> --Where are you?

    Yes, I'm in the US.  I'll try those two you named.

    Thanks,

    Norb

Charles Atherton wrote:
 >>> --I too live in the Bible belt, and can't remember reading of a gay
 >>> bashing here in the last twenty years.

 >>    Where are you?

 > --Rat chere in the Cradle of the Confederacy, Alabama the beautiful.

    Oh, than you're not as close as I thought.  I'm in Texas.

 > There
 > was a big flap down at Auburn about whether or not the Gay and
 > Lesbian
 > Alliance could be recognized as an official student organization
 > (which
 > would allow them to claim some student activity funds), but I don't
 > remember that anybody got hurt over it.  Can't remember how it was
 > resolved, either.  Hell, man, we got enough stuff to get into fights
 > over
 > and don't need any other excuses.

 > Charles

 > --- GIGO+ sn 7 at rnbwpnt vsn 0.99 pl1

Charles Atherton wrote:
>>> ...they can in fact choose the prime minister by royal prerogative.

 >>    Yes, to some extent that is true.

 > --Wait a minute, you two!  While this is technically true, when was
 > the last time a British monarch actually could do this?  Certainly not
 > since sometime before Victoria!

    I qualified my affirmative response with "to some extent."  You're right,
no PM has been truly _appointed_ by a monarch since sometime before Victoria,
so...

 > --Let's see, Norb, Elizabeth II became Queen in 1952 and "appointed..."

    ...putting "appointed" within quotes is absolutely correct.  But...

 > Of course, the Queen could have stated a preference and even done some
 > politicking...

    ...she can and has done more.  I don't remember the specifics of what I
read, but once in the time period I mentioned (maybe the second time when Rab
Butler's "appointment" was again a near certainty) the PM candidates were
given a very unwelcome interview by a couple of Lords.

 > ...but there's damn all she could really have done if the Tories had dug
 > their heels in and said, "Sorry, Ma'am, but you've got to take him" was
 > there?

    Now we're on the same wavelenhth!  That's exactly what I'm trying to get
through to Ms. Durant.  Even though the Queen does have some influence which
has been used, if the democratic appendages of the state don't like the choice,
it will either not be accepted or will be changed later.

 > If she did oppose Butler, I presume it was because he was the chief
 > appeaser during the Chamberlain years.

    I don't know.  Do you know some more on Rab's relationship with the Queen?

>> (2) given the democratic system in the UK, do you not belive that an
>> unpopular "royal choice" would be changed through democratic processes.

 > --I won't touch these questions until Eva Durant has had her chance...

    You already answered ("...but there's damn...").

 > ...but Norb, this isn't entirely an objective question and is, in fact,
 > a bit tricky.

    True, it does require one to make a forecast, which makes it
inherently subjective.  But I think in this context the answer should be
obvious unless the person answering doesn't believe in the intelligence of the
British public...  As far as tricky to answer, not really.  There has been a
precedent set in the somewhat recent past.

  > And they will, if the establishment deems it necessary.
 >>
 >>    Establishment?  Which one?
 >>
 > --Norb, what do you mean which one?  Are there two in the common use
 > of that term in England?

Who or what is "the establishment in England?"  The Illuminati? ;-)
    As far as I'm concerned, "the establishment" is a meaningless phrase
employed by many on both sides of the political spectrum for the sake of
making something the object of scorn or attack even when a single entity
isn't even involved in the processess which bring on the attack (or when
that entity doesn't exist at all).

    Norb

On Tue, 30 Aug 1994, Stefan Gimeson wrote:

> >BTW, Am I wrong in believing that Hungary uses SECAM and not PAL?  Does

In Europe PAL is the standard for most Western European countries,
however France, the ex-Soviet Union and the Ex-Soviet Bloc countries are
using SECAM system. Most T.V.s sold in Europe are capable broadcasting both.

                                                        Attila

On Thu, 1 Sep 1994  wrote:

> Czechoslovakia to be "a nation that bears collective guilt for war
> crimes." Kovacs said "psychological and legal" steps could redress
> this "injustice." He added that some legal measures had already
>
> Can someone expand on this?

