>On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 14:08:48 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>>
>>
>>Average?????
>>Now say altogether: I am unique! (Monty Python)


Then Charles said
>
>--I used to refer to you as Beloved Sister Eva, but noted that this
>made you sound like a nun.  You replied that you were only an average
>sister, but would make a very poor nun.  Hence, I switched to Average
>Sister Eva.  But I agree that you are unique.  Not many people who
>live in the 20th century embrace 19th century worldviews so enthusiastically.
>Perhaps I should call you Anachronistic Sister Eva.
>
>Charles
>Kook, First Class

Now I'm confused, was I mistaken or is Charles the consrvative?  Just who
wants the nineteenth century back?

Tibor

On Sun, 8 Jan 1995 08:35:53 GMT > said:

>the easiest way to deal with me is to take what i write/say
>at face value.
>
Oh, dear!
>>
>>--See, there's the problem.  Very few people confine their
>>understanding of another's communication to the literal meaning
>>of the words.
>
>i'm aware of that. it is also true that very few people can be relied
>on to keep their word. so what? does that oblige me to break mine?
>my answer is "definitely not".

--Taking your statement at face value, it is an old debater's trick.
You might as well have countered my statement with "It is also true
that ducks quack.  But that does not oblige me to quack."  My point
remains unchallenged in any real way.  Very few people have literal
minds.  I have noticed, but not systematically researched, a tendency
among people from Eastern Europe to assume hidden meanings.  I
attribute this to their background in the Byzantine politics of the
area, since this characteristic is most prounounced when dealing with
things the goverment tells them.
>
>
>not jujst from the context, but from the context plus the
>preconceptions
>"one" injects.
>
--Certainly.  And most of us who communicate take that into account.

>no. my position is to try to express the substance of what i wish to
>communicate in such a way that it requires no *reading between the
>lines*
>to grasp the meaning, that when in doubt, recourse to the oxford
>dictionary will suffice to restore clarity.
>
--I only have the Concise Oxford.  Well, what I mean is that the
Concise is the only Oxford that I have.  In the interests of strict
literalism, I have a couple of American dictionaries and a Brockhaus.
Will those do?

>then my advice to the recipient, should (s)he be interested in
>understanding
>my communication injected, is to apply occam's razor.
>
--Well, he who lives by the razor...

Charles

On Sun, 8 Jan 1995 12:30:02 GMT > said:
>>--I must rise to defend Brother Bokor.
>
>with all due respect, i am not the member of any order, so i do not
>merit the title "brother", no matter how kind the intent.
>
--Eva Durant has conferred on me the title of "Kook, First Class."
I consider it high praise, but ordinarily, I don't like titles either.
This is why I never take them too seriously.  I suggest that you
consider adopting a similar policy.
>
>i am not aware of marching, and if my gait seems regular and
>constrained enough to warrant its being labelled "marching", then
>it is most unlikely that it be to the beat of any drum, as i
>suffer from severe congential arhythmia.

--What a coincidence!  I have seen terror on the face of young
doctors when they first listen to my chest.  My heart rhythms have
always been characterized by the oxymoron "regularly irregular."  It
may be of some interest for you to know that this is associated with
long life!
>
>please do not delete me! unlike our domesticated feline companions
>i have but one life, and it is one which i cherish to the utmost
>degree. have your way with my posting, but spare me!
>
--Again, the literal mind strikes out!
>
>who or what is bill buckley?

--William James was right, wasn't he?  Success is a bitch goddess.
William F. Buckley, Jr. is an extremely erudite American conservative
who edits a periodical called The National Review.  He also moderates
at television program on our public radio network.  On the program,
he often debates with prominent liberals, including John Kenneth
Galbraith and Frances Fox Piven.  I thought that his fame had
penetrated everywhere, even unto the antipodes.

>i do *not* consider the encycylopaedia britannica to be the ultimate
>authority on any of these matters. i merely use it as a first source.
                                                        i naively
>assumed that the encyclopaedia britannica would be an acceptable
>first
>reference.

--Encyclopedias only give a cursory summary of people and events.  The
articles are only as good as the contributors, and most scholars would
not accept any encyclopedia article as authoritative.  Even in the
much-maligned American educational system, an encyclopedia is regarded
as of limited use beyond secondary school.

>>Australian wine.
>
>one of the  benefits of a misspent youth.
>
--We had a Wolf Blass Cabernet Sauvignon the night before last.  I
tossed the bottle into the dustbin, but as I recall it was a 1985.
Not bad, but a little harsh.  But it met my criterion of being
drinkable for less that ten dollars American.

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 00:54:22 -0800 Tibor Benke said:
>
>Now I'm confused, was I mistaken or is Charles the consrvative?  Just who
>wants the nineteenth century back?
>
--The 19th century is gone.  It may be the most interesting century of
all from an historical standpoint, but we cannot live in it.  The
revolutions of 1848 were certainly watershed events, even though they
were not immediately effective, e.g. with respect to the Austro-
Hungarian empire.  While there are reactionaries who still embrace
monarchy, clericalism, and anti-democratic government, most who could be
called conservatives have their roots in the Republicanism of the
19th century.  Generally, they believe in representative government,
a relatively open market--but not the 18th century laissez-faire
economics of Adam Smith--and as much political liberty as possible.
If anything, conservativism has changed with the times and is
in better touch with reality.  The Left is still reading Proudhon and
Marx as if they were contemporary.  This is why, in my opinion, the
cynical neo-Leninism that held power in Eastern Europe was as
disturbing to the Left as it was to the Right.  Hungarian politics
are fascinating to me because the multi-party system seems to
include contemporary versions of the range of 19th century politics.
I suspect that it was Hungary's geographical position at a point
where Western Europe, the Russian empire, and the old Ottoman Empire
all met at one time or another that accounts for this.

