T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>>  On the other
>>hand, he did not cite his references either,
>
>...because I don't have any. I wrote the numbers from memory, and where
>I was not sure in them I put question-marks. I've thought someone will
>come up with hard data and complete the tabelle.

By "he" I meant the Romanian guy who challenged us with numbers, not
you.  Sorry for my sloppy phrasing.

Joe

In >  () writes:

>In article >, Dan Pop > wrote:
>>
>>Alexander was, obviously, talking about books published abroad, not in
>>Romania.
>
>By exile Romanians, no doubt.  

Alexander already proved you wrong.  Yet another cheap shot a la Joe
Pannon.

>Like that guy who wrote that tract on Tokes?

The references about Tokes' dissidence posted by Liviu Iordache pointed
to Romanian authors, too.  Shall we dismiss them, for this reason?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article >,  (Alexander Bossy) writes:
|> Matyas ) wrote:
|> 
|> : |> 	I think that it is important that we all face facts and recognize 
|> : |> that, although Alba Iulia wasn't the plebicite that maybe it should hav
e 
|> : |> been, it nevertheless DID EXPRESS the views of the majority of 
|> : |> Transylvania's inhabitants.
|> 
|> : Hi Alexander!
|> 
|> : Several weeks ago in one of my answers to previous thread I asked a questi
on
|> : on this issue that nobody answered. So here it is again:
|> 
|> : How many people did gather at Alba Iulia on that 1st of December, 1918 (pl
ease
|> : try to document it). What percentage of the Romanians inhabitants of Trans
ylvania 
|> : and what percentage of the total population did this represent? Were they 
all 
|> : current Transylvanian inhabitants? How did they find out about the event a
nd how
|> : did they get there?
|> : [...]
|> 
|>      Hi Matyas:
|> 
|>      The books that I have at home don't quite answer your
|> detailed question.  But Macartney did give a partial answer, and
|> so I quote him:
|> 
[...]

Thanks, for the answer Alexander. You see, even if you didn't (couldn't) answer
with precise numbers, you did try to document a statement of yours, even with
a (by you opinion) biased reference. And exactly this was the point in my
question. Most of the other people posting here on this (and related) topics
speak about vote, plebiscite, unanimous expression of the will and so on. This
wouldn't be a problem by itself, but as soon as it is used as a strong argument
it becomes at least questionable.

I believe that all (or at least the overwhelming majority) of the Romanians
were (at least in their hearts) for the union with Romania, if for no other
reason, then because of the centuries old hatered between Romanians and 
Hungarians. I also agree that they did represent the majority in Transylvania
(proper) at that time. On the other hand I am almost sure that the Alba Iulia 
meeting was organized by some (Romanian) poltical power and/or church and wasn'
t 
spontaneous and that many people were sent/brought there (very much like it
happened in Tg. Mures). But this isn't very importnat either. Thing is that
the "result" of the "peace conference" would have been the same with or
without the Alba Iulia meeting. On the other hand, if it is referenced as 
much as it is, Romanians should never forget the "generous" promises made 
there to (all) the minorities (even if it turned out to lack any sincerity).

|> 
|> 	I would like to add two caveats to the above quote.  Macartney is 
|> pro-Hungarian, and it does show in this statement. 

Practically aLL the existing references will be labeled pro-Hungarian by ones
or pro-Romanian by the others.

 In fact, much of the 
|> non-Romanian and non-Magyar population did actively prefer Romanian rule 
|> because of the forced Magyarization policies carried on between 1867-1918.  

I doubt that this was true for the secong largest ethnic group in Transylvania,
the Germans, especially because they were protected by the Austrian part.

|> 	Nevertheless, whether we chose to accept his numbers or not, it is 
|> clear that a substantial majority of the Transylvanian population 
|> favored union with the Kingdom of Romania.  And, that is of far greater 
|> importance than the precise percentage of the population we feel would 
|> have voted for or against union.

Correct, only that I haven't ever used the "would have voted" argument. I'm
more interested in the present and the future, but many others seem not to be,
but rather "point back", sometimes to very blurry things...

|> 
|> 	Hope that this helps....
|> 	Alexander

Well, yes...

Matyas
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to                
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to    
If you have any problems, address them to          

T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>
>Yes, this is the Slovak figure. The Hungarians think this is
>a little bit too high.

Based on Slovak estimates, they probably counted Geza Jeszenszky as
ethnic Slovak because of his name. 

Joe

Joe Pannon,

Valaszod, ami kizarolag szemelyeskedesbol, sertegetesbol es
mocskolodasbol all, a Te stilusod, es en tovabbra sem veszem at
ezt a stilust, es tovabbra sem fogsz tudni provokalni.

Arrol hogy ki mit un, elmondhatom, hogy vannak nehanyan akik
mar elegge unjak egyreszt nacionalista, irredenta uszitasaidat,
masreszt azt, hogy ezt a magyarsag neveben teszed, ezzel lejaratva
a magyaroknak azon reszet amelyik nem ert ezekkel egyet.

>No, most legyel boldog, mert biztos csinaltal egy par uj antiszemitat
>a tendenciozus hazudozasaiddal.

Minden irasod hemzsegett az antiszemitizmustol: most mitol vagy
hirtelen a zsidok partfogoja ? Marmint a "jo zsidoke" akik
befogjak a pofajukat ha Te megszolalsz ? Es ezzel kivivjak a Te
joindulatodat ? Jelent ez majd nehany jopontot a kovetkezo
pogromban?

Tendenciozus hazudozas? Hat lenne itt nehany kezenfekvo
valasz, de annyiban hagyom. Mivel hogy en is unom mar, es
lathatolag nemigen fog rajtad semmi. Talan egy kis szemelyeskedes,
mocskolodas hasznalhatna, de lasd fentebb.

//Laszlo

In article >,  (A.
Sheppard) wrote:

> My boss is about to retire and will be buying his first computer
> in a couple of months time. He is Hungarian [Professor Michael
> Szelke - I wonder if any readers know him ?] and would like to
> know if there is a Magyar version of either the Macintosh or
> Windows operating systems: if so would you recommend it or
> should he just stick to the English versions ? He is particularly
> concerned about being able to type the various accents used
> in the Hungarian language. Personally I would prefer him to buy
> a Macintosh, as this will be his first real experience of using
> a computer.

Both systems (including Windows 95) are available in Hungarian yet my
suggestion would be to stick to the English Mac version and have the
Hungarian fonts installed.

Best regards,

Peter

In >  () writes:
>Thank you, thank you! 
>For having such a good taste in humor, you are hereby accepted in the
>well-Hungary Club.  There!
>Now, if I could just find one of the Romanians qualifying ...

