unimaginative liar doesn't
>quite belong in a rational argument.
>
>Truly,
>
>Peter Stefanics     "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious
    people. It is wholly inadequate for the government
of
>(413-597-6723)       any other."  - John Adams, 1798
>
>            "When rap is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it."
>

It does when he's using a line of attack someone else tried months ago and
quickly discarded out of embarrasment. It meets the necessary and
sufficient conditions of that quality most of us call "truth." You're not
from here, are you?
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- I make no claims for purely rational argument. That's an
artificial constraint you're trying to impose.


Think globally;
act erratically.

In article >, Gabor Fencsik
> writes:

>What's this, an invitation to a pissing contest?

Unzip and fire, big boy.

>I don't see where I
>acquired an obligation to provide you with any such thing.

Then don't make unsupported assertions if you aren't willing to defend
them.

>My point was
>not that you were bashing Mormonism in general rather than bashing
Kristof
>in particular, but that you attacked Kristof as a Mormon.

I attacked Krystof for trying to portray a year or so's worth of peddling
the Book of Mormon in a Budapest suburb as some kind of great, heroic
adventure on behalf of God. I'd have been more than happy to offer the
same critique to a Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. It cheapens and demeans
the efforts of those who go out into some of the poorest parts of the
planet and try to relieve human suffering because they honestly believe
that's God's will.

>
>In any case, I don't keep copies of articles -- but for you I went to
>Altavista and dug out out a sample.  Watch out, here it comes:

Big deal. You could have simply asked me to repost it for you. I kept it.

>
>> Subject:      Re: church growth in Hungary
>> From:          (Stowewrite)
>> Date:         1997/04/28
>> Message-Id:   >
>>
>> [...]
>> It has the extremely negative effect of leaving foreigners with the
>> impression that most Americans are susceptible to the blandishments of
>> spiritual snake-oil and willing to annoy the hell out of their
neighbors
>> because of it.
>
>I interpreted "spiritual snake-oil" as a reference to the Mormon creed.
>If it was a reference to something else, then I am afraid you have been
>misunderstood.  Happens to the best of us from time to time.

Do you really think that, at first blush, the Mormon line that Jesus
nipped off after the resurrection and re-appeared in the Americas and that
an angel told Joseph Smith where to find golden tablets with the whole
story written on them wouldn't sound, uh, slightly unlikely to the average
Hungarian who hasn't heard it before? Would you be outraged if that
average Hungarian were to say to himself, "Those crazy Americans. They'll
believe in anything."? I, as an American who grew up with Mormon friends,
may have my doubts about the religion's beliefs. I do. But I still have
the typical laissez-faire view toward religious belief that Jefferson
evoked. Even if I don't believe the Book of Mormon, I have seen the many
good things it provides the individuals and families who do believe in it.
I imagine, however, that a Hungarian who hadn't traveled outside his or
her own country would have a stronger, much more negative reaction than I
do when Latter-Day Saints missionaries show up on my doorstep. (My usual
reaction is to offer them something to drink and eat.) If imagining such a
reaction is bashing Mormonism in general, I stand guilty. You'll also need
to get on your high horse with Mark Twain for calling the Book of Mormon
"chloroform in print." Maybe you can get "Roughing It" banned from the
shelves of your local library.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- What do you do when the Mormon kids arrive at your doorstep,
Gabor? Show up at the local stake the next week with genealogical chart in
hand? Lie to them and tell them you believe every word they're saying?
Slam the door in their faces? Tell them you don't believe in the Book of
Mormon, but wish them well nevertheless? (Bonus hint: You don't want to
pursue the last option because it would mean you'd be doing exactly what I
do when the missionaries come to my house.)

Think globally;
act erratically.

In article >,
Janos Zsargo > writes:

>While I was not invited to explain anything, let me have a comment to
>the above. Sam himself states that he was bashing Kristof and not the
>Mormon Church or Mormonism (I have never heard this expression before).
>I think Kristof did not give any reason to be bashed. The only reason why
Joe
>and Sam can attack him is his religion. Interestingly but not
surprisingly
>Sam claim he attacked the person and not the ideology.
>
>J.Zs

Religion is not ideology, you moron, unless you make it ideology by trying
to force your personal beliefs onto others via such mechanisms as the law
and the government. Krystof gave plenty of non-religious reasons for being
flamed, especially since Joe and I weren't the only ones razzing him.
Here's another English word what you can add to your meager collection --
pharisaical.
Sam Stowe

Think globally;
act erratically.

On 2 May 97 Denes Bogsanyi wrote:

> The US did attack Hungary and I had a taste of it and it was NOT
> pleasant.  It happened from March 1944 onward when US bombers mostly at
> night flew from the airfields of southern Italy to bomb Hungarian cities
> and as a "sport" to machinegun anybody on the streets "just for fun".