--I am not a card-carrying conservative, but I do believe that the
Left has very little to offer and is stuck in the 19th century.  When
someone, usually a West European Social Democrat, drags his or her
party, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, the rest of the
Left screams "Revisionist!"  I think that there is a responsible
conservatism that is not anti-democratic or anti-human.  But this
is too long, so I'll quit.

Charles

>
> >Remember, socialism is about selfishness, you act on your own in-
> >terest to take over democratically the economy. I told, you,
> >it is not about good heart and changed human nature. You never
> >listen...
>
> --Actually, this sounds more like Proudhon than Marx.  Marx believed
> in government and he and Proudhon split over the issue because Proudhon
> didn't.  But Proudhon essentiall followed Christian ethics.  Does this
> mean that your conversion is immanent?
>
> Charles
> Kook, First Class (I may quit writing this.  Everyone knows it now.)
  (Please, also the sister thing bugs me)

The problem seems to be that a lot of people confuse the practical
day-to-day analysis/tactics/politics Marx had to work at
running a movement AT THE TIME (last century) from what actually the
philosophy entails. The end result would be the same actually for
your anarchist Proudhon and me: a society without state.

> think that she would enjoy Eva Durant very much. Unless, of course, she was a
> utopian socialist! And there are few of those, nowadays.
>

Utopian socialists were mostly French and lived a very long time ago.
Please talk about me behind my back. There is such a thing as private
mail... 

I think you are keen to associate the word communism with
stalinism for propagada reasons - to make the IDEA as nasty
as possible, as it is the only viable existing anti-capitalist
notion.  I think I would still rather stick with the definitions
of Marx, Lenin and Trocki, they surely are experts in this subject.
Why is Stalinism such a difficult phrase to digest? I can't see
why it should be called anything else. As for the later versions -
such as "existing socialism" it was still a form of totalitarian
stalinism, as it was not democratic.
I think Castro turned Cuba Stalinist describes the situation
there without ambiguity.
I do not know how  can you call Sweeden socialist as more
of the economy is owned privately there than in a lot of other
places, e.g.France I think. The social benefits are not
guaranteed by a constitution or else it shouldn't be so easy
to get rid of them in the years of financial crisis or
rotten goverment or just - rotting capitalism.
Please tell me why there cannot be such a society where people
own and use the wealth they create democratically? I think
- as described by others - capitalism cannot solve
existing problems and is suffocating further progress.
And we are running out of time.

>
> E1va Durant writes:
> > Glen, you are forgetful! You did not see communism in action.
> > Please, look at the definitions again, if you don't like labels, at
> > least don't use them wrongly.
>
> This definition business always struck me as particularly orwellian: the
> true believer reserves the word communism for an ideal state of affairs, and
> has to either appropriate the word socialism (used by social democrats the
> world over to mean something very different) or use a clumsy circumlocution
> "existing socialism" to name the only thing that was ever brought into being
> by communists. My last exposure to "scientific socialism" was almost twenty
> years ago, but this piece of language manipulation still annoys me. E1va,
> just as a favor to me, couldn't you switch to definitions that make it easy
> to express what *is* and require a more complex expression to describe what
> *might one day perhaps come*?
>
> I suggest we use the term "communism" to name the social order that appeared
> in its purest form in the Soviet Union under Stalin and the term "socialism"
> to name the social order we see in Scandinavia and elsewhere. This usage
> will at least accord with ordinary English, where a statement such as
> "Castro turned Cuba communist" means that Castro installed in Cuba a social
> system resembling that of the SU under Stalin, not that Castro created a
> workers' paradise fulfilling the high expectations of Karl Marx. As for
> "communism" in the sense you prefer to use it, it is not at all clear that
> such a thing can possibly exist -- the more honest, better thought through,
> and in general more appealing social ideal expressed in "Thy Kingdom Come"
> has at least been carefully hedged by theologians.
>
> Andra1s Kornai
>
> "And the lion shall lie down with the lamb, but only the lion will sleep well
"

ate sent:  9-JAN-1995 09:25:28
>
 I have noticed, but not systematically researched, a tendency
>among people from Eastern Europe to assume hidden meanings.  I
>attribute this to their background in the Byzantine politics of the
>area, since this characteristic is most prounounced when dealing with
>things the goverment tells them.

But that is the best way to view what governments say.  And definately the
most fun.:)  Just because you are paranoid doesn't imply that THEY are not
out to get you!
>>
>>no. my position is to try to express the substance of what i wish to
>>communicate in such a way that it requires no *reading between the
>>lines*
>>to grasp the meaning, that when in doubt, recourse to the oxford
>>dictionary will suffice to restore clarity.
>>
Most words have multiple meanings.  Which should we choose from the
dictionary?  What do you REALLY mean by this?  Why the Oxford dictionary?
Are you one of THEM? :)






                        Thomas Breed
                        

Date sent:  9-JAN-1995 09:44:32
>
On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 00:54:22 -0800 Tibo enke said:
>>
>>
>--The 19th century is gone.  It may be the most interesting century of
>all from an historical standpoint, but we cannot live in it.

Within a few decades, the 20th Century will probably replace it (once it is
a little more distant [less journalism, more history]).  Everything from
the end of colonialism to the birth of totalitarianism to a lot of
interesting stuff that is still too close to focus clearly on.

 The
>revolutions of 1848 were certainly watershed events, even though they
>were not immediately effective, e.g. with respect to the Austro-
>Hungarian empire.  While there are reactionaries who still embrace
>monarchy, clericalism, and anti-democratic government, most who could be
>called conservatives have their roots in the Republicanism of the
>19th century. Generally, they believe in representative government,
>a relatively open market--but not the 18th century laissez-faire
>economics of Adam Smith--and as much political liberty as possible.

Doesn't sound to different from what some of the liberals preached during
the French Revolution.  Of course, they were Liberal Conservatives...

