Subject: Re: Freud snippets on religion
From: The Old Darling, 
Date: 14 Sep 94 04:51:46 GMT
In article > The Old Darling,
 writes:

>--I am a certified social worker, trained at the period of time when
>all schools were oriented to Freudian theory.  Freud had a greater
>impact on social work in American than he did in psychiatry.

with all due respect, being trained as a social worker is not the same as
being trained as a psychiatrist. the reason i mention this is that you
discounted freud's view on religion since he lacked formal qualifications
as a theologian. i suggest that your dismissal of freud's views mitigates
against your presenting views.


[snip]

>he was trained as a
>neurologist and practiced that for awhile--and wrote several papers.
>But psychoanalysis isn't neurophysiology

in fcat it was his pursuit of the neurophysiological basis for "mental
illness" that led him to psychoanalysis.

>and it is a real stretch to
>find any research that validates any psychoanalytic concept using the
>ordinary canons of science.

(i) given the reason you gave for dismissing freud's views on religion,
do you have formal qualifications in the natural sciences or the
philosophy of science to justify your entitlement to pass such judgment?

(ii) what are, in your view, "the canons of science"?

[snip]

>--I'll give you the exact reference later.  I have to get off the
>mainframe right now.  I assure you that it exists.

i have no doubts about its existence, but it's date could indeed be
relevant.

d.a.

I have no time to look up archives etc, I take a list-break
now, to give you time to think up explanations to me about the virtues
of capitalism/religion and the way it will make the world/Hungary a
nice place for all. Eva Durant

>
> Eva Durant writes:
> > >
> > > Eva Durant writes:
> > >
> > > > Please spell out for me, which of the human standards of behaviour are
> > > > exclusively Christian.
> > >
> > > Who has made that claim?
> > >
> >
> > Everyone who stated, that without religious education/church
> > society will not function properly, there were such or similar
> > assertions.
>
> Please quote a few, it's so helpful.
>
> --Greg

Charles,
     I would really like to know where you dug up the Freud quote:
               Die meissten Menschen sind Dreck!
And who is this Pfister person?  Waiting for answers...marc

Andras Kornai > wrote on  Fri, 10 Jun
1994
In-Reply-To:  > from "Andras Kornai" at
              Jun 9, 94 07:53:27 pm

Andras Kornai writes:
> Hungary was occupied between March and October 1944, the occupiers must have
> installed a puppet regime. If so, why did the highest ranking naval officer
> of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy lend his good military honor to swearing in
> these puppets?
Do2me Szto1jay, former ambassador to Berlin, was sworn in March 22, four
days after occupation started. His government seems to meet every criterion
of "puppet regime". So how come Horthy gave his name to this act? The
question, originally posed as a hypothetical question (due to my mixing up
the dates) now stands amplified as a question about the reality of the
situation.

Just as a reminder, the Kamanec-Podolsk and Ba1cska massacres happened
three years *before* this occupation, in 1941, when the Prime Minister was
Ba1rdossy.  The principal culprit of the latter, Feketehalmy-Czeydner (whose
behavior was never questioned under Ba1rdossy, only under Ka1llay, two years
later), became assistant secretary of defense (hove1delmi miniszterhelyettes)
under Szto1jay. Since Joe doesn't know anything about Kamanec-Podolsk, just a
brief summary: Jews were collected in the Rumbach street synagogue and at
several other locations. They were packed in boxcars, and deported through
Ko3ro2smezo3, where they were handed over to the SS, who trucked them to
Kolmea, and marched them on foot to Kamanec-Podolsk. Before September 1941,
some 15,000 Jews were handed over to the SS. Certainly Horthy wasn't unaware.
Margit Slachta, in a letter to Mrs. Horthy, writes the following (on July 29,
1941 -- the deportations were not stopped until a month later):

"I'm bringing this matter to the attention of Your Highness (Fo3me1lto1sa1god)
from the standpoint of law, justice, and Christianity, but I also have a
practical consideration. No man can know how the war will end. What will
happen, if the German side doesn't win. In that case every act committed under
German influence or pressure by official Hungarian factors will show up in
statistics and will be proven. In that case every unjustice and inhumanity
will be held against us, and we will always be a small country whose justice
is handed out in small measure. And what will happen to us if they can accuse
us with things which we have to admit to be reprehensible. (Ha1t me1g akkor mi
lesz oszta1lyre1szu2nk ha olyan tartalmu1 va1dakat hozhatnak fel ellenu2nk,
melyeknek elmarasztalo1 volta1t magunknak is el kell fogadnunk.)"