Dan Pop wrote:
>Not even Liviu Iordache, the only Romanian with whom you seem to agree?  
>Your standards must be damn high.
>
>Dan (who's happy not to be accepted in a "well-Hungary Club" controlled
>     by Joe Pannon :-)

What's this Joe? Danny boy actually applied and you didn't accept him and
now he's happy? He didn't measure up? What's that? It was shorter than the
length of three fully functioning brain cells. Sheeeesh, I thought anybody
who was short upstairs would be a dangler downstairs. Oh well, it's your
club and I like Hunging out with you and the others from time to time.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Hermes > wrote:
>
> 
> 
> On 15 Nov 1995, Krisztian Balogh wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > This is in response to all articles about ERDELY (transylvania).
> > The bottom line is that it belongs to HUNGARY!!! (that's it!!!!!!!!!)
> > Krisztian
> 
> Kedves Krisztian ur,
> 
> You are not being very perceptive today ! The bottom line resides
> somewhere else entirely. I am at a loss that you are unable to grasp
> the basic truth !
> It is clear to most, that beginning smack in the middle ages, right
> when Janos Huniady took the Hungarian crown, things changed forever.
> HUNGARY BELONGS TO TRANSYLVANIA ! It was the Austrian usurpers that
> pried Hungary off the hallow body of Transylvania.
> Thus in modern times, since Transylvanian in their majority have chosen
> to be joined with Romania, Hungarians should find humility and obedience
> in their harts, and rejoin with Transylvania and Romania. 
> I am sure that even Mr. Funar could be persuaded that some form of local 
> authonomy for the future Hungarian province is in order. 
> And think of the economic miracle that could be bestowed upon poor, debt
> ridden Hungary. Think what even a little Oltenian entrepreneurship could
> do for the stagnant economies of cities like Budapest ! 
> 
> m. cristian

M Cristian, 

Ok, Erdely (Transylvania) belongs to Magyarorszag (Hungary), 
or Magyarorszag belongs to Erdely, but WITHOUT romania!!!!!!

The problem is that there are "those so called politicians" in 
romania who still go about ways of treating us Magyars just like
causescu did when he was in power. Take a look at iliescu for 
example. He does not even think about wanting to call peace between
the two countries... That's ok, we will still get ERDELY sooner or 
later. It might be a "stupid" statement, but its true!

ELJEN MAGYARORSZAG!!!

Krisztian

In >  (Matyas ) writes:

>In article >,  (Dan Pop) writes:
>While you keep forgeting to answer my questions...
>
>  At the time, Transylvania had
>|> an absolute Romanian majority,
>
>What do you exaclty mean by absolute majority? Is it 1/2 + 1 or 2/3, or some o
ther
>proportion?

The meaning of "absolute majority" is "more than 50%".  50% + 1 is an
absolute majority.

>Support your answer with documented numbers.

Alexander has posted them.

>Be careful, because some
>regions outside Transylvania proper (e.g.Partium) never had a Romanian majorit
y 
>and were never before 1920 considered as part of Transylvania.

Some regions of Transylvania proper never had a Romanian majority (since 
they were colonized by the Hungarians, many centuries ago).  So what?

Some regions which remained to Hungary after Trianon had a Romanian majority.
So what?

The whole teritory taken by Hungary in 1940 had a Hungarian minority.
Yet, this doesn't prevent Joe Pannon and his kin from considering the
Vienna Diktat an act of justice.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article > , 
writes:
>I wonder about the Slovak figure.  What is it based on?  On
>selfidentification, or on the estimates of some burocrats?

Yes, this is the Slovak figure. The Hungarians think this is
a little bit too high.

Tamás

First of all, let me apologise for my ignorance if this is
a FAQ.

My boss is about to retire and will be buying his first computer
in a couple of months time. He is Hungarian [Professor Michael
Szelke - I wonder if any readers know him ?] and would like to
know if there is a Magyar version of either the Macintosh or
Windows operating systems: if so would you recommend it or
should he just stick to the English versions ? He is particularly
concerned about being able to type the various accents used
in the Hungarian language. Personally I would prefer him to buy
a Macintosh, as this will be his first real experience of using
a computer.

Many thanks in advance for any opinions/information you can provide.

Andy Sheppard

Southampton, UK

In >  () writes:

>So why shouldn't they keep to themselves if they want to?  Why should
>they even be forced to learn Romanian (however advisable that might be)?

In many bilingual countries, everybody is forced to learn the other
language and nobody feels oppressed for this reason.

I wouldn't have minded being taught Hungarian during primary school,
although I was not living in Transylvania.  It would have helped me to
get better service in hotels, restaurants, shops during my travels in
Transylvania :-)

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

So, what is this trying to be? A lesson?

In article >, Adrian Precup-Pop 
> writes:
|> 1. When the Romanians have NOT been the majority in Transylvania? Year,
|> percentages, source.
|> (the answer as I know it: never in the past 1500 years).

Let's see, 1500 years ago it was the year 495. Could you point to percentages,
sources? In fact which is the first source for a census in Transylvania you can
point to, that is what is the "as I know it" based on?

|> 
|> 2. Percentages of various nationalities, other than Magyars, in Hungary
|> immediately after Trianon.
|> (the answer as I know it: in the low two figures, i.e. 10-29% - this
|> will translate in a few millions, Matyas).

Why me? I don't know about those percentages, unless I look them up somewhere.
Any way I strongly doubt the "few millions". Maybe Joe has some numbers. (BTW
Joe, I kind of feel honored to be mentioned/referred together with you ;-) )

|> 
|> 3. Percentages of various nationalities, other than Magyars, in Hungary
|> now.
|> (the answer as I know it: less than 2%).
|> 
|> 4. What happened with the difference between answer (2) and answer (3).
|> (the answer as I know it: they have been assimilated or physically
|> eliminated).
|> 

While for your next quiz:

|> 5. Percentage or absolute number of Hungarians assimilated or physically
|> eliminated in Transylvania after 1918.
|> (the answer as I know it: very low).

Try to answer to questions similar to yours, such as what was the percentage
of the Hungarian population in Transylvania in 1918 and what is it now. Explain
the reasons for the change (knowing that Hungarians didn't typically
migrate either to other regions of Romania or abroad)

|> 
|> 6. Considering the answers from 2 to 5, which country has treated its
|> minorities better since W.W.I ended, Hungary or Romania?
|> (my answer: Romania).

My answer is: I only care that Romania currently treats (and has treated for a
while) its minorities badly (as a matter of fact much worse than Hungary).

|> 
|> 7. Is there any difference between Transylvania's (re)-incorporation in
|> Romania in 1918

in order to "(re)-incorporate" something into something it must have been a 
part of it before...

 and the formation of the other states out of the ruins
|> of the Austro-Hungarian empire, i.e. Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia,
|> Checho-Slovakia? This relates to the question of the validity of the
|> gathering at Alba Iulia versus a plebiscite - was there a plebiscite
|> organized in the above-mentioned states?

There were some (e.g. in Hungary, certain areas decided to remain part of 
Hungary,
rather than become part of Austria). However your comparison shows that the 
gathering is only claimed to be a deciding act, and that the real decision 
was take somewhere else, by some other people (countries).

|> 
|> 8. Have the Hungarians in Transylvania the opportunity to study in their
|> mother tongue?

Less and less every day. And only due to a continuous struggle. And even the
little left is threatened by the Romanian laws and practices.

 Do they have mass-media in their language?