>If anything, conservativism has changed with the times and is
>in better touch with reality.  The Left is still reading Proudhon and
>Marx as if they were contemporary.

And some read Lenin, while others read Malthus, or Keynes.  I won't argue
whether the last few decades have been a dry period for liberals, but to
say that they are STILL in the 19th Century is an exageration.

>

  When
>someone, usually a West European Social Democrat, drags his or her
>party, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, the rest of the
>Left screams "Revisionist!"

I agree:  Liberalism has hit a dry spell.  What is necessary, however, is
not the absolute abdonment of liberalism, but rather a restructuring of
priorities, methodology, and some massive modernization.  It's a shame that
more people aren't willing to embark on it.

 I think that there is a responsible
>conservatism that is not anti-democratic or anti-human.

Ah, but then it would be Liberalism. :)





                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

>
> >The gist of the quote is NOT hating one's country (where does it say
> >that??)...
>
>         First, I don't know the answer to your question.  Second, I don't kno
w
> why you're asking _me_.
>

I did not ask anyone by the name usually, as I rarely remember who
said what, so I hope, that the person who did write the relavant bit
or anyone else also interested in my education - would answer.

Eva writes:
>The Hungarian
>government after 1867 insisted on a unitary state. That is, they refused to
>comtemplate any territorial or corporal rights. They recognized only
>individual rights of all citizens. Even today, 130 years later, Romania and
>Slovakia refuse to grant territorial autonomy to the Hungarian minority. So,
>it was not a great sin. The Hungarians were afraid, rightly or wrongly, that
>territorial autonomy would lead to disintegration.

It would appear that the effect of the social engineering preceeding 1867
has been overlooked completely in Eva's assessment of "disintegration".

Beginning in 1790/1791, Law article No. 16 ordered the establishment of
a professor of Hungarian language in all the secondary schools, academies
and universities.

Law article No. 7 from 1792 and Law article No. 5 from 1805 decreed
the Hungarian language as the *obligatory* language of instruction
in *all the schools*.

On July 12, 1806 the Hungarian administration of Gemer county established :
"In all schools, it should be instructed in the Hungarian language and
concurrently all petitions and representations, directed to the seat
(of municipal government) be written only in the Hungarian language."

The Nograd county authorities in 1831 established the "Nemzeti Inte1zet",
whose established goal was the "widening of the Hungarian language with
*ALL POSSIBLE MEANS*" ("A honi nyelvnek minden alkalmatos mo1dokkal valo1
terjeszte1se").

Law No. 6 from 1840 ordered the Church administration to use
*only the Hungarian language* in its contacts with the civil administration.
Three years later the ecclesiastical registers were ordered to be written
*only in the Hungarian language*.

Law No.2, article 9 from 1841 imposed the Hungarian language in the civil
and in the Church courts.

In 1843 baron N. Vesselenyi published a book on the problem of Slovak
and Hungarian nationality. He suggested the complete Magyarization of
the educational system and the state administration. The process of
Magyarization of the schools found political advocates, and the most
prominent among them was Lajos Kossuth. His article in Pesti Hirlap
No. 160/1842 makes this clear at a time when the Hungarians made up only
36% of the total population of 13,000,000 in Hungary.  It becomes obvious
that Magyarization was not merely a matter of language in education, but
involved all aspects of public life.

>....... And, of course, you have
>to remember that in 1848-49 there was a full-fledged civil war between the
>Hungarians and the non-Hungarians and the memory twenty years later was still
>quite vivid. However, the Nationality Law of 1868 was an exceptionally
>liberal document, especially for its time. As far as the individual was
>concerned his native tongue enjoyed full equality with the official language
>of the state, Hungarian. Every citizen had the right to use his mother tongue
>with any government office, court, institution, or church. Village

On the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the Tisza government,
deputy G. Beksics on January 10, 1890 evaluated the nationality
policy on the floor of the Parliament saying:
  "The effort to convert the multi-national Hungarian state into
a monolothic *nation-state* had *long perdured* in Magyar policy.
Tisza's regime (1875-1890) made special efforts and achieved
*special results*. Those who have doubts about it should but consider
the results of the census of 1880 which show great progress in Magyarization.
Let them also consider the census of the present year (1890) which will be
published in a short time. If anyone still has doubts about the successes
of the Tisza regime, I would ask him: is it not true his government
completely Magyarized the judiciary? It is not true that Tisza's government
*closed* the Slovak schools?"

Beksics's explicit "The effort to convert the multi-national Hungarian
state into a *monolothic* *nation-state*" having "long perdured in Magyar
policy" is inconsistent with Eva's "Every citizen had the right to use
his mother tongue with any government office, court, institution, or church".

>authorities had the right to use the language of the majority in written
>communications. At meetings on the village level, in the courts, at church
>meetings, everybody could use their mother tongues. At the beginning careful

On the contratry, the authorities of the Nograd county in 1831 established
the "Nemzeti Inte1zet", whose established goal was the "widening of the
Hungarian language with _all possible means_", ("A honi nyelvnek minden
alkalmatos mo1dokkal valo1 terjeszte1se".)

Eva, care to elaborate upon how the "widening of the Hungarian language
with *all possible means*" could possibly be interpreted as "everybody
could use their mother tongues"?

The Magyarization of instruction proceeded in the decades following:
In 1887, the "Felso-Nogradvar-megyi Magyar kozmivelodesi egyesulet" was
formed by the authorities in the Nograd county, similar actions took place
in other counties. The incentives rewarded teachers which Hungarized
their teachings to the extent that not a single word of the Slovak language
was utilized in instruction. As a main criterion when detecting the
individual nationality, a mother tongue was chosen and it was given
a special interpretation. According to it, mother tongue did not
have to be identical to mother's speech and precisely this fact
was emphasized in the official instructions in 1890.
It was stated that if the child spoke a different language from that
of its parents, this change must be recorded.