After World War II, when there was a decision to move the Germans out of
Czech Republic (There was about 4,5 mil. Czech vs. 3,5 mil. German) some
Slovak communists with Gustav Husak as leader, tried the same with the
Hungarians. These forceful moves were stop after Stalin realized he
needs Hungary to keep Austria and possibly coerce Yugoslavia.

At that point of time all, Hungarians in Czechoslovakia lost their
citizenship and a great number of Hungarians were moved to various part
of the Republic. In their place Slovaks moved in the towns and villages
where there was never Slovak before, such as Udvard. During the 50's 60's
and 70's large number of cemeteries were liquidated by the Slovaks to
remove the memory of Hungarians. The Hungarian communists in Budapest did
not protest at that time. I am glad that finally they realize. If
Hungarians about the disappear, the Hungarian Parliament will also
disappear whether it is run by left or right wing Hungarians.

On Thu, 25 Aug 1994, paul wrote:

> Attila Gabor:
>
> >we would not be Hungarians. After all, it takes 2 Hungarians to come up
> >with 3 opinions.
>
> I have heard this a few times among the New Brunswick, NJ crowd, but I though
t
> it must be a local joke.  Is this a well know saying amaong Hungarians?
>
> Paul

Well, I heard it enough on the various public platforms in Hungary. But
my favour it is "Elvegre mind ketten Magyarok vagyunk. Tehat, tartsunk szet."
                "After all we both are Hungarians. Therefore, let us not
stick together".


                                                Attila

On Tue, 30 Aug 1994 16:18:25 -0600 Norbert Walter said:
>Butler's "appointment" was again a near certainty) the PM candidates were
>given a very unwelcome interview by a couple of Lords.
>
---And that and ninety pence will get you a cup of tea and two small
scones with butter and jam!  The Lords have been toothless since 1911.

> > If she did oppose Butler, I presume it was because he was the chief
> > appeaser during the Chamberlain years.
>
>    I don't know.  Do you know some more on Rab's relationship with the Queen?
>
---Nada.  Your remark was the first time I've heard the story.  I can't
find any mention of it in the standard histories, but that's not
surprising, since it is sort of an historical aside.

>>> (2) given the democratic system in the UK, do you not belive that an
>>> unpopular "royal choice" would be changed through democratic processes.
>
> > --I won't touch these questions until Eva Durant has had her chance...
>
>    You already answered ("...but there's damn...").
>
---Well, yes, I guess I did slip up there.

> > ...but Norb, this isn't entirely an objective question and is, in fact,
> > a bit tricky.

>
>    True, it does require one to make a forecast, which makes it
>inherently subjective.  But I think in this context the answer should be
>obvious unless the person answering doesn't believe in the intelligence of the
>British public...  As far as tricky to answer, not really.  There has been a
>precedent set in the somewhat recent past.
>
---Can you believe that I forgot the question?  And erased the earlier
message?

>    As far as I'm concerned, "the establishment" is a meaningless phrase
>employed by many on both sides of the political spectrum for the sake of
>making something the object of scorn or attack even when a single entity
>isn't even involved in the processess which bring on the attack (or when
>that entity doesn't exist at all).
>
---Well, take a look at any of Anthony Sampson's books in the "Anatomy
of Britain" series.  For the most part, most cabinet members and other
influentials in Britain are still public school and Oxbridge products.
C. P. Snow's "Strangers and Brothers" novels put a little flesh on the
bones, and Snow was an insider whose fictional accounts have the ring
of authenticity.  There have been outsiders who exercised a lot of
influence--Nye Bevan and James Callaghan, for instances, but even
most members of Labour governments are public school, aren't they?
Why was the Education Act of 1944 passed if not to try to help
outsiders crack the system?

---We're probably going to get a flame for straying away from
Hungary, Norb.

Charles

Thank you for the good advices, hints and other replies to my posting about the
grand exit.  Elizabeth's and Jelico's answers have been appreciated!

To Eva: I wouldn't mind if they canned me for dog food (unconditionally!) and,
perhaps my surviving wife would not object either (provided that priests are
not present and the label on the tin carries no religious symbols!).  This is,
I presume, mutual.  Obviously, I made my point and by this I stop the subject.
>From now on, hopefully for a while, I'll deal with Pick and Herz.