On Tue, 31 May 1994 Attila Gabor > wrote:

> Trials of War Criminals, vol. 13, page 662 evidences the testimony of
> the German ambassador to Hungary -- "On 13. June 1944 H.E. Vassenmayer
> requested the Foreign Affairs Office, that it impose upon the Slovak
> government, that it express in principle an indifferent attitude
> toward the Slovak Jews in Hungary. The reason for this request is,
> that the Slovak embassy in Budapest, as also the Interior minister of
> Slovakia, informed the Hungarian government and the SD advisor
> concerning its special interest in the repatriation of Jews of Slovak
> nationality, who were at the time being deported from Hungary.
> Vassenmayer plead, that this not only interfered, but also complicated
> the deportation of Jews from Hungary, however it also awakened an
> impression with the Hungarian government, that Slovakia had taken
> a position fundamentally in opposition to the solution of the Jewish
> question." The German ambassador in Budapest, H.E. Vassenmayer,
> in the report of 11. July 1944 refers to the difficulties, which he
> has experienced in regards to the benevolent approach of the Slovak
> authorities in the Jewish question: "The Foreign minister's deputy
> indicated to me today, how difficult the position of the Hungarian
> government is in relation to the distinct approach on nationalitites
> in the case of the Jewish question in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia.
> Whereas we here demand of the present government the most inconsiderate
> approach against the Jews, Romanians and Slovaks are permitted to
> to treat the Jews in a manner disproportionately more tolerant."
> "According to the reports of the Hungarian embassies in Bukarest
> and in Bratislava many Jews have illegally crossed the frontiers
> to Romania and to Slovakia, where they are tolerated by those
> authorities more or less in public."
>
> Veesenmayer related of his conversation with the Interior minister's
> deputy on page 361: "Outside in the world an impression has arisen,
> that Romanians and Slovaks have taken a completely different position
> from Hungarians in the Jewish question, against which will be directed
> the complete displeasure of the enemy and of the neutral states.
> This will adversely affect the position of Hungary."

Hugh Agnew > wrote on Fri, 20 May 1994 15:24:19 EDT:

>Dear fellow-listmembers,
>
>On a different topic, my office mail today included the a flyer from the
>United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and their May calendar of public
>programs includes the following:
>
>May 22, Sunday
>
>Lecture:  50 Years Ago: The Holocaust in Hungary
>
>Randolph Braham, professor of history, City University of New York,
>examines the singular events that took place in Hungary in 1944,
>which led to the largest single mass extermination of Jews in Nazi-
>occupied Europe.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to .
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to .

George Antony writes:

> Even so, I cannot fault the Hungarian government.  NATO has an identity
> crisis.  It is a paper tiger beyond the territory of its current member
> states, as illustrated by the utterly shameful behaviour of its member
> countries in the Yugoslav conflict.

Is this where I lament the Clinton administration's lack of leadership?

> It is most reluctant to take on new
> members, for a number of resons.  One growl from Russia was enough to put
> an end to all speculation about Eastern European countries being admitted.

Or here?

> Hungary is, in any case, the most troublesome potential applicant.  Nobody
> in NATO would want to see the Greek-Turkish animosity replicated many times
> over with quarreling new members.  Here is a nice Catch 22 for you: Hungary
> will not get any security guarantees from NATO countries as long as it needs
> them.

Yes.  What I had thought was that Nato and EU membership would help cement
 Hungary
into stable, secure, democratic, prosperity.  If in order to acheive this over-
all goal, side issues concerning borders, minorities, etc. had to be settled,
 then
so much the better.

> So, Hungary cannot expect any tangible benefits from NATO, and already has
> bilateral military contacts with most of its members.  She has much better
> military contacts with her neighbours than the general state of relationships
> would indicate, so it does not need Clinton's wishy-washy 'partnership' to
> talk to them.  Then why bother with NATO ?