>attention was paid to pick civil servants of the nationality of the area they
>served in. This law was never changed; moreover, several times it was
>reaffirmed. However, in practice local "national enthusiasm" interfered with

agreed, the Nograd county authorities, on behalf of the Hungarian minority,
turned to the Parliament in 1893 to _eradicate_ Slovak as a spoken language,
( documented in No1gra1d Va1rmegye, by Dr. Dobrovsky Samu on page. 564. )

>the letter of the law. The number of Hungarian civil servants were eventually
>in great majority. However, still in 1890 in addition to the 500 Hungarian
>newspapers and periodicals, there were 102 German, 15 Romanian, 14 Serbian,
>thirteen Slovak papers. Moreover, the autonomy of the national churches of
>the Romanians, Serbs, and Transylvanian Saxons played an important role in
>keeping nationality cultures alive. Over 80 percent of all schools were in

>From 1900 the interpretation went ever further and the instructions
contained the following guideline: "as mother tongue will be considered
the language perceived by the given person as proper, own and that he/she
knows best and likes best" [4]. Thus the detection of mothers tongue as
a criterion of nationality lost its meaning, as the statistics allowed
to consider Hungarians also those who spoke Hungarian but were not Hungarians.
And that went especially for the members of non-Hungarian nationalities,
who could speak two languages, but in the atmosphere of the nationalistic
passions the refusal to consider the Hungarian the most liked language
for communication was too risky for them.
Even worse situation was that of the Slovak youth who in the conseque-
nce of deficient education in mother tongue in basic school was rapidly
accepting the Hungarian language while forgetting and neglecting
the Slovak. Thus it happened, that after some time young people spoke
better Hungarian than their mother tongue and fulfilled the criterion
according to which their tongue was Hungarian and not Slovak.
The pressure to which the youth was exposed, is best illustrated by
the following example: Certain teacher in 1910, when compiling
the statistics on his pupils instead of doing it individually,
simply declared that he hoped and expected that there was not anyone,
who would not consider the Hungarian the dearest language [5]...
        Diligence of numerous local authorities often exceeded to such
an extent that the mere knowledge of the Hungarian was considered a
sufficient reason to - as confesses an official report from 1890
- quote "the part of population who could speak Hungarian, but
with different mother tongue" as Hungarians [7].

The Nitra High Commisioner on May 14, 1893 sent a confidential report No. 55
to the ministry of the interior in Budapest to the effect that he considered
it his _primary duty_ to do everything possible to Magyarize the Slovaks.
Are these actions to be lauded as:

>church hands and thus, the churches could decide on the language of
>instruction. In 1869 in Transylvania there were altogether 13,798 elementary
>schools out of which 5,818 were Hungarian, 6,535 in languages of the
>nationalities, that is Romanian, and German. Admittedly, with time passing,
>the number of Hungarian schools grew, mostly because of the introduction of
>state schools where the language of instruction became Hungarian. There were
>very few high schools whose language of instruction was not Hungarian. Five
>Romanian high school, one German, and, until 1874, three Slovak. And of

Regarding the Nationality Law of 1868, the sixth paragraph of article 44
reads: "each people in the country, without regard to nationality,
each public and church authority is to establish and maintain
of its own means the middle and upper schools".
        After the sanctioning of this law three mid-level schools
were established: an upper level gymnazium in Revuca, an evangelical
gymnazium in Turc. Sv. Martin and a catholic gymnazium in Zniev.
Under the government of Koloman Tisza, in the years 1874-1875
upon the basis of the ministerial decree the schools were *abolished*.

>course, there was no university where the language of instruction was not
>Hungarian.

    Whereas "In Slovakia there were perhaps 50 middle schools of all sorts,
gymnazia, rea'lok and other schools, -- but in all of them the language
of instruction is Hungarian. With concurrance of the superintendent of
the school, professors are allowed to give even private lessons in various
languages, such as French, English, Croatian, Russian, etc ..
but the Slovak language, which is the mother language of 3 million subjects
of Hungaria, is definitely *PROHIBITED*.
It would be dangerous for the professor, if s/he would attempt to instruct
the Slovak language." (from the Memorandum, by American Slovaks and Ruthenians
for the Hungarian members of the interparliamentary Congress of Peace,
held in St. Louis, Sept 1904)

Beksics's "The effort to convert the multi-national Hungarian state into
a Monolothic Nation-state had long perdured in Magyar policy" cannot
possibly be characterized as a "tacit alliance" with the nationalities,
a point which is perhaps best illustrated with The Protest of the Executive
Committee of the 1895 Congress of Non-Magyar Nationalities, 1898:
        Conditions in Hungary, created by the exploitation of state
        power to the advantage of one single race, have created
        such a degree of discontentment and bitterness among the mil-
        lions of Slavs and Romanians, that the Executive Committee of
        the Nationalities Congress of 1895 considers it its duty
        towards its fatherland and the Throne to call the attention of
        governing circles to these conditions, so detrimental to the
        good of the state, as well as to protest against the viola-
        tions that daily increase....  Having set out upon this
        path [of weakening the nationalities], the state power in
        Hungary reached the point where it wants to destroy everything
        that would be a reminder that there are any other nations in
        Hungary besides the ruling nation.  The Hungarian parliament,
        the chamber of representatives and the chamber of magnates,
        eagerly accepted the proposal of a law to Magyarize the names
        of villages.  This is  a further attack on the 10 million
        non-Magyars of Hungary, a new attack on the Nationalities
        Law [of 1868], on the equality of rights of all nationalities
        of the country.  Local names, which everyone knows from his
        childhood in his mother-tongue, are dearly loved by each.
        Linked with the national terms for the names of localities are
        many historical memories, which make up part of the history of
        the individual nationalities. The majority of local names are
        also a linguistic treasuretrove of the individual nationalities,
        they are so to speak its integrating factors, and therefore
        this suggestion is also an attack on the linguistic treasury
        of the individual non-Magyar nationalities.  The most intimate
        feelings of all non-Magyars are aroused against this attack.
        The graves of their ancestors, the bones of their dear ones
        are now supposed to lie in places whose names have become
        for them mere sounds.... [Adopted in Budapest, 10 January, 1898.]