Detail exactly what do you mean by mass media, soi that I can answer you.

|> (my answers: yes, yes)

My answer: so do those few thousands of Romanians living in Hungary...

|> 
|> 9. Does the Romanian constitution guarantee seats in Parliament for all
|> the minorities, even if they fail to elect their representatives?
|> (my answer: yes)
|> 
|> 10. Are number 8 and 9 good things?
|> (my answer: yes)

9 is good, but unfortunately in the conditions the Romanian parliament function
s
it is not very useful to those nationalities.

|> 
|> Adrian (P)
|> 

Matyas (L)

--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to                
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to    
If you have any problems, address them to          

In article >, Dan Pop > wrote:
>
>Alexander already proved you wrong.  Yet another cheap shot a la Joe
>Pannon.

He did?  When?  I must have missed it.  Or just fallen asleep?
Dan, you're such a sour-puss that you can't even tell the difference
between leg-pulling and cheap shot.  Oh, well ...

>>Like that guy who wrote that tract on Tokes?
>>
>The references about Tokes' dissidence posted by Liviu Iordache pointed
>to Romanian authors, too.  Shall we dismiss them, for this reason?

Sure, but those Romanians did not do the routine "Romanian thing",
badmouthing everything Hungarian.  Ergo, they were instantly credible.
You're not very perceptive today, Dan.

Joe

In article >,
    (John Bowling) wrote:
>In article >, Jaffo > wrote:
>>
>>:I agree; this whole shit does not even remotely belong to 
>>:alt.sex.homosexual and similar groups. Tak chto, rebyata, sidite v 
>>:alt.culture.russian (ili, esche lucshe, v 
>>:alt.cretins.who.have.nothing.to.say) i ne zasoryaite set'.


I would like to propose, to remove such a garbage from this group, that in the 
future we will use ONLY CZECH. Morons will get soon tired and remove this muck 
elwhere, hopefully.

Vasek.

|Tiberiu Murgoci > wrote:
|> It seamed to me (from discutions with Romanians in Romania) that,
|>while they couldn't care less about unification with the Rep. of Moldova
|>(some of them were even very much against it, due to official
|>propaganda), the same Romanians would be very adamant against an indep=
|>endent Transylvania (again due to the official propaganda).

Liviu Iordache wrote:
|Which reminds me of a very similar thought voiced by Doina Cornea, the
|only prominent Romanian dissident in Cluj ready to make common cause with
|Hungarian in condemning nationalist excesses,  at a public rally called by
|HDFR to protest over restrictions on Hungarian-language teaching in Cluj
|schools: "It is absurd," she said, "that at a time when Bessarabia is
|occupied and we do nothing to liberate it, we say instead that the Magyars
|want to take Transylvania. We are the ones in control of Transylvania and
|it is the duty of a landlord to be generous."
|
|Hungarian landlords failed to be generous toward the Romanians of
|Transylvania whose initial goal during the 18th and 19th centuries, BTW,
|was to be a fully-recognized nation within the federal state ruled by the
|Habsburgs. When the Hungarians refused to comply with their demands, only
|then the Romanians turned toward their economically-less-developed
|brothers from across the Carpathians. We should learn something from the
|Hungarians' mistake.

I think the Canadians outside Quebec would do well to learn something from
the same mistake. 

>I personally believe that in todays world, language, culture 
>and common territory are not - sine qua non - and that
>economics should prevail. Everything is secondary to food!

|Very unsophisticated but, nevertheless, correct.
|Liviu Iordache

And your post, Liviu, was sophisticated AND correct.
Thanks.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Joe wrote:
>>>How did the Normanns get into England? 

Wally wrote:
>>By murder, pillage, arson, of course.

Joe wrote:
>So how come nobody is questioning the legitimacy of it the way you were
>doing with the Hungarian conquest?

Because I would kill them.

Joe wrote: 
>>>Call it "manifest destiny", if you will.

Wally wrote:
>>No. That's an euphemism. Call it what it is. Murder, pillage, arson.

Joe wrote:
>I know. It was a tongue in cheek comment.

Oh, I thought it was something else in your cheek.

Wally wrote:
>>Atilla and his pre-medieval motorcycle gang swept onto
>>the plains, and in a fit of mass serial killing that would envy Ted
>>Bundy, established the foundation on which the Hungarian nation now
>>exists.

Joe wrote:
>Hmmm, finally a Westerner who takes that folklore about the Hun-Magyar
>connection seriously! ;-)  Attaboy, Wally!

What's the point of good folklore if you can't sell Hollywood on it?
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

In article > Laszlo Katkits,
 writes:
>Eloljaroban:
>Ezalkalommal irasod teljesen mentes minden szemelyeskedestol. Igy
>mar vitanak is lehet tekinteni.

Köszi.

>>2. Az első zsidótörvény nem 1936-ban volt, hanem korábban, sokkal
>>korábban.

>Az amit ezen a neven tartanak szamon az 1936 bol szarmazik. A
>kesobbiekhez kepest szinte artatlan kis torvenyecske volt, megtiltotta
>a zsidoknak az ingatlanbirtoklast egy meret folott amire nem emlekszem,
>meg eltiltotta oket bizonyos palyaktol.

>Lehet hogy Te a Verboczi fele Hermaskonyvre gondolsz, ahol a 
>foldbirtoklast tiltottak meg nekik ? Ezt 1825-ben feloldotta a 
>reformorszaggyules.

Emiatt nem válaszoltam eddig, meghökkentett, amit írtál, és szerettem
volna leellenőrizni az állításomat, de nem sikerült, mert a könyveim egy
részét hazavittem Mo.-ra  (és hoztam mást), és most nincs referenciám.

Én abban a hitben éltem, hogy a zsídó vallásúak egyetemi felvételének
korlátozása a huszas évek elejére datálódik (21-re emlékeztem..), ami
korai Horthy rendszer reakciója volt hogy a bolsevik diktatúra vezetésé-
ben  résztvevő zsidó lumpenértelmiségiek, khm, izé.... túlreprezentált-
ságára.

Ha mégis én tudnám jól, az egy nagy rosszpont lenne számodra, hisz
téged érdekel ez a kérdés, te provokáltál minket, te neked illene tisz-
tában lenned ilyen alapvető dolgokkal.

>>Ezen okok következtében a "viszonylag demokratikusan hatalomra ke-
>>rult kormanytol indult el" kifejezésed teljességgel értelmezhetetlen.

>Hat en ugy gondoltam erthetoen fogalmaztam, vagy legalabbis en er-
>tettem, amit irtam. Probaljam meg ujra, vagy hagyjam annyiban ?

Te azt állítod, hogy demokratikus körülmények között születtek ezek
a törvények, én azt mondom, hogy nem. A Horthy-régime korai 2-3
évének keménysége szerintem összemérhető a Kádári, 56 utáni évek-
beli viszonyokkal. Késöbb sem lett demokratikusabb állam belőle,
csak konszolidáltabb.

Tamás

 (Kurt Swanson) wrote:
>Jag vet inte vilket är mer skrämmande: en ful svensk eller julbordet
>med Trondheims skyttelag...

Det er svćrt vanskelig ĺ si noe fornuftig om. Jeg synes i grunnen det er 
svćrt vanskelig ĺ si noe fornuftig overhode. Det kommer selvsagt meget an 
pĺ hvor ful en svenske, og i hvilken ende av skytebanen man blr plassert. 