Yes, there's always more than one way to cook an onion.

--Greg

My understanding is that Pataki's
grandfather was Hungarian. He occasionaly
tells stories about his grandfather com
coming too the U.S. pennuless and working
in menial jobs. His father was a farmer
and postmaster in Peekskill, NY. Patakia
Himself was mayor of Peekskill in the early
eighties, state assemblyman from about 19 [C [
1984, and since 1992 State SenatorSenator.
The district he represents in Albany
is the one I grew up in, and still vote
in. I think he's done a fine job,
a [C a fine job, and he will get my vote in
November.
(please excuse the typos, this
computer isn't working right.)

Heather Olsen
Graduate Student
Foreighn Affairs
University of Virginia

d.a. and Charles write:

[point-counterpoint deleted]

Are you two going to address Marx's statement?  (I apologize if I've
missed something.)


--Greg

>>>  George Frajkor revealed on 12 Sep 1994:
>>> > Still water sinks in. Flowing water does not.
Then he writes in Sept 14.:
>   Briefly, if you let a gallon of water sit on a permeable or
>semi-permeable bed, a gallon will eventually sink in.  If you flow
>water over that bed, you may have to flow 100 gallons over it before a
>gallon sinks in. ***The time taken for a gallon to sink in will be the
same.***

I know what you mean, but as you write it seems that flowing water will
sink in at the same rate. (***The time taken for a gallon to sink in will be th
e
same.***) So you did not really mean that flowing water does not sink in.

Sandor

More ambivalence toward NATO

I am not sure whether Zoli Fekete is just politically naive or he is
determined to defend the government even when it is absolutely obvious for
everybody else what's up. There is no question in my mind that the Horn
government is dragging its heels on the question of NATO. Now, whether George
Antony is correct in his assessment of the current status of NATO or not is
another question. The majority of analysts from the United States seem to
think that belonging to NATO is desirable from the Visegrad countries' point
of view. Poland seems to be especially anxious to belong. Maybe I am
brainwashed by all what I have been reading on the subject in the American
press, but I am not sure whether the new Hungarian attitude toward NATO
membership is a wise one. Eva Balogh

Hello everyone! I'm looking for the e-mail address of the Academy at
Sarospatak. I was there this summer, and made some friends there who
might have net access. If anyone knows the address, or knows someone who
attends the academy, please let me know!

Eva Balogh wrote:
> There is no question in my mind that the Horn
>government is dragging its heels on the question of NATO. Now, whether George
>Antony is correct in his assessment of the current status of NATO or not is
>another question.

It is a separate question, but very closely, I'd say causally, linked.  I think
the only serious test of the Hungarian Government's attitudes is the extent of
bilateral military links with other countries, because these only are of
serious consequence.  My opinion did not change one bit since the idea of NATO
membership was aired a few years ago: it is political cargo cultism.

>The majority of analysts from the United States seem to
>think that belonging to NATO is desirable from the Visegrad countries' point
>of view.

For sure.  Immediate membership for Central-European countries would stabilize
these countries: Greg's argument about the disciplining effect of membership
is very valid in my view <even though it did not entirely work for Greece
in the EEC in terms of politics and economics).  It would also make their
left-out neighbours further east absolutely livid.

>Poland seems to be especially anxious to belong.

Hardly surpising, given their historical experience and current borders with
Russia and Belorussia which is almost as bad.  Other Central European
countries do not have such strategic threats to deal with.

>Maybe I am
>brainwashed by all what I have been reading on the subject in the American
>press,

Well, that is certainly not a balanced brain food ;-).  Seriously, though,
of course you have been influenced by the mentality of your new home
country.  Anybody who takes changing countries seriously would have to be.

>but I am not sure whether the new Hungarian attitude toward NATO
>membership is a wise one.

To some extent this may be a difference in cultures.  Both serious US analysts
and the Hungarian Government know that Hungary has Buckley's chance to get into
NATO until it has no need for it.  The idealistic USian attitude is that Hungar
y
should nevertheless strive for this Holy Grail, while the cynical Central
European attitude is 'up yours then'.