In context, the statement that the U.S. never attacked Hungary meant
that the U.S. never initiated armed hostilities against Hungary.  This
is in fact true.  The state of war between the U.S. and Hungary was
initiated by Hungary in 1941, when the Bardossy government declared war
on the U.S. immediately after Pearl Harbor.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

On Fri, 2 May 1997, George Antony wrote:

> Now, Torgyan is no Hitler, but he is still dangerously unpredictable
> and has the potential to set Hungary back by many years, economically,
> socially and in her international position, instead of continuing on the
> path of the current tentative recovery.  Again, Meciar's Slovakia is
> the relevant comparison.

I'm not sure the the comparison to Meciar is entirely fair.  After all,
Slovakia has seen political murders, kidnappings, bombs exploding under
people who are disliked by the authorities, and other heavy-handed
tactics.  I am not aware of anything in Torgyan's record that would
show strong authoritarian tendencies.  He has always professed adherence
to constitutional principles.  He has made one rabble-rousing speech
(where various unspecified vermin were threatened with bodily harm)
but then quickly backtracked, seeing as how his popularity declined
as a result.

So what is the worst thing than can happen if Torgyan comes to power?
I'd be curious to know.  His party program has nothing earthshaking
in it that I can see.  He proposes direct election of the President
(an eminently sensible idea), an upper house of some sort (less
sensible, but still well within reasonable political discourse), and
a smaller lower house (eminently sensible).  These would, of course,
require a bunch of constitutional amendments which he may or may
not have the majority to push through.  He also proposes the abolition
of the Constitutional Court, and transferring its function to the
Supreme Court.  I see nothing absurd in that either.

His economic ideas are a bit more on the loony side, but his hands will
be tied far too tightly to implement them.  He proposes a strong anti-
corruption campaign (another eminently sensible idea, provided it is done
without trampling on people's constitutional rights).  The centerpiece of
his economic plan, as far as I can see, is a massive nationalization
effort, intended to undo a good part of the privatization of state firms
since 1990.  This is much like Mitterrand's program of re-nationalization
at the start of his term.  The Socialist government of France had to
abandon the re-nationalization effort in less than a year, after a major
run on the French Franc.  Which is exactly what would happen if
Torgyan would try the same policy, except it would happen much quicker.
Nationalization without compensation is unthinkable, and nationalization
with compensation is impossible.  There is no one to finance it.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool
the bond markets.

Also keep in mind that below the noise and fireworks of Parliament,
the day-to-day running of the government is done by an entrenched
bureaucracy that has many years of cumulative experience in sabotaging,
delaying, and otherwise obstructing the wishes of their political
masters.  Nothing can happen without them, and nothing much can
happen with them either.

The upshot is that Hungary, being a sovereign democracy, will get
the government she deserves.  The voters gave an absolute majority
to Horn in 1994, and they have been rewarded with four years under
Horn.  If in 1998 the voters give a majority to Torgyan, then by golly
they'll be rewarded with four years under Torgyan.  Such are the joys
of democracy.  Think of the American voters: they voted for Jimmy
Carter, and were rewarded with four long years under Jimmy Carter.
But the Republic still stands.  Democracy is one gigantic collective
learning experience.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Stowewrite wrote:

> As an aside, it's now been nearly 48 hours since I posted and received
> back through my server a message inviting Gabor Fencsik to explain to me
> in as many words as he chose how I was bashing Mormonism in general rather
> than Krystof Jones in particular. He has not responded to my invitation.

What's this, an invitation to a pissing contest?  I don't see where I
acquired an obligation to provide you with any such thing.  My point was
not that you were bashing Mormonism in general rather than bashing Kristof
in particular, but that you attacked Kristof as a Mormon.

In any case, I don't keep copies of articles -- but for you I went to
Altavista and dug out out a sample.  Watch out, here it comes:

> Subject:      Re: church growth in Hungary
> From:          (Stowewrite)
> Date:         1997/04/28
> Message-Id:   >
>
> [...]
> It has the extremely negative effect of leaving foreigners with the
> impression that most Americans are susceptible to the blandishments of
> spiritual snake-oil and willing to annoy the hell out of their neighbors
> because of it.

I interpreted "spiritual snake-oil" as a reference to the Mormon creed.
If it was a reference to something else, then I am afraid you have been
misunderstood.  Happens to the best of us from time to time.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Sam, you are being incoherent.  If I assert that by calling a man's beliefs
"spiritual snake-oil" you demean, bash, deprecate, denigrate, and abuse
that person on account of his religion, then you cannot answer me by
proving that the man's religion is in fact spiritual snake oil.  You are
merely changing the subject.  What either of us thinks of the Book of
Mormon and the prophecies contained therein is neither here nor there.