Det heter forresten Nidaros Skytterlag fra gammelt av. Skytterlagene er 
svćrt nasjonale i seg selv, men det var ikke nok her. Nidaros signifierer 
en varm nasjonal holdning og velutviklet forsvarsvilje.

-- 
Arne Kolstad

Dan Pop wrote:
>Dan (who's happy not to be accepted in a "well-Hungary Club" controlled
>     by Joe Pannon :-)

Well-Hungary Joe wrote:
>Don't worry, Don, MOD would qualify before you. (But you can start your
>own sour-puss-Romania Club.)

He already has, it's called soc.culture.romania.

And why are you here all the time, Joe?

Because soc.culture.magyar is actually soc.culture.snooze

And why am I here all the time?

Because winter has set in on soc.culture.canada and I need the warmth of 
some flames
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Joe Pannonnak:

  Egy hete korulbelul hogy egy jo rakas mindenfelet irtal szemelyemrol,
akit sehonnan sem ismersz. Tobbek kozott osszefantazialod az eredetemet,
marmint hogy zsido vagyok. Sehol nem irtam egyetlen sort sem a
szarmazasomrol, pontosan azert, mert itt nem ez a tema. Te megis
hetet-havat osszehordasz, pedig tobbszor felhivtam ra figyelmedet,
hogy a targynal maradj. OK utananeztel az Ujvideki "hideg napok"-nak,
bar nem tudom mifele forrast szereztel, amelyik csak 3500 halottrol tud.
En jartam tobbszor Ujvideken, es nem messze a varostol mutattak nekem
egy tomegsirt, ahol - emlekezetem szerint - 12 000 ember van eltemetve.
Ezeket a Dunabol fogtak ki egy 3 hetes periodus alatt. Es akkor csak
egy varosrol van szo. Kanizsa, Zenta, Ada meg a tobbiek nincsenek emlitve.
De mondjuk, hogy rosszul emlekezem, vagy szandekosan nagyobb szamot
irtam, mint a Te forrasod: Szerinted ezert 70 000 magyart oltek meg a
szerbek, amikor ujra ok kerultek hatalomra. Ujra fel kell tegyem a
kerdest: nem veted Te el egy kicsit a sulykot?
Az allitas pedig, hogy a verengzesekert csak azok a svab szarmazasu
tisztek voltak felelosek, azert sem allja meg a helyet, mert sok nem
katonai kotelekbe tartozo onkentes gyilkos mukodott ezekben kozre.

  Tobben probalnak minden felelosseget a nemetekre haritani, meg arra,
hogy haboru volt, meg hogy a magyarok csak kelletlenul szovetkeztek
a nemetekkel, stb. Ez bizony jelentos korrigalasa a valosagnak. Egy
korabbi alkalommal mar emlitettem a zsidotorvenyeket - sot hibasan
irtam az elsonek a datumat: nem 1936 hanem 1938 majusa. Tehat 6 evvel
a nemet megszallas ELOTT, 1 evvel a haboru kitorese ELOTT hozott a
magyar kormany olyan torvenyeket, amiben kimondjak a zsidok
jogfosztottsagat. Szalasi torvenye miszerint minden zsido minden
tulajdona a magyar allam tulajdonaba megy at, csak a pont volt az i-re.
Olyat, hogy a magyarok a vegsokig kitartottak Hitler mellet, meg
szinte nemi buszkeseggel is szoktak emlegetni. A Dohany utcai
zsinagoga elleni merenyletet 1939 februarjaban sem a nemetek hajtottak
vegre, hanem a nyilasok. A haboru meg nem tort ki.

  Aztan meg hogy nem tagadtak meg toluk a magyarsagot. Fel kell hivjam
a figyelmet az 1939 majusaban szuletett IV. torvenycikkre, ami kimondja,
hogy magyarnak csak azok a zsidok tekinthetok, akiknek errol 1914 elotti
bizonyitvanyuk van ! Egy 1941-bol valo torveny szerint nemi kacsolat
magyar es zsido kozott FAJGYALAZAS buntettenek minosul. Folytassam ?

  Aztan a tobbszor vissztero hazug allitas, miszerint a kommunista
terror a zsidok muve volt. Mindez mint implicit allitas beagyazva
egy feligazsagba, miszerint a vezeto kommunistak kozott sok volt
a zsido. A TERROR ALDOZATAI KOZOTT IS legalabb ugyanolyan aranyban
jelen voltak, az ellenzek is tele volt zsidokkal! De ezt "elfelejted",
mert ugy nem jon ki a kivant mindanivalo ugye? Folytassam ?

Inkabb idezek a "Mi Magyarok" cimu konyvbol:
" A magyar zsidosag a tortenelem folyaman mindig a nemzet ugye melle allt,
tizezrekre megy az elso vilaghaboruban hosi halalt halt magyar zsidok
szama. Sokuknak kituntetesuk, vitezsegi ermuk van..."
"...Tudjuk, a munkasszazadok legenysege es parancsnokai azt a feladatot
kaptak: egyetlen elo zsido se johet haza a frontrol. Ezt persze nem
kormanyrendelet irta elo, hanem 'csak' szoban terjesztettek. Itt mar
szabalyos emberirtas folyik es nem nemet, hanem magyar kozremukodessel."
"... Ismet a regi vetkunknel tartunk: nem tudjuk meghatarozni, hogy kik
vagyunk,...azt hatarozzuk meg, hogy ki NEM magyar. A tagadas, a kirekesztes,
mint erdemszerzesi lehetoseg...."

  Termeszetesen osszefantazialhatsz valamit a konyv irojarol, Nemeskurty
Istvanrol is, ahogy rolam. De igazabol ugy gondolom, hogy abbahagyhatnad
a szemelyeskedest.
  Ahogy elnezem hozzaszolasaidat pl. Erdely ugyeben, ugyanezt a tendenciat
latom. Keves erv es sok szemelyeskedes. Igy teljesen elsikkad az is
amikor igazad van, es inkabb kart okozol az ugynek, amit kepviselni
akarsz.

  Ahogy a vita legelejen mar irtam: jobb lenne, ha tagadas, felremagyarazas,
szerecsenmosdatas helyett a magyarsag neveben szolok leszamolnanak ezekkel
a dolgokkal es elhatarolnak magukat toluk. Ennek hianyaban csak a fasisztoid
tendenciak kapnak megerositest. A vilag pedig tovabbra sem fogja komolyan
venni a magyarokat akiknek a vita csak szemelyes sertegetesbe, lynch-hangulat
teremtesebe tud torkollni. Te itt engem magyarellenes diverzanskent
allitottal be, mert eszedbe juttattam dolgokat, amiket latszolag elfelejtettel.
Nos Dzso Pannon, ki az aki itt a magyarsag karara munkalkodik ?
Volt itt egy kozbeszolo aki szerint jol megadtad az "urgenek". Marmint
nekem. Lehet, mert ez volt a celod. De hogy a temanak mekkorat tettel be,
azt mar ne En kell megmutassam. 
  Bathory Istvan grof, a haboru utan irt emlekezeseiben azon morfondirozik,
hogyan sullyedt a magyarsag idaig. Tobbszor emlegeti az ostobasag go"gjet.
Ajanlom ezt a konyvet mint olvasmanyt mindenkinek, aki meg akarja adni
az "urgenek".