George Antony

In >, Mr. Tony Pace writes under
subject Re: That fascinating Slovak water (Was Re: The Slovak dam):

>Zoli, Magyar Hirlap published an article on July 12, 1994, which was
>written by the Magyar academician, professor Emil Mosonyi, an abridged
>article follows:
>
> Even our grandchildren will pay the compensation for breaking the treaty
> Gabcikovo-Nagymaros.

[ ...the abridged article deleted... ]

This is not true. The way it has been written suggests the contributor
read the Magyar Hirlap and translated a resume. The truth is that Magyar
Hirlap published such text at the beginning of the July. On 13 July,
Slovakian daily Praca brought an abridged Slovak version of the text.
On 14 July, a contributor to Slovak-L typed a short resume in Slovak,
together with a further abridged English translation. What we see now
here is a slightly edited version of the last selection, and as usually,
the long editing path is not even mentioned.

It's good to learn to acknowledge the sources correctly. The shortcut
over many editing steps makes the quoted text without too much value
for a serious discussion.

Roman Kanala

It was written on this list:
---
~>>>  George Frajkor revealed on 12 Sep 1994:
~>>> > Still water sinks in. Flowing water does not.
~
~Then he writes in Sept 14.:
~>   Briefly, if you let a gallon of water sit on a permeable or
~>semi-permeable bed, a gallon will eventually sink in.  If you flow
~>water over that bed, you may have to flow 100 gallons over it before a
~>gallon sinks in. ***The time taken for a gallon to sink in will be the
~same.***
~
~I know what you mean, but as you write it seems that flowing water will
~sink in at the same rate. (***The time taken for a gallon to sink in will
~be the
~same.***) So you did not really mean that flowing water does not sink in.
---

Yes, that fascinating Slovak water sinks. All the above is almost true or
true, but has only little relevance to the Gabcikovo dam. What's relevant
is that should the Gabcikovo water sink, the dam wouldn't be high 15 m
but at most 50 cm, maybe 1 m and such dam would have no energetic sense.

Indeed, the river bed is made of gravels and only a part of the total
nominal flux goes on the surface, and the rest is filtered underground.
Danube between Bratislava and Komarom goes through a bassin of several
hundreds meters deep filled with gravels and sands founding a formidable
quality water reservoir.

It's exactly for that reason that the bottom of the Gabcikovo reservoir
had to be hermetized with asphalt. To substitute natural water sinking,
several "holes" have been made on the side of the dam for regulated
leakage. To avoid to loose the energetic potential of this water, there
even are small turbines of several hundreds of kilowatts. This water is
destined to sink underground.

Whether these litres (sorry, we Europeans don't want to know about
gallons;-) pass slowly or quickly has no importance because there is
enough litres all the time to maintain a saturated equilibrium of sinking
all the long of the riverbed and of flowing down. Changes to the
stationary state are relatively slow (hours to days) and thus it's
possible to regulate the level of underground water while maintaining
the controllability of the system with enough reserve to act. There were
important changes at the beginning when the water went to fill up the dam,
but now, the situation could be close to the previous state, at least on
the Slovakian side. On the Hungarian side, Dunakiliti part of dam is not
inundated and water could be scarce - I don't have enough data to express
an opinion on this.

Roman Kanala

George Antony writes:

> I think
> the only serious test of the Hungarian Government's attitudes is the extent o
f
> bilateral military links with other countries, because these only are of
> serious consequence.

I see what you're saying, but I'm a bigger skeptic, I guess.  Were Hungary a
military power, she could essentially guarantee her security alone.  A bilatera
l
treaty between a small power and a medium/great power is not as good as a
security arrangement with a superpower and several medium powers, IMHO.

> My opinion did not change one bit since the idea of NATO
> membership was aired a few years ago: it is political cargo cultism.

You've lost me--what do you mean?

> Immediate membership for Central-European countries would stabilize
> these countries:... It would also make their
> left-out neighbours further east absolutely livid.

Let me (almost) quote you: 'up theirs then'.  Seriously, as an American, I'd sa
y
that the danger to neighbors would be reduced due to the discipline spoken of,
as a Hungarian I'd tend to worry more about Hungary's security,
than whoever's paranoia.

But I don't downplay the possibility of destabilization from hasty or ill-
disciplined membership.