Eva's statement
>However, the Nationality Law of 1868 was an exceptionally
>liberal document, especially for its time. As far as the individual was
>concerned his native tongue enjoyed full equality with the official language
>of the state, Hungarian. Every citizen had the right to use his mother tongue
>with any government office, court, institution, or church.

is quite to the contrary of G. Beksics's statement in Parliament of 1/10/1890:
"The effort to convert the multi-national Hungarian state into a Monolothic
Nation-State had long perdured in Magyar policy" which remained in practice.

>        Yes, Zoroastrianism started in Persia, and quite a few of the world'
s>Zoaroasters still live in Iran.  There is quite a large community in India
as>well--I might be totally wrong on this one, but I think they are referred
to as>Pharsees (Pharisees?).

No. Pharisees were a sect of Judaism that started around 200 BC (I think
that's fairly accurate, but that's not what's in question here) and
basically existed till the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus
in AD 70.


----------------------------------
Sure I'm equal rights: I think
everybody should own a few slaves
----------------------------------
(Don't get offended: I'm being sarcastic)

Amos' request gave me the idea to share the attached info with you good
folks. Among other things, some of you maybe interested to get news
directly from the "bear's mouth". Of course for most of the texts you will
need a Cyrillic converter, otherwise the text will mean as much as some in
English on the groups :-). However, there are some English language
correspondance also for those who did not learn Glagolitic from Methodius
et Cie.
Please remember they carry western newsgroups also and do not get in Feed
mode until you really want to, otherwise you will be flooded.
Regards, Jeliko Jelikovich Jelikovinskiy
----- Forwarded Message
Received: from sequent.kiae.su by mail-in.worldlink.com
(4.1/SMI-4.1.3-PSI-pop-relay)
        id AA15749; Mon, 9 Jan 95 11:42:59 EST
Received: by sequent.kiae.su id AA16745
  (5.65.kiae-2  for ); Mon, 9 Jan 1995 19:41:31 +0300
Message-Id: >
From:  (News Mailing Service)
To: 
Subject: reply from USENET server
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 18:24:25 GMT


Relcom News Server, version 2.7.3.11
Copyright (C) 1991-1993 Serge Vakulenko
Modifications 1993 Aleksei Rudnev >
Mon Jan  9 18:24:25 1995

--HELP
Relcom & Usenet News mailserver.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This automatic mail server relays news articles from Relcom and USENET via
usual E-mail.  If you want to use server you should send e-mail letter
containing the list of commands to the address .
Subject is ignored.  Command name can be in upper or lower case,
all other arguments are case sensitive.

Here comes brief description of available commands:

HELP                    Send this file.  All subsequent commands are
ignored.

LIST                    Give the list of all news groups with
                        brief description.

LIST hierarchy          Give the list of news groups from the given
hierarchy.
                        For example, "list comp.sources".

SUBSCRIBE group         Subscribe to group in notify mode.  Server will
                        periodically send you a list of commands to
retrieve
                        new articles in the following format:

                            GROUP news.answers
                            -ART 100 size author subject

                        In order to get the articles you interested in
                        simply uncomment corresponding commands and send it
                        back to server.  Don't remove GROUP commands!

FEED group              Subscribe to group in feed mode.  All new articles
                        from a group will be immediately sent to you.

                    WARNING:
                        Never use feed mode if you're not completely sure
                        that you need *all* articles and your e-mail
                        connection is stable and permanent. This mode can
                        easily cause e-mail traffic jams making impossible
                        to send or receive any electronic mail at your
machine.
                        This can result in disconnecting your machine from
net
                        by some administrator, so be careful.

RFEED size group        Subscribe to group in restricted feed mode.
                        All articles smaller than given size (in kilobytes)
                        will be sent to you as in feed mode.  Lists of
bigger
                        articles will be sent to you as in notify mode.

UNSUBSCRIBE group       Unsubscribe from group.

UNSUBSCRIBE all         Unsubscribe from all groups.

FORGET                  If you were subscribed to some groups, and later
                        unsubscribed, server continues to send you
                        lists of newly created or deleted news groups,
                        hoping that you might get interested in them.
                        To finally unconnect from server give
                        command FORGET.

CHECK                   Show the list of groups you are subscribed to.

GROUP group             Go to the group.  This group becames "current"
                        (for commands ARTICLE, INDEX, LINDEX).

ARTICLE number          Send specified article.

ARTICLE <message-id>    Send an article with specified message-id.

INDEX [number [number]] Show list of articles in current group.
                        The format of the list is the same as in subscribe
mode.
                        Arguments specify the range of article numbers.
                        Negative agrument means 'LAST - number'.

                           INDEX          - all articles
                           INDEX -20      - Last 20 articles
                           INDEX 700 750  - articles in range 700...750

LINDEX [number [number]] Show detailed list of articles in the following
format:

                            Issue: <article number>
                            Subject: <subject>
                            From: <author>
                            Date: <date and time>
                            Message-ID: <message-id>
                            Size: <size in bytes>

PACK                    Enable packing mode.  All articles sent to you
                        will be packed, compressed and encoded.
                        This will reduce the volume and the total number
                        of transmitted files.  This mode is highly
                        recommended.
                        You should unpack received batches by one of the
                        special utilities UNBATCH, UUNPACK or use mailer
                        BML, which decodes batches on the fly.
                        You can get the UNBATCH program (with sources)
                        for MSDOS by command

                            SEND uunpack-dos

                        or for Unix 386

                            SEND unbatch-386

                        or for Xenix 286

                            SEND unbatch-286

                        If you need only sources of unpack programs
                        you can get them by

                            SEND unpack-src
                        and
                            SEND unbatch-src

PACK OFF                Disable packing mode.