//Laszlo

On 17 Nov 1995, Krisztian Balogh wrote:

> He does not even think about wanting to call peace between
> the two countries... 

He will, eventualy, but on terms that are closer to his own !

> That's ok, we will still get ERDELY sooner or later. 
> It might be a "stupid" statement, but its true!
> ELJEN MAGYARORSZAG!!!

Elyen, de egyenlore ehezig ! By the time it may come to fulfilling
that 'statement', Hungary is going to be in such a poor economic 
shape that not even the good reverend Tokes will want any part of it !

m. cristian

Matyas ) wrote:
> In article >,  () write
s:
> |> CHARLES VAMOSSY ) wrote:

>   This has happened in the united states where a congress 
> |> man (from my state even)as a result of recent event in Canada has 
> |> introduced a law that will effectly outlaw the teaching of lower level 
> |> classes in languages other than english.  Spanish is the target of this 
> |> law and the reasoning is if you allow a distinct culture to enter and not 
> |> assimalate then you will eventually face division and the cultures 
> |> clash. 

> Difference is that Hungarians "entered" about 1000 years ago and there was no
> reason for them to assimilate, since even if Romanians had been the majority 
> some time before WWI, this majority wasn't even 2 to 1.

	I am not saying that the Hungarians should assimilate just that 
to those who think that they should (many of them are in Romanias 
government) could use the above argument to suppress diversity.  

>  I would like to avoid flames by pointing out that I do NOT agree 
> |> with this law and feel that americans being mostly mono-lingual is a 
> |> disadvantage.  

> Then, you should have avoided it, because, at least I don't believe in the
> sincerity of this statement.

	I don't care what you believe it seame to me that many of the 
people on this group that like to flame seem to know what every one else 
believes better than they do.  It must be nice to know what is on 
everyones mind.  Let me tell you the truth though as to avoide any 
misscomunication in the future.  I believe that a persons ideas and 
beliefes are who they are more so then even their actions because their 
actions are dictated by their ideas.  There for when I think somthing as 
a matter of being true to my self I will say it and not try to hide it.  
I am not asamed of what I believe....are you?

> |> 
> |> > But I can't help but wonder if Romania, having taken over Transylvania  
> |> > as war booty from the 
> |> > loosing Hungarian side, would afford the same human rights to its 
> |> > Hungarian minority as Canada does to the French.  Would Romania give the
 
> |> > same constitutional guarantees of language and culture as Canada?  
> |> 
> |>    I think there are lots-o-people on this group that would disagree with 
> |> you on this point seeing as how Hungry got Transylvania in the first 
> |> place, 

> Namely, how (and when) did Hungary get Transylvania first?

  NO NO NO I did not say Hungary got Transylvania first!!  I implied that 
they got it from the Romanians in the first PLACE.

 > |>but I will leave that point to others who know more 
about it. 

> Then why bother even mentioning it?

   Because I wanted it to be evident that I disagreed with him and that I 
agree with the Daco-Roman history of romania.

 > [...]
> |> 
> |> 
> |> Regards,
> |> Scott

> Matyas


Regards,
Scott

 wrote:
> In article >,  > wrote
:
> >
> >   I don't think it is that diffrent and this is why:
> >     1.  When/How a subculture comes to exist has no effect on how they reac
t 
> >to the political situation as long as they are the same in other respects.  

> This is like saying that it makes no difference how one came to the
> posession of a house: legally or by attending a party there and then not
> wanting to leave.  After all some problems of home ownership would be
> the same after a while.
> Scott, you not making any more sense with this one than with your dual
> citizenship post.

	You missed my point I was just saying the existance of a 
subculture causes a cirtian level of division, and that this how that got 
their is not improtant to this point.  I was not trying to say that how 
they got their is not important.  To use your example if a person just 
moved into my house legally or illegally and could not communicate with 
me or would not interact with me that would be a problem (my point).  The 
isseu of whether they were they legally or illegally is important but has 
no effect on the fact that their will be a disturbance.
	If I was wrong then could you tell me how 
I was  wrong in saying 
that the USA does not reconized dual citizenship past the age of 18?? 


> >     2.  This situation could exist in Romania where hungarian communities 
> >keep to them selves and dont even learn Romanian.  NOTE:  I am not claiming 
> >this is the case now (it may be but I don't know) but it is the argument tha
t 
> >I was speaking of.

> So why shouldn't they keep to themselves if they want to?  Why should
> they even be forced to learn Romanian (however advisable that might be)?
> Life will force them if they need to, just like it forces the immigrants
> in this country to learn English.  I don't particularly like your
> coercive type of mentality in this regard, Scott!
> I say "live and let live" is a good principle to follow in this case.

	I was not saying that they should I was saying that there are 
those who think they should.  I dont think that anyone should be forced 
to "mix-in"

> Joe


Regards,
Scott

In article >, Dan Pop > wrote:
>Try to forget the propaganda which was used to wash your brain and think
>for yourself.

OK, Dan, but only if you do the same!

BTW, you forgot you usual messages:

"Remember Ip and Traznea!"
"Remember the 3 week old baby, who was killed by the Hungarian
crooks/criminals/wackos/morons!"

You may also add:

"I have never denied killing 1,000,000,000 Romanians!"

"The mountain passes are blocked, the roads destroyed, the Romanians will 
starve in their mountains over the winter!"

General X, Chief-of-Staff of the Hungarian Army.

BTW, anybody know what happened to Helmut Duckadam, keeper for Steaua? Where is
he now?

Gabor

In >  (Matyas ) writes:

>Do you check your "facts", Dan? For instance, where did you get your informati
on
>that none of the members of the HDUR is Romanian?

Care to name some HDUR deputees and/or senators who are Romanians?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

 wrote:
> In article >,  > wrote
:
> >
> >   I think there are lots-o-people on this group that would disagree with 
> >you on this point seeing as how Hungry got Transylvania in the first 
> >place, but I will leave that point to others who know more about it. 

> Just what do you know about how Hungary got Transylvania in the first
> place, Scott?  I hope you are a little better versed on this one than
> about the subject of dual citizenship.

> Joe


	Look Joe you never stated how I was wrong about dual citizenship 
and I know I was not wrong.  Further more my point in the above section 
from my post was that I am not as well versed in the Transylvania isseu 
as some people on this group and so I will leave the isseu to them.  

	So if you would like to explain exactly how I am wrong is saying 
the united states does not reconized dual citizenship past age 18 then I 
will disscuss the isseu with you.

Regards,
Scott

I am trying to locate a book that was published in Hungary in the early
'90s.  If you, or someone you know of can help in locating a Hungarian
book, I'd love to hear from you.  E-Mail me at 
and we can discuss the details.

Thanks!

Krisztian Balogh (cbalogh) wrote:
> Hello,

> This is in response to all articles about ERDELY (transylvania).

> The bottom line is that it belongs to HUNGARY!!! (that's it!!!!!!!!!)