> Both serious US analysts
> and the Hungarian Government know that Hungary has Buckley's chance to get
 into
> NATO until it has no need for it.

So true; 1996 [US presidential election] may change that, but keep inhaling.


> The idealistic USian attitude is that Hungary
> should nevertheless strive for this Holy Grail, while the cynical Central
> European attitude is 'up yours then'.

What I wonder about is how (if at all) Nato (non)membership would
affect EU entrance.

--Greg

PS Having kindly explained korifeus/coryphaeus, I'm confident you'll enlighten
 us
as to "Buckley's chance".

The Only Reader writes:
>
> On Tue, 13 Sep 1994, George Frajkor wrote:
>
> > Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq writes:
> > >
> > >  George Frajkor revealed on 12 Sep 1994:
> > > > Still water sinks in. Flowing water does not.
> > >  Now this is amazing! Is it the velocity or the force in vertical
> > > direction that interferes with the horizontal movement caused by the
> > > gravity (which I understand is still in force under the Slovakized
> > > riverbed)?
> >
> >      No but a few courses on the following topics: osmosis,
> > permeability, and laminar flow may enlighten you.
> >    Briefly, if you let a gallon of water sit on a permeable or
> > semi-permeable bed, a gallon will eventually sink in.  If you flow
> > water over that bed, you may have to flow 100 gallons over it before a
> > gallon sinks in. The time taken for a gallon to sink in will be the
> > same.
>
> If there is water constantly ower the bed it is totally irrelevant
> flowing or not. SB.

       Being a bit of a pedant, I am used to dealing with dense
students.

      Laminar flow.
       Only the bottom layer of the water, in contact with the bed,
sinks into the bed, presuming it is permeable or semi-permeable.  Now
I am sure you may think this strange, but in fact it has not yet been
shown that the layer at the surface is absorbed into the bed.  The
layer at the surface is customarily at a higher level than the layer
at the bottom.
     the layer (from the latin 'lamella'-- meaning layer or sheet.
Hence 'laminar') at the bottom is influence by (a) pressure, usually
due to gravity (b) horizontal velocity of layers above.
     a good example is how airplanes fly. Even in Hungarian air.  The
flow of one layer over the top (the layer next to the wing is
essentially still) lowers the pressure because it is speeded up.  The
increased pressure under the wing pushed the wing up.  The layer of
water over the bottom layer, being faster, reduces the pressure
forcing the bottom layer into the bed.
         If you want to visualize it, consider a molecule of water at
Bratislava, next to the bed of the river.  It is a still day. It sinks
in.  at the usual rate.   If there is flow, the pressure to make it
sink in is less and it gets jostled by molecules above until, in fact,
it may make it all way to Romania before it settles into the bed. At
the usual rate.
      Got it?  It means that an awful lot of water has to flow past a
given point to get one gallon into the soil.  Less water has to flow
to get that same gallon in if the water is still.
     Now consider gravity.  One of the effects of a dam (even in
Hungarian water) is to (a) increase the depth of the river or lake
(b) increase the area of the water behind the dam.  Even if this seems
strange to you, a rather cursory look at any dam you please might
convince you that there is a large reservoir behind it, and that the
reservoir is deeper than the river downstream.
     As a general rule in this universe, the deeper the fluid, the
greater the pressure.   For example, air pressure is greater at Budapest
than in outer space hundreds of miles above Budapest.  I know this is
hard for you to believe, but astronauts have found this to be so.
similarly, many respected authorities swear that the water pressure at
the bottom of the Atlantic ocean is greater than at the bottom of the
Danube.
    Thus we might plausibily conclude that the pressure to force a
molecule of water into the gravel bed near Bratislava is now much
greater than before because (a) the water is deeper and therefore the
effect is gravity is greater and (b) the interfering
pressure-reducing mechanical effects of flow are reduced.
   Still with me?
   Good.  Let us go on to osmosis.  Osmosis is the infiltration of one
fluid solution into another and is influenced by (a) pressure (b) area
(c) solute concentration.   Presuming the dissolved mineral content of
the gravel bed has not significantly changed, more water will get into
the water table if the pressure to push it in increases. See above. It
has.
     More water will also get in if there is a greater area of water
in the bottom area.  From looking at the reservoir, my untrained eye
leads me to believe that the lake is quite a bit larger in area than
the river used to be.
    If you had a cup that had one hole per square centimeter drilled
into the bottom, it will leak water at a certain rate.  If you
quadruple the area of the bottom, each hole will continue to leak
water at the same rate, but there will be four times as many holes,
and four times as great a volume of water leaking.
   I apologize to those to whom this is or was obvious and beg them to
have patience with those to whom it is not.
    Disclaimer:  I am not trained as a physicist and Bernoulli may
never forgive me for trying to explain some of his principles this
way.  If I am completely wrong, I apologize in advance.
   for the benefit of Zoli Fekete, however, Newton worked in
thermodynamics and not in hydrology.