SEND                    Show list of files available on request.
                        You can get these files by command SEND with
parameters.

SEND file               Get a file.  The following files are available:

                            unbatch-dos  29k  program UNBATCH for MSDOS
                            unbatch-386  42k  program UNBATCH for Unix 386
                            unbatch-286  38k  program UNBATCH for Xenix 286
                            unbatch-src  20k  sources of program UNBATCH
                            uunpack-dos  23k  program UUNPACK for MSDOS
                            uunpack-286  29k  program UUNPACK for Xenix 286
                            uunpack-src  8k   sources of program UUNPACK

GSTAT [hierarchy]       Get information about subscriptions on groups.
                        For each group is listed: name, number of articles
                        (approximately), and number of subscribers in
                        SUBSCRIBE, FEED and RFEED modes.

USTAT [address]         Get information about user subscriptions.
                        User address is a regular expression in SH style.
                        For example, command "ustat alex@*" will print
                        information about users with name alex.
                        For each user is listed: name, total number of
groups,
                        and number of subscriptions in SUBSCRIBE, FEED and
                        RFEED modes.

TIME                    Print current date and time.

AGING  OFF              Turn off aging of subscribers. Usially server
                        forget about silent user after 28 days of silence.

AGING                   Turn on aging if it was turned off previously.

NEWGROUPS ON           Turn on notification about created/deleted groups
(default)

NEWGROUPS OFF          Turn off notification about created/deleted groups


QUIT                    Shows server that all commands are over.


WARNING: don't use user name "uucp" or "news" to receive news -
         server ignores these names.

In order to submit an article you should send the article with the
header field "Newsgroups:" containing the comma-separated list of
newsgroups (all newsgroups should be valid) to the address .

The default distribution of the message is the whole world, so you should
think twice before sending your article. Remember it will be read by
thousands or millions of readers around the world, so your message
should not be offensive, should not violate copyright laws. Never write
things already written by somebody. It's better to restrict distribution
area to be as small as possible. You can do it using
the header field "Distribution:". Valid distributions are:

        world, eunet, su, russia, moscow

Example:
        % mailx 
        Subject: testing
        ~: headline Newsgroups relcom.test
        (continue)
        ~: headline Distribution su
        (continue)
                Twas brilling...
        .
        EOT
        %

Please send all questions to .
Bug reports and propositions please send to Serge Vakulenko, .


----- End of Forwarded Message

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 10:00:44 -0600 > said:
>>
>On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 00:54:22 -0800 Tibo enke said:
>>>
--Actually, it wasn't Tibor.  I was responding to Tibor.--Charles

--My argument for the 19th century is that so much that happened was
seminal for the 20th and 21st.

>Doesn't sound to different from what some of the liberals preached during
>the French Revolution.  Of course, they were Liberal Conservatives...
>
--Of course it doesn't sound different.  It is what the Republicans
preached for years.  The term Liberal Conservative has a bit of
oxymoron about it, and most people say 19th Century Liberals in order
to make the distinction.

>And some read Lenin, while others read Malthus, or Keynes.  I won't argue
>whether the last few decades have been a dry period for liberals, but to
>say that they are STILL in the 19th Century is an exageration.
>
--Read Eva Durant's postings.  And by liberals in the above paragraph,
I presume that you mean 20th Century Liberals as in Democratic or
contemporary British Labour Party, not 19th Century Liberals as in
William F. Buckley, Jack Kemp, or George Will.
>
>I agree:  Liberalism has hit a dry spell.  What is necessary, however, is
>not the absolute abdonment of liberalism, but rather a restructuring of
>priorities, methodology, and some massive modernization.  It's a shame that
>more people aren't willing to embark on it.
>
--In the words of that great philosopher, Bette Middler, "Why bother?"
Why not go on to something more progressive?

>>conservatism that is not anti-democratic or anti-human.
>
>Ah, but then it would be Liberalism. :)
>
--19th Century Liberalism, of course.

Charles

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 13:39:55 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>
>  (Please, also the sister thing bugs me)
>
--That, of course, was the idea.  But it has gotten old now, and I
agree that it is time to stop it.

>The problem seems to be that a lot of people confuse the practical
>day-to-day analysis/tactics/politics Marx had to work at
>running a movement AT THE TIME (last century) from what actually the
>philosophy entails. The end result would be the same actually for
>your anarchist Proudhon and me: a society without state.

Proudhon was not MY anarchist, but isn't it true that he and Marx
split over the issue?  Proudhon seem to have a very idealistic view
of the human condition and believed in laissez-faire in the extreme.
He also seems to have believed in the perfectibility of people.  I
suspect that if he were alive today, he would join what we call here
in America the Libertarian Party.  This is a group that wants to
abolish most of the government and legalize nearly everything that is
currently illegal, e.g., drugs.

Charles )

Charles writes:

>  The term Liberal Conservative has a bit of
>  oxymoron about it, and most people say 19th Century Liberals in order
>  to make the distinction.

Or "classic liberal".

--Greg

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 13:39:55 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>
>> >Remember, socialism is about selfishness, you act on your own in-
>> >terest to take over democratically the economy.

--I think you are confusing socialism with Proudhon's anarchism.
Whatever socialism is, it involves centralized economic planning and
public ownership of the basic means of production.  I know that
socialism is an elusive term and that there are as many definitions
as there are socialists, but these two points seem to be shared by
nearly all of them, and they are central to any socialistic government
that I know about, including the Labour government in 1945.

Charles

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 09:39:09 -0800 > said:
>
>Or "classic liberal".
>
--That, too.  Right.