> Krisztian

	Well you sure showed vlad!!!  With shch high reasoning as this 
I dont see haw anyone could bye into vlads arguments >;)

Regards,
Scott Keith Laws

 wrote:
: Vlad ROMASCANU ) wrote:
: 
: > 	And, BTW, in Europe the tendency is 'UNITY', not 'separatism'. Well, 
: > foreign-country fragmentation DOES suit US, but that doesn't mean AT ALL it
's a 
: > good, or even acceptable choice. Of course, who's big is powerful. The same
 thing 
: > is valid for Russia. And of course, the task of the new, conservative Russi
a, once 
: > back as a mondial power, will only be facilitated if it finds an even MORE 
divided 
: > (Eastern) Europe.
: 
: Not that I disagree with you main point that a seprat transylvania as Wally 
: was referring to is unrealistic.  But, I do disagree with this point.  The 
: very nature of eastern europe and europe as a whole is one of sepratism.  
: America was populated by so many ethnic groups that the lines dividing them 
: blended and a new culture was born.  In europe a German moving into a difrent
 
: country will live with Germans there and in 100 years their children will 
: still be looked at by them selves and others around them as german. The same 
: is true of almost any culture in europe.  I would say that the sepritism in 
: canada is not a result of american culture but of european culture that is 
: trying stay european.

	Yes, Scoot. There are 2 ways to fix this: unifying Europe, 
or transforming it into smitherins. Do you agree with me that for the 
moment being, in the West, the first tendency is dominant ? May I also 
remind that the second tendency is only present in Yugoslavia ? And that 
certain parties may have put their hands in that conflict ?

	So on THAT basis I actually stated that in Europe the tendency is 
for unification; unification IN A GREAT EUROPE, not in other countries, 
of course. Even if the Czech and Slovaks separated, they both want to 
enter the Union -- that's what I mean. And probably the Union will be 
more than economical. A German living in EC on Polish territory will not 
feel as isolated and foreigner as a German living in Poland.
-- 
--

Vlad Romascanu                                      
         '

On 15 Nov 1995, Krisztian Balogh wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> This is in response to all articles about ERDELY (transylvania).
> 
> The bottom line is that it belongs to HUNGARY!!! (that's it!!!!!!!!!)
> 
> Krisztian
> 
> 
> 
Mr. Krisztian,


Having such oppinions is, of course, allowd, but are you sure, 100% sure, 
that you are RIGHT ? Such as, let's say, Florida should belong to Spain ? 
or to Mexico, or etc ? More, what if, somebody asks : "WHY ?" then, the 
discussion starts all over again....

 wrote:
: Alexander:
: Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound when you patronizing me like
: this?

	Far less ridiculous than you sound when you post your drivel, but 
that hasn't stoped you yet, has it?

: What shifts are you talking about? What have you disproved from my
: arguments?  None that I can think of, unless you are thinking of those
: ones where you defined what my position was (wrongly, of course), and
: then you went wild hog on arguing that straw horse.  Just think of that
: "massive migration of tens of thousand per year for many years" idea you
: attributed to me.

	How many ethnic Romanians do you believe lived in Moldavia and Wallachia - 
and Transylvania, for that matter - in 1365 when Moldavia broke free from 
Hungarian suzerainty? How many in 1389 when Wallachia broke free from 
Hungarian suzerainty?  Do you beleive that one third to one half of 
Romanians died durring the Black Death, as happened accross the rest of 
Europe?  How many died while the Mongols stormed through both Moldavia 
and Wallachia on the way to Orsova?  How many died when the Mongols 
returned to Central Asia after the attacks on Buda and Pest?  How many 
died in breaking free from Hungary?

	In making up your numbers remember that Moldavia and Wallachia 
had to have a sufficiently large population to be able to throw off the 
Hungarian yoke and maintain a comparatively successful campaign against 
the Turks starting at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 and continuing on and 
off at least until the assassination of Prince Michael the Brave.  
If you don't think that your migration theory requires "tens of 
thousands" of people migrating in every year over several centuries, 
please tell us how few people you think could have pulled it off.  And 
then, perhaps, you could also tell us why you don't take your argument to 
its logical conclusion: that, since so few Romanains could do so much 
against such odds, Romanians are clearly the Master Race.

: Just think of the often repeated supposed
: Hungarian claim that Transylvania was empty when Hungarians arrived
: there.  Hungarains, of course, never had that position, but that does
: not seem to bother the Romanians trying to win an argument at any
: price.

	Hogwash.  Either present-day Romania was empty when the Magyars 
came, or else it wasn't.  If a people lived there, then, according to 
your migration theory, Romanians displaced them.  You have posted 
countless times that Romaninains DID NOT displace anyone in settling 
Wallachia and Moldavia.  So, what happened to these aboriginal, 
non-displaced, non-Romanian people?  How did a few shephard clans replace 
them?  Who were these natives.  Where did they come from?  Why could 
they be replaced so easily that there are no records or folk memories of 
their existance, let alone their replacement exit?  If you want 
Out-of-Illyria to be more than the fairy-tale that it is, you've got to 
have facts and explanations to support it.

: >Since you've re-opened your whole argument about "Romanization could not 
: >possibly have taken place in such a short time in Dacia, never mind that 

: This is another of your misstatement.  I did not reopen it; I merely
: contradicted some statement from your side.

	You told me that you had a book, conveniently in Hungarian, that 
claimed that Romanization could not possibly have happened in 160 years.  
Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, you reopening it.  If you don't 
think so, too bad.

: After all,
: nobody denied that Dacia used to be a Roman colony in the 2nd and 3rd
: century.

	But, you just denied that Romanization took place.  Or were you 
just quoting your Hungarian-language book in order to take up bandwidth?

: So was Pannonia, with even more archeological evidence of that
: than you find in the former Dacia.  Yet, despite the longer occupation,
: no Latin speaking population remained there after the Romans evacuated
: it.

	Mountains and forests make good places for locals to hide in.  
Plains do not.  It isn't supprising that Dacia's Latin population 
survived Pannonia's.  But, your arguments are based on ideology, not on 
reason, so I shouldn't expect you to recognize the self-evident without 
my much-needed aid.

: >	Don't you notice that Bossii is missing the "k" that appears in 
: >the Slavic names you mention?

: The k is not mandatory before the -ssii in Russian.  I just picked that
: familiar name for the -ij (-ii) ending.  I could have picked names like
: "Groznii", for instance.

	While you are about it, how about explaining how Umberto Bossi, 
head of Italy's Northern League, got his Slavic name.

: >	I've got two suggestions for you.  The first possible root word is 
: >"bos".  It would make perfect sence as a name for a family with large 
: >cattle holdings: "the cattle [owning] clan".  That is the generally 
: >accepted root within the family (but let me add that it is just a 
: >supposition - no family stories remember the original meaning).  You are 
: >likely to be in favor of that origin since the Greek word for cattle is 
: >"boskos", and you could go on playing the Balkan angle you love so much.  

: It's not a matter of me liking it.  It's just too hard to ignore with
: all the traces left there. 