To Charles: I'm a globetrotter, carrying Danish passport but currently (for 9
years) live in the Netherlands.  I have no intention to die in the USA (or
anywhere else for that sake), but I travel there frequently.  Besides, I'm not
sure that one can really select the country of "destination", let alone the
spot.  A friend of mine said during an excursion: this place is beautiful, I
wouldn't mind to be burried here in the hilltop, with the magnificient view to
the lake!  (By the way, if one happens to die in the USA without possessing a
valid resident permit, would they extradite the body?  How long does a resident
permit keep its validity after death?)

Peace be upon you all!    Gabor

Greg writes:

> Last minor point: Foosztalyvezeto is way beyond my humble powers of
> translation.  Is Mr a sufficient substitute?  I've no ideas as to proper
> forms of address to a head-office-director(?).


> --Greg
> 

Greg: I would guess something like "Head of Department" would come close to
it or "Director of Department", folks over there like to "direct".
Remember, in most places folks are addressed by their titles more often
than by their names. But if we can call our President Mr. it should be O.K.
for other office holders also.
Generally, it is better to use a more impressive title than the direct
translation :-).

Regards,Jeliko

Dear all,

I suppose the glow over the eastern seabord wasn't visible in Portland, OR,
but it was me blushing because I misspelled from memory the name of that
venerable salami that, it seems, has no less salt than other brands...

But loock here, I couldn't remember how it was spelled, because it _wasn't_
in the lockal shops--obviously that's why I got Herz right ;-).  But now, I
am correckted, and stand ready to go out and buy up some shop's entire
supply, lok, stok and barrel!

As for washing liquids, any listmembers who make it here during the next year
are hereby invited to a personal seminar showing that there's much more to
Czech beer than Pilsener Urquell (Plzensky prazdroj in the vernacular)!

BTW, (back to Pick and Herz) how does a price of the equivalent of just over
$10.00 / kilo compare?  Of course it should be borne in mind that that's
somewhere around 1/20th to 1/15th of an average monthly wage...

Yours sinckerely,

Hugh Agnew )

Gabor Ellmann writes:

possessing a
> valid resident permit, would they extradite the body?  How long does a
resident
> permit keep its validity after death?)

> Peace be upon you all!    Gabor

They notify the next of kin for instruction.
I am sure that if it is properly arranged, you can reside here until
resurrection. At which time the move to an appropriate location is
arranged. :-).

Regards,Jeliko

On Thu, 1 Sep 1994 13:28:39 -0700 > said:
>I can let Sigmund Freud try:

--But Freud had absolutely no training in theology.  He described
himself in a letter to Pastor Pfister as "a godless Jew," but he
was bar mitvahed at 12 as is the custom, so he may have had some
rudimentary religious instruction, but this hardly qualified him
to speak with any authority on religion as a whole.

>
>                        ***
>...what the common man understands by his religion--with the system of
>doctrines and promises which on the one hand explains to him the riddles
>of this world with enviable completeness, and, on the other, assures
>him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and will
>compensate him in a future
>existence for any frustrations he suffers here.

--I know of no competent theologian who would make the above statement.
There may be popular preachers who do, but I doubt than anyone who has
studied theology seriously would find much in it that is familiar.

           The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality,
>that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think
>that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this
>view of life.

--I would make the above comment about psychoanalytic theory.  Freud's
view of human behavior is not based on science as we know it.  While
no one has ever seen a soul at autopsy, neither has anyone seen an id,
an ego, or a superego.  In order to be a good Freudian, one has to
suspend most of what he or she has learned about science.  And as for
penis envy...it is rot.  Freud knew less about women than he knew
about theology.

>Let us return to the common man and to his religion--the only religion which
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ought to bear that name.  [...]
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
--Freud thought very little of ordinary people.  The quote I need is
at the office, but in another letter to Pastor Pfister, Freud says,
"Most people are trash."

>Religion restricts this play of choice and adaptation, since it
>imposes equally on everyone its own path to the aquisition of happiness and
>protection from suffering.