Charles

Chuck Dunbar is asking about a certain book titled National Minorities in
Romania written by Eleme1r Illye1s and appeared in the East European
Monograph series. I am not familiar with the book itself but the general edito
r of the series was Stephen Fischer-Galati, a Romanian-American scholar who
was a respected scholar. Considering that it was about Romania,
Fischer-Galati's field, I am sure he wouldn't have accepted anything shoddy,
or nationalistic.

Eva Balogh

Concerning Ho1man-Szekfu3 and the poor soil of parts of the Great Plains, I
am afraid I am going to stick to my old guns. The Turkish armies didn't ruin
the soil. In most of the area the Turks simply collected taxes; the Hungarian
nobles, for the most part, left, but the peasants stayed. The poor soil of an
area cannot be blamed on invading armies. The Great Plains of Hungary
couldn't have been a heavily forested Canaan in 1526 and a hundred years
later, a desert full of sand. You can blame a lot of things on the Turks but
not that.

As for chronology, I was speaking before and after the Turkish occupation.

Quoting me,

>>most important thing is to be objective and not to put your own nation
above
>>others. It is that kind of nationalism which I find abhorrent.

Pali claims that we, in fact, must not be objective. We have to put our
people first! But where does this lead us? For Palacky, the belittling of the
Hungarians, and considering them the source of their own Slavic tragedy. For
a nationalist Hungarian historian the emphasis is on the "leadership
qualities," "the nation-building genius" of the Hungarians as opposed to the
nationalities without a country of their own. That is a dead end.

Eva Balogh

Tom Breed says:

>If I understand the gist of Jeliko's "Great as in Moravia" message, he is
<saying that the name "Great Moravia" is a misnomer.  What is the point?

Oh, but one cannot be cavalier with historical facts! Of course, it is
terribly important to know what "great" in this context meant. Jeliko,
instead of an engineer and businessman, should have been a historian because
there is strong evidence that he is right. Unfortunately, I can't think of
the name of the American-Hungarian scholar who wrote a very interesting book
about Cyrill and Methodius and the "great" Moravian empire about 20 years
ago. (Hugh, would you remember the name?) If I recall his contention was that
Cyrill and Methodius actually were working in the Balkans, around the Morava
River and not what we consider today Moravia or Slovakia. I don't know enough
about the period to argue with him or support him. But Jeliko might want to
read the book.

The second problem with the misnomer that it is so pretentious and modern
nationalists can hang on to the notion of a Great Moravian Empire and have
all sorts of unfounded claims. Maybe Tom you don't understand yet the
extravagant claims of Central European nationalists. You better start
learning.

Tom says,

>All of Northern Europe, from Kent to Krakow, was pretty damn barbaric
>during the 9th century.

Yes, looking at it from today's point of view. However, there were
differences. There was no Hungarian or Slav Boewulf at the end of the 10th
century. The closest, Song of Igor (of Kiev) was late 12th century. The easter
n part of Europe was always more backward then the west.

Eva Balogh

Tom Breed writes:

>What I have read has led me to the conclusion that the Habsburg solution
>(Germanization and Magyarization) was IMHO immoral

First  of all, I wouldn't use the word immoral. It is loaded. I guess if you
are a firm believer in nation states (which in the East-Central European
situation is an impossibility) you may express yourself in such terms. Do you
really think that the collapse of the Habsburg Empire satisfied the national
aspiration of these people? No, it didn't. Just look around what's going on
in the area today.

Second, as far as I know, the Habsburgs didn't try to Germanize the empire's
inhabitants. (Possible exception of Hungary after 1849.) They got rid of the
Bohemian nobility which revolted against them at the Battle of White Mountain,
 but the decision had nothing to do with nationalism or language. (I, as a
Hungarian, often wished that the Habsburgs had been strong enough to do the
same to the Hungarian nobility! In the 20th century the Czech political
leaders came from the middle class because there was no Czech nobility to
speak of, while in Hungary, unfortunately, it was the Hungarian nobility
which remained the political elite all along.)

Admittedly, the language of the k. und k. army was German, and the recruits
had to learn enough German to understand their officers. And so what? Wasn't
it nice that practically all peasant boys who served in the common army (as
opposed to the home army of Hungary) learned some German?

You say:

>I know it is reading History backwards to judge these policies immoral.

Well, if that is the case, don't hold such views.

You continue:

>Several times I have noticed you implying that the French Revolution was the
>birth of Linguistic Nationalism.

First of all, I don't think I used the word "linguistic." Second, this is a
common place, nothing terribly original with me.

As for your contention that

>France did not to my knowledge pursue the Francification of the population
>(who belonged to many different linguistic groups:  Bretons, Langue d'Oc,
>not to mention a wholemess of Italians and Germans).

is blatantly untrue. But it was done earlier, before modern nationalism hit
the world. France began as a small area called the Ile de France and slowly
but surely took in and assimilated all others around it until modern France
emerged. That was a normal development, but not in East-Central Europe.
Reasons are manifold and too complicated to list all. In Hungary's case, the
Turkish occupation is certainly one factor. Second, Hungary's association
with the Habsburg Empire and hence the lack of a national king. Third,
economic backwardness. I am sure there are many others.

Eva Balogh

Yes, Imi, I do find you irritating and not because you kept writing my name
in lower case. I don't like your style: your incessant repetitions, your
ridiculing people with whom you disagree, your contrariness, and, yes, your
vicious anti-Hungarian pronuncements. The fact is that all nations,
especially in our area, have done things to their neighbors at times which
were not exactly honorable. But, believe me, the non-Hungarians were not a
whit better than the Hungarians. Your always taking the other side is doing a
disservice to historical truth.