    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

Csaba Zoltani writes:
>
> Collective Guilt and Ethnic Cleansing in Czechoslovakia:
>

> A footnote to this sordid chapter of european history was the courageous
> statement from Pres. Vaclav Havel admitting publicly the wrongfullness
> of the acts of the Czechoslovak leadership.

 Agreed.

> On this subject, the news item from HARC, Vol.5, #2 may be of general
> interest.
>
>         Local Government Rejects Memorial to
>         Hungarian who Defended Slovakia's Jews.
>
>         by Charles Jokay
>
> When Czechoslovakia was dismembered by Nazi Germany in 1938, Slovakia
(> text deleted>....


>
> As a result of Eszterhazy's actions, at the end of the war the
> Czechoslovak government declared Eszterhazy a traitor and sentenced him
> to Soviet concentration camps. Recently, his daughter wished to erect a
> memorial plaque in Szenc in her father's memory. The local government
> flatly refused her request, since according to Slovak officials,
> Eszterhazy is still considered a traitor.
>
> Eszterhazy is an embarrassment to Slovak nationalists, who want to
> forget that Slovakia collaborated with Hitler and that a Hungarian was
> the only MP who opposed the discriminatory Jewish laws. Matica

  the story is not really quite complete.  An investigation of the
Hungarian archives after the war showed that Esterhazy was a paid
agent of the Horthy government.
   Havel, with whose opinions on the Benes decrees I agree, was going
to honor Esterhazy in 1990 with an Order of Masaryk... or some such
named honorific... precisely because he did not vote for sanctions
against the Jews.  Luckily, embarassment was avoided for Havel when
his own historians pointed out that Esterhazy had indeed been a
traitor in the truest sense of the word, not to Slovakia or its
nationalists but to the Czechoslovak state.   He was, in fact, in
favor of breaking up the state.
    This would have left Havel in the position of honoring one
Hungarian agent, while having to defend the jail sentence of 19 years
imposed on Vojtech Tuka, the Slovak politician who was also found,
from the Hungarian archives, to have been a paid agent of Horthy.
    Granted that Benedict Arnold from the British aspect is a hero and
from the American a traitor, the perspective of honoring or not
honoring Esterhazy on Slovak territory is the prerogative of the Czech
and Slovak view.
    But this raises, for me, an interesting question.  As with the
information I recently provided on Gabcikovo, which is available in
Hungarian files, do the media in Hungary not search their own archives
when coming across such stories, or ask their own officials? Is there
a blind faith in what their officials tell them?
    Anyway, if someone in Hungary can correct this story I would be
grateful and would apologize if I am wrong.  I trust the newspaper
which so lovingly reproduced that favorable article on Esterhazy will
do the same if I am right.  Will it?


    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

> Newton worked in thermodynamics and not in hydrology.

 F=am

Thanks for playing ;-)                  --      Zoli

Jan George Frajkor writes:


>        Being a bit of a pedant, I am used to dealing with dense
> students.

Sheesh!

> It means that an awful lot of water has to flow past a
> given point to get one gallon into the soil.  Less water has to flow
> to get that same gallon in if the water is still.

No, I think it means that when water flows at a high velocity, flux past
a point is relatively high compared to flux through the channel bed.

This does not establish that flux through the bed varies with velocity over it.


>    for the benefit of Zoli Fekete, however, Newton worked in
> thermodynamics and not in hydrology.

You have got to be joking.  Newton and thermodynamics?  Hardly.

--Greg