	But, the Balkan parts of my family remember their Balkan 
ancestry: The Cantacuzeno know that they came from Constantinople, 
and before that, from Smyrna.  The Moruzi know that they came from 
Constantinople, and before that they came from Trebizond.  (Oh oh, my 
Balkan forefathers seem distinctively Anatolian in real origins.)  But, 
hang on, the Ghika remember that they originaly came from Albania.  And, 
somehow, we Bossy, mange to remember that we lived in Dacia from Roman 
times until the Soviet occupation.

: Well, I am not much of an expert on Slavic languages, especially on
: ancient variants, but I could imagine somebody familiar with it might
: recognize "bos" also as something ringing suspiciously Slavic. 
: Like I found the word "bozgor" immediately Slavic sounding, meaning
: "without mountain".  (A man without mountain could easily come to mean
: "man without a country" among mountain shepherds, right?)

	But I thought that it was the Romanian immigrants who were the 
shepherds.  And I'm sure that Umberto Bossi and the whole National League 
wish to express their appreciation to you for your (amusing) explanation of 
the Slavic origins of his (hitherto) Italian name.

	Alexander

Wally Keeler ) wrote:
: Article #28296 (Sat Nov 11 1995):
: From: Vlad ROMASCANU >
: Subject: Re: Dan Pop & Quebec & Transylvania
: 
: Wally Keeler wrote:
: >It is a unitary state. Yes we know. By the will of the Romanian people, or
: >at least by the will of Romanian kings and dictators. In any event, it was
: >hardly a consequence of a enlightened democratic decision.
: 
: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >Yes, Wally? Are you sure? I wouldn't, if I were in YOUR place. Were you 
: >there?
: 
: I didn't see you there. Where were you? In the back row?
: 
	So you WERE there. Interesting, very interesting. Did you 
reincarnate ? Wally, you are... stranger than I imagined.

: Dan Pop wrote:
: >>How about other Western democracies, like France, which don't even 
: >>admit having ethnic minorities?  Romania is considerably better off WRT
: >>minority rights than many Western democracies.  
: 
: Wally Keeler wrote:
: >How about the Western democracy, like Canada? Canada is vastly better off
: >with minority rights than Romania. Can we talk?
: 
: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >Don't forget, Canada is on another continent, it isn't in Europe. 
: >Mentalities are different. On the other hand, I am sure Canada had a moral
: >debt towards the French 
: 
: Yes, Vlad? Are you sure? Were you in the back there also? Actually Canada
: had no moral debt. The fact that the French fact was "protected" in Quebec
: had much more to do with pragmatism on the part of the British colonizers.
: Quebec turned inward to its Catholicism, but when the "quiet revolution"
: occurred in the 1960's the rest of Canada took notice. Canada has been
: struggling with its constitutional structure ever since.
: 
	British pragmatism ? What were their interests in preserving 
French culture ?

: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >because, actually, besides the rather few Louisians, the Quebecois are
: >about the only French on this continent. In EUROPE this is not the case.
: >It is not an excuse, though, but it explains the difference between
: >Canada's and Europe's attitudes.
: 
: In Europe, there are Germans, Poles, Italians, Spaniards, etc. In France
: there is the only French on the continent. In EUROPE it is the case. What's
: the diff?

	The diff, Wally, is obvious: they are in France. They are in 
THEIR independent country. And 
{{Polish!=German!=Italian!=Spaniard}!={American}}!={French}

	Cheers, Wally.
-- 
--

Vlad Romascanu                                      
         '

Wally Keeler ) wrote:
: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >Yes, Wally, yes. Blah, blah, and blah blah again.
: >I'm sure that you, as a good Canadian that you are you'd be very happy if
: >Quebec separated. 
: 
: You obviously missed one of the blahs. I did post, more than once, that I
: did not wish Quebec to seperate from Canada. 
: 
	Me too, as a Romanian, I don't want Transilvania to separate. Period.

: >Well, did you read all the discussions on this subject? 
: 
: Yes, and obviously you didn't or you wouldn't have committed your faux pas
: as noted above.
: 
: >Transilvania vs. Quebec ? The difference between the Quebequois and the
: >other Canadians are much much MUCH more important than differences between
: >even Transylvanian magyars and Romanians
: 
: Perhaps the Transylvania Magyars and Transylvania Romanians can tell us
: about their exceedingly less differences. Two different languages are
: spoken. Two different cultures. Two different interpretations of their
: local history. Doesn't sound vastly different to me.
: 
	The differences are more subtle than that. Differences 
Quebec-Transilavania #1 is: The Hungarians weren't occupied; they 
actually are, historically, occupiers. #2, Romanians and Hungarians 
evolved on the same territory for about a THOUSAND years. What about 
English and French, i. e. Quebequois and Anglos ? Less than half of that. 
Romanians and Romanian-Hungarians are more alike than Quebs & Anglos. 
Romanians were actually 'assimilated' by the Hungarians, with the time. 
However, please notice how little difference exists between Romanians 
generally speaking, from whichever part of the country they come. 
Provided they are not Gypsies, of course. :-)
	As for the local history, you mistake Romanian-Hungarians for Hungarian 
extremists.

: >-- then what about differences between Transylvania's Romanians and 'the
: >rest' of Romanians? For Transylvania to become an independent state you'd
: >have to convince some millions of Transylvanian ROMANIANS that they are
: >different, and/or that they want to separate from 'the other' Romanians.
: 
: Of course, this goes without saying. Autonomy for Transylvania is only a
: small idea. It is far from being desired by the majority of people who live
: in Transylvania.
: 
: >Wally, one can see you weren't born in Europe. 
: 
: Whew! that's a relief.
: 
: >You think typically American (sorry for the insult...). 
: 
: That's not an insult. You're silly or ignorant.
: 
	No. I'm European, and I'm proud of it.

: >You think that what people built and tried to build for centuries, one can
: >destroy because of some, may I say temporary, economical situation? How
: >else are you going to convince ethnical Romanians in order to add them up
: >with the Hungarians wanting secession, to create a more-than-50%
: >secessionist population? 
: 
: I have no interest in convincing Romanians to seperate. BTW, what was built
: over centuries, as you put it, was largely destroyed by Ceausescu and his
: predecessors.
: 
	That's not a reason.

: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >And do you think any state in the world (besides Canada, of course) would
: >allow the vote of a region to decide for the fate of the country?
: 
: The only state that would permit such a vote, would be one that was totally
: committed to democracy. Regretably, there are all too few countries in the
: world who hold democracy so dearly.
: 
	Too much democracy may result in serious consequences. (Re)read 
'The Republic'

: Vlad Romascanu wrote: 
: >There are 8% Hungarians in Romania, not more. I am very curious: how you
: >are going to convince more than 42% of the romanian population (around
: >9.66 millions) to vote for separation ?
: 
: As I said, I have no interest.
: 
	Then, Wally, why are you... so interested ? Your posts make about 
25% of the material on the subject.