--In which religion is it that no one suffers?

           If the believer finally sees himself obliged to speak of God's
>'inscrutable decrees', he is admitting that all that is left to him as a
>last possible consolation and source of pleasure in his suffering is an
>unconditional submission.

--Again, not a very sophisticated statement.  The problem I have with
most atheists is that they are busily rejecting a religion that doesn't
exist in the first place.  I am often amazed at what atheists tell me
about what religion teaches.  Most of it is stuff I never heard of and
if it indeed were what religion was about, I would be an atheist myself.
This quote from Freud is a case in point.

--I might add that this doesn't help me learn much about Hungary,
although it is interesting.

Charles

>
>So in the name of religion there weren't tonnes of people
>murdered/tortured/persecuted through history? (And at this very moment)

--Yes, but the last I looked, *people* murdered/tortured/persecuted.  I
don't have anything that suggests that God did it.  Godless Huns  also
murdered/tortured/persecuted, but I'm not sure that any atheist-as-
philosopher can be held responsible for that.  Where is it written that
life is, or is supposed to be, a lovely walk in the park?  Certainly
the church as an institution has a lot of blood on its hands and a lot
to answer for.

--If I may drag this discussion back to Hungary, I would like to
ask a couple of things.

1.  Someone posted the information (and I cleaned out my mail and
inadvertently erased it) that the government supports the Catholic
Church and a couple of Protestant bodies.  I presume that the
amount of money each body gets is related to its alledged membership?

2.  Is there currently an established church in Hungary?  If so,
how did the practice of paying the non-established ones get entrenched?

3.  Unless there is some historical reason to preserve a church building,
I don't see any reason for the state to contribute anything to the church.
What is the rationale used by the Hungarian government to pay money
to organizations that, in my view, ought to be supporting themselves?

Charles

On Sat, 3 Sep 1994 16:25:25 +0200 Gabor Ellmann said:
>
>To Charles: I'm a globetrotter, carrying Danish passport but currently (for 9
>years) live in the Netherlands.

--Good choice.  In the Netherlands, they permit doctors to ease one's
exit in a more humane manner than in most places.  Try to develop your
last illness there if at all possible!

Beyond that, I suspect that your attorney can instruct you on how to
write a will that will allow you to be buried without ceremony of any
religious nature--or of any kind.  As far as I know, the Netherlands
does not require you to be buried from the church.  If you want, I
think you can be cremated immediately after death and a will can include
instructions on how to dispose of the body--er, ashes.

--Dog food is not a good suggestion, since it generally has to pass
inspection.  Besides, you sound like your corpse would be too tough
anyway!  Joke!

            (By the way, if one happens to die in the USA without possessing a
>valid resident permit, would they extradite the body?  How long does a residen
t
>permit keep its validity after death?)
>
--Seriously, I think that they would embalm the body and send it back.  Check
will immigration sometime.  Of course, if you were carrying instructions to
be cremated, they might honor that, but I don't know.  In any case, it
should be very easy to avoid any religious stuff whether you die as a Dane
or as a Dutchman.  Could be a problem in some countries, though.

>Peace be upon you all!    Gabor

--And with thy spirit, also!  Charles

Charles writes:

> What is the rationale used by the Hungarian government to pay money
> to [religious] organizations that, in my view, ought to be
> supporting themselves?

Maybe it's the same rationale as for {sports, fine arts, research,
entertainment} organizations?

--Greg

Greg--You may also append my name to the letter. Let's get the ball
rolling!

                Bob...az arpadhoni

Eva Balogh asks:

> What I am not sure of is how much right a new government has in
reversing the
> decisions of a former government. If the successors can simply repudiate
> decisions of their predecessors, we are left with a government which
operates
> in an arbitrary way. What is the case here? Eva Balogh


that of course depends. if a decision of a former government is found to
be unconstitutional, then there should be no problem. moreever, if the
new government is elected on a platformof reversing the former
geovernemt's
decision(s), it would seem to have a mandate to do so.

in some cases recently, we have seen governements decide that former
constitutions were invalid and reverse decisions of more than forty
years standing.


d.a.