Eva Balogh

 writes:




>the name of the American-Hungarian scholar who wrote a very
interesting book about Cyrill and methodius and the "great" Moravian
nnempire...

it was Imre Boba: Moravia's history reconsidered; a reinterpretation
of medieval sources. The Hague, Nijhoff, 1971. A very interesting book
indeed.
 Tony Pace should read it if he hasn't.

Bob

>>>
>>> I'll stop nit picking: conquest it is.
>>
>>I find it totally ridiculous to discuss words today with their
current
>>meanings while referring to events of a 1000 years ago.
>>

in the case of "conquest" and "invasion", there seems to have been
little change in the meaning since at least biblical times. we still
refer to the conquest of palestine when speaking of events related
in the old testament. that was the jewish peoples' "honfoglalas",
which predates that of hungary's by several centuries. is the use of
the word "conquest" illegitimate in that context as well?

d.a.

Eva writes:

>Oh, but one cannot be cavalier with historical facts! Of course, it is
>terribly important to know what "great" in this context meant. Jeliko,
>instead of an engineer and businessman, should have been a historian because
>there is strong evidence that he is right. Unfortunately, I can't think of
>the name of the American-Hungarian scholar who wrote a very interesting book
>about Cyrill and Methodius and the "great" Moravian empire about 20 years
>ago. (Hugh, would you remember the name?) If I recall his contention was that
>Cyrill and Methodius actually were working in the Balkans, around the Morava
>River and not what we consider today Moravia or Slovakia. I don't know enough
>about the period to argue with him or support him. But Jeliko might want to
>read the book.

If I might chime in, seems to me that the reference is to Imre Boba's theory.
Boba's 1971 contention was that the Great Morava of Rastislav and Svatopluk
and the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition was not to be associated with territories
north of the Danube, but that its center had been south of the Danube in the
region downstream and centered in Sirmium (today's Sremska Mitrovica). However,
this theory ought to be considered in light of Prof. Henrik Birnbaum's recent
rebuttal to Boba's theory.

Birnbaum's article "Where was the Center of the Moravian State?" appeared in
American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists,
Maguire and Timberlake (eds.), 1993, in which Birnbaum considered literary,
geographical and archeological evidence which Boba had largely neglected.

Tony

Eva Balogh wrote recently about the allegedly poor soil in parts of the
Great Plains of Hungary, and defended the Ottomans against the charge that
they were responsible for denuding it--

I too had believed that canard, until I went to Debrecen, Hortoba1gy, and
neighboring areas in 1993.  From I observed, the soil to the *east* of De-
becen, toward the Romanian border, is indeed sandy, but supports vegetation
similar to that of the Pine Barrens in Southern New Jersey.  To the west and
north of the city, however, the soil was rich and black, the like of which
this boy from the rock-strewn Catskill Mountains of New York had never laid
eyes on before.  Indeed, southwest of Debrecen was the [former?] collective
farm of Nadudva1r, reputedly one of the most successful collectives in the
entire country (if not all of East Europe) before the great Collapse.  Yes,
much of the Great Plains was *puszta* [wasteland, barrens], but I suspect
that that was a cultural, not a natural/political historical, artifact--
namely, it was far from inhabited areas, was on the border of Ottoman poli-
tical control, and the like.  The Plains are even now much more heavily
planted with trees than our own U.S. Great Plains, but I do not know what
the pre-Ottoman conquest situation was.  Undoubdtedly as Eva analysed it.

Udv.,
Be1la

Norb the Hungarian writes:
>

> "great empire" (keep in mind, we are talking about 900, not 1900).  But to
> answer your question, did the poor souls who got "occupied" by the Hungarians
> ever try to ressurect their "occupied" state?  In fact, was there ever a
> collective memory (on the part of the "occupied") of their once "independent"
> state?

   In case you have not looked at any maps recently, or at least since
not since before 1918, quite a few of the occupied did try to
resurrect their occupied states, (1848 et seq are the most obvious
dates that come to mind) but they also succeeded (1918, 1945 come to
mind).
  They are called Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Slovakia and once
upon a time even Ruthenia or Carpatho-Rusynia.
   See also Komornik's history on the Slovakia Document Store re the
cyrillo-methodic collective memory.






    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

Eva Durant writes:
>> >The gist of the quote is NOT hating one's country (where does it say
>> >that??)...

>>         First, I don't know the answer to your question.  Second, I don't kn
o
   w
>> why you're asking _me_.

>I did not ask anyone by the name usually, as I rarely remember who
>said what, so I hope, that the person who did write the relavant bit
>or anyone else also interested in my education - would answer.

        You quoted from my message, but the part of your reply that I quoted ha
d
nothing to do with what I said.....

        Norb

Someone wrote (sorry, your name did not show up in this editory 8-( ):
>>        Yes, Zoroastrianism started in Persia, and quite a few of the world'
>>Zoaroasters still live in Iran.  There is quite a large community in India as
>>well--I might be totally wrong on this one, but I think they are referred
>>to as Pharsees (Pharisees?).

>No. Pharisees were a sect of Judaism that started around 200 BC (I think
>that's fairly accurate, but that's not what's in question here) and
>basically existed till the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus
>in AD 70.

        I know that, but either that same term, or one very similar to it, is
used to describe Indian Zoroasters.

        Norb

Jan George Frajkor writes:
>   In case you have not looked at any maps recently, or at least since
>not since before 1918, quite a few of the occupied did try to
>resurrect their occupied states, (1848 et seq are the most obvious
>dates that come to mind) but they also succeeded (1918, 1945 come to
>mind).
>  They are called Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Slovakia and once
>upon a time even Ruthenia or Carpatho-Rusynia.

        History according to a journalist (IOW, from the same people who have
brought us the 1000-year-old-ethnic-conflict theory of the present Southern Sla
v
conflict....).....

>   See also Komornik's history on the Slovakia Document Store re the
>cyrillo-methodic collective memory.

        History according to a mathematician....

        Norb