: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >Be realistic, Wally, Europe is not America... Things are not resolved that 
: >esily. BTW, in Europe (still) logic is considered first,
: >political-correctness afterwards. 
: 
: Oh what a crock of shit you spilled onto the Usenet carpet! Europe: the
: continent that brought upon the world the two most violent wars in all of
: human history; Europe: the seedbed of communism; Europe: the home of
: monarchies, despots, dictatorshits, ad nauseum. Logic is first you say? The
: current Bosnian conflagration is logical? 
: 
	You come from Europe, Wally. You are no better. What happens in 
Bosnia is illogical ? Yes, I grant you that. It even looks TOO illogical. 
But what about the milicias in the logical New World ? Are they logical ? 
No -- and if you allow me to open a paranthesis, they are the 
consequences of too much democracy

: Canada has been an uninterrupted democracy for 128 years. This beats the
: record of most of the European states. Now tell me something about logic.
: Tell us about democracy, oh ye who sucked it from your mothers milk.
: Logic???? You??????? You are far from being logical -- Democracy is the
: most politically correct method of governing yet devised.
: 
: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >In Europe (still) one cannot escape justice by accusing the prosecution 
: >of racism only because he was lucky enough to be born with a different
: >skin-colour and to live in a country with a very political-correct
: >legislation... 
: 
: In Romania, justice cannot yet be achieved, so lynch mobs march down the
: road to pillage and burn down entire villages of the Roma. Do tell me about
: justice.
: 
: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >And, BTW, in Europe the tendency is 'UNITY', not 'separatism'. Well, 
: >foreign-country fragmentation DOES suit US, but that doesn't mean AT ALL
: >it's a good, or even acceptable choice. Of course, who's big is powerful.
: >The same thing is valid for Russia. And of course, the task of the new,
: >conservative Russia, once back as a mondial power, will only be
: >facilitated if it finds an even MORE divided (Eastern) Europe.
: 
: >Well, Wally, think about it... And re-read some history and look for 
: >identical situations. History repeats itself, because people don't learn
: >from it.
: 
: Obviously, Europe didn't learn its history very well from World War 1, so
: it was decided to have a bigger, better one -- World War II. History still
: hasn't been learned, so lets have a murder party in the Balkins -- Europe
: is invited to meddle. 
: 
: Canada can learn some things from Europe. We could take a good look at how
: the Flemish people are faring, and how the Catalonians are faring, and how
: Switzerland manages to keep it's disparate peoples assembled under one
: roof. There are things to learn. Likewise, some European states can learn
: from other states, whether they are European or not. For instance, Romania
: could learn about the same things -- Flemish, Catalonia -- and perhaps
: there would be better relations among the peoples of Transylvania, and
: perhaps Romania could have smoother relations with its neighbours --
: Ukraine, Hungary.
: 
: -- 
: Wally Keeler					Poetry
: Creative Intelligence Agency			is
: Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency
-- 
--

Vlad Romascanu                                      
         '

Laszlo Katkits > wrote:
>
>  Egy hete korulbelul hogy egy jo rakas mindenfelet irtal szemelyemrol,
>akit sehonnan sem ismersz. Tobbek kozott osszefantazialod az eredetemet,
>marmint hogy zsido vagyok. Sehol nem irtam egyetlen sort sem a
>szarmazasomrol, pontosan azert, mert itt nem ez a tema. Te megis

Katkits,
en mar nagyon unom az ostoba es rosszindulatu nyavajgasodat, s semmi 
kedvem folytatni.  Az meg nem egy nagy szam, hogy egy sort sem irtal
szarmazasodrol.  Ez eleg megszokott a magyar zsidoknal.  Az "orok
temajuk" azonban altalaban elarulja oket.

No, most legyel boldog, mert biztos csinaltal egy par uj antiszemitat
a tendenciozus hazudozasaiddal.

"Dzso"

Liviu Iordache ) wrote:
:  (Alexander Bossy) wrote:

	Hi Liviu:

	I will look at the various publications that you listed.

: Alexander's  FAQ contains virtually no bibliographical references.

	Sorry, my mistake.  Here are some of the relevant parts of my 
biography:

     in English:

Archaeology in Romania: The Mystery of the Roman Occupation by Andrew
MacKenzie, 1986

The Early Hungarians in the Light of Recent Historical Research by Tibor 
E. Barath, 1983

The Making of the Romanian People and Language by Constantin C. Giurescu, 
1972


     inFrench:

A l'aube du Moyen Age: Gepide et Lombard dans le bassin des Carpates, by 
Istvan Bona, 1976

Carte Archeologique de Roumanie by Emil Condarachi, Vladimir Dumitrescu, and
Mircea D. Mate

Daco-Romania by Dumitru Berciu, 1976, part of the Archaeologia Mundi 
series of covering recent archaeological finds across the globe

: It
: is my understanding that Alexander reads neither Romanian nor
: Hungarian, and , therefore, I suspect the present article of being
: based mainly on English and  French translations of Romanian research
: that, similarly to its Hungarian counterpart,  it is highly
: susceptible of presenting to the Western reader a highly distorted and
: biased interpretation of the facts connected with or regarding the
: early history of Transylvania .

	Somehow, I think that the research which is considered good 
enough to translate into English or French isn't considered pure 
propoganda, even if you don't happen to agree with it.

	Since all I refered to in this part of my FAQ was the period of Roman 
rule, much of the evidence wasn't even found in Romania, but in other 
parts of the Roman Empire.  Do you really believe, for example, that the 
British have been manufacturing Roman artifacts - for example the clasic 
Dacian swords of the cohors I Aelia Dacorum - to lend support for Dacian 
integration into the Roman Empire in order to bolster support for the 
Romanization of Dacia, in an effort to lend support to Romanian 
continuity?  To say the least, I find it unlikely that the British would 
do so.

: Isn't Alexander concerned that the
: final product of his research,  will also be affected by  the twisting
: and bending of the facts toward the so-called  "theory of Daco-Roman 
: continuity" ?

	If you'd kindly let me know which facts you think that I've been "twisting 
and bending", I'll respond to them.  General dismissals, without any 
specific examples of facts you disagree with, or alternative theories to 
explain the facts that you do agree with are really quite useless.

	Alexander

In article >,  > wrote:
>
>	Look Joe you never stated how I was wrong about dual citizenship 
>and I know I was not wrong.

Scott:
Maybe you should ask the other regulars on this news group to forward
you my answer that I posted twice already.  I think you are just
pretending you haven't seen it, so there is no point for me to keep
posting it in the hope you'll eventually acknowledge it.

Of course, there is the chance that you only occasionally visit the
group, thus missing a lot of articles.  But then, why do you post
controversial stuff if you are not interested in responses to it?

In either case, the problem seems to be at your and.

Think about it,
Joe

 wrote:
: In article >, Dan Pop > wrote:
: >
: >Alexander was, obviously, talking about books published abroad, not in
: >Romania.

: By exile Romanians, no doubt.  Like that guy who wrote that tract on
: Tokes?

	No, books writen by anyone.  Unlike you, I don't beleive in 
gentically testing authors before reading their works.

	Alexander

Sziasztok!

Kerlek benneteket, hogy forditsatok le az alabbiket sort szlovakra:

Szeretnenk 1996 januar 11-tol 14-ig az ASTRA PANZIOBAN szallast foglalni, 10
szemelyre. Kerem, jelezzen vissza, jo-e az idopont  es mennyibe kerul!

Koszonettel...

(Es tenyleg, kosz, Ligeti Gyorgy)