> Do you really think that, at first blush, the Mormon line that Jesus
> nipped off after the resurrection and re-appeared in the Americas and that
> an angel told Joseph Smith where to find golden tablets with the whole
> story written on them wouldn't sound, uh, slightly unlikely to the average
> Hungarian who hasn't heard it before?

I would have loved to hear a first-hand account of what it was like trying
to sell this stuff to Hungarians, but you chased Kristof away before I
could find out.  You also have to take into account that Hungarians
have been fed a whole lot of poppycock under the rubric of Scientific
Socialism, and developed a rather strong immune system as a result.

> You'll also need to get on your high horse with Mark Twain for calling
> the Book of Mormon "chloroform in print." Maybe you can get "Roughing It"
> banned from the shelves of your local library.

This is out of line.  I never advocated banning anything.  I merely
objected to a specific debating technique in a specific context.

> P.S. -- What do you do when the Mormon kids arrive at your doorstep,
> Gabor? Show up at the local stake the next week with genealogical
> chart in hand? Lie to them and tell them you believe every word
> they're saying? Slam the door in their faces?

As I said, they don't go door-to-door around here.  The Jehovah's
witnesses do.  When they show up, we have a very short conversation, to
which I contribute exactly six words: "Thank you, I am not interested."
I recommend smiling while you say that.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

 on Apr 30 00:25:33 EDT 1997 in HUNGARY #985:

>In article >,  (George
>Szaszvari) writes:
>
>>  It would be
>>interesting to know whether the Americans on this list are familiar
>>with the expression.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, I am. What would the equivalent insult be in Hungarian? "Zsargo"?
>Sam Stowe

What's the use of this type of personal attack?  Others might argue that
Stowe might actually be better but for the foreign sound of it.

Ferenc

At 12:40 PM 5/1/97 +0200, Miklos Hoffmann wrote:

>E.S. Balogh wrote:
>>
>> At 09:07 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>>
>> >Religion is just so much piffle.  I have no use for it.  Mind you, I
>> >believe in freedom of religion.  I also believe I have a right to
>> >express my thoughts on the topic.  Religion and religious people do not
>> >agree with me.  Does that make me intolerant?
>>
>>         Yes, I think so.
>
>Me, too.

I don't.  Besides, some of my political and economic ideas don't agree with
you.  Does that make you intolerant?  Or do you put religious ideas on a
higher level than political ideas?

I'm a recovering Catholic, and I have no religion.  I profess no faith.
I'm drawn to politics and political ideas because I'm committed to making
this a better world than the one I was born into.  Some of my ideas, which
go to the core of my being, are routinely and severely criticized.  I
expect that.  It's the nature of the beast.

Many people are religious and believe that their faith will make this a
better world.  Why is it that I can't criticize them without people calling
me intolerant?

Religious ideas and people are not sacred cows to me.  Neither are
political ideas or people.  Heroes are for other people, not me.

Joe Szalai

At 06:08 AM 5/2/97 -0400, Ferenc Novak, yakking about masturbation, wrote:

 on Apr 30 00:25:33 EDT 1997 in HUNGARY #985:

<snip>
>>Yes, I am. What would the equivalent insult be in Hungarian? "Zsargo"?
>>Sam Stowe

>What's the use of this type of personal attack?  Others might argue that
>Stowe might actually be better but for the foreign sound of it.
>
>Ferenc

Are you one of those who's arguing that point?  And, by the way, how are
you treating your 'carpal tunnel syndrome', Ferenc?

Joe Szalai

Two adult PULI dogs need to find loving Hungarian home(s).

"Sunny" Male born 05-06-87  white; friendly to everyone and  very playful.

"Curie"  Female born 08-08-85 white; wants to find a quiet person and be with
 him/her all the time.
  She is particularly fond of having her belly scratched; likes to play ball.

My job is taking me overseas to a place where importing dogs is almost
 impossible.  We are
leaving in early July 1997.  We live in Nashville Tennessee, but will be
 traveling to the
Washington DC area in June prior to our trip overseas.   Please respond directl
y
 to my
email address .  I would like to exchange some messages wit
h
 anyone
interested in providing a loving appreciative home for our Pulik.  If you don't
 live around
Nashville or Washington DC, I would be willing to drive up to 8 hours in any
 direction from
either city to find a good home both dogs, or for two different homes.   When
 you respond
please include a brief description the kind of home you have and why you want t
o
 have a Puli.

Both  dogs are  AKC registered and have current vaccinations.  They were bred i
n
 previous
years (two litters).

Thank you.