Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 75
Copyright (C) HIX
1994-09-13
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: The Slovak dam (mind)  214 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Slovak dam (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: beer/god/Sartre (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
4 Holidays... (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
5 Morality... (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Sinead, the army and the churches (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: beer/god/Sartre (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Atheism v. agnosticism (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: beer/god/Sartre (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Slovak dam (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
11 > (mind)  3 sor     (cikkei)
12 Need Hungarian Composers (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Is this a joke? (mind)  75 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Need Hungarian Composers (mind)  1 sor     (cikkei)
15 Media watch (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
16 Is this a joke? (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Is this a joke? (mind)  91 sor     (cikkei)
18 Benes-Bokor-Doctrine (mind)  38 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Slovak dam (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: The Slovak dam (mind)  318 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: Religion (mind)  74 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: religion/Hungary/schools (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Freud snippets on religion (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: The Slovak dam (mind)  39 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: Need Hungarian Composers (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
26 MetaForum '94, Budapest, Oct. 7-9 (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: Slovak dam (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: The Slovak dam (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

George Antony writes:
>
> George Frajkor wrote:
>
> > The effect
> >on the environment has been positive according to reports of the
> >technical and enivornmental panel set up to report to the
> >International court of Justice.
>
> Wow!  All positive, with no adverse effects, this must be a world
> first in the history of human intervention in the environment.
> How come that it hasn't been publicized worldwide ?
>
> Could we have a full reference, please.

    Yes. It is the report of the commmission established to advise the
International Court of Justice on the technical and enviromenmtal
effects, and it has not been publicized because it is for the court,
which has many other issues to consider and is not interested in
propaganda.  the report is in the hands of both Slovak and Hungarian
authorities. Ask them for it.  I happened to see a copy through
sources I do not care to name at this moment.

  And no, it is not a world record nor anything unusual.
   To be precise, there were negative
effects on four per cent of the territory, positive effects on 16 per
cent of the territory, and neutral effects on 80 per cent.  It is my
interpretation that that this means a net positive effect. You may
disagree but in most mathematical systems that would be a proper
conclusion.

>
> > The World Wildlife Fund two months ago admitted it was wrong and has
> >announced it will not support any campaigns against the dam.
>
> Could you supply full reference to this too, please.
>
     New Scientist magazine, of England.
   (sorry, since it was two months ago or so
I have forgotten the date but can probably find it. )
   it also quotes some Hungarian experts and
one of the titles was something to the effect that Hungary is
begginning to backtrack or reconsider its position on the dam.

> >I don't know of other environmentalist groups.
>
> Along the former main channel of the Danube, forests on the floodplain are
> dying due to the drastic reduction of flow.  This would happen both in
> Hungary and Slovakia.

     Not quite so.  The plain on the south side of Gabcikovo dam in
Slovakia now supports more greenery and wetlands than before. The
reason is actually quite simple. The danube, unmanaged, meanders.  All
rivers do in flat lands.  The mouth of the Nile and the mouth of the
mississippi are no longer in the same places they were years ago, and
some land is now flooded and some has dried.  The forests south of
Gabcikovo suffered from periodic bursts of growth in wet years and
death in dry. They are now watered constantly by the spillover from
the main channel and the seepage canals.  It is quite easy to see--
just take a tour.  Old waterways through the swamps are now full and
get fuller during floods, when the spillways are used to dump excess
water through the wetlands into the old channel.


> On the Hungarian side (and most likely in Slovakia
> also), the water table along the former main channel has dropped by a
> few metres, causing wells to dry up.  The reduced flow in the former main
> channel caused brakish pools of water to collect in the channel, due to
> lack of sufficient flushing.  This leads to deteriorating water quality
> in the pools and also in the groundwater that is fed from the channel.
> Hence, whatever water is still available from shallow wells becomes less
> suitable for human consumption than previously.
>
       Again, not quite so. The water levels in the old channel have
indeed been dropping quite steadily since the 1960s (These are
Hungarian figures -- ask for them) when dams in Austria and Germany
were completed.  The effect was to trap silt and gravel upstream.
Downstream, through the old Danube, the river ran so rapidly that it
washed out the old bed and steadily lowered its suface levels.  More
than 10 years ago, the former Czechoslovakia proposed that underwater
weirs or dams be built in the old bed to trap sediment and keep it
from flowing.   In fact I heard (cannot confirm right now) that
Czechoslovakia offered to pay ALL the costs instead of its normal
half, but that this was rejected by Hungary.
     Shallow wells on all sides have indeed suffered from the drop in
the water table from the previous effect, plus the effect of the
diversion.
   But they are not the problem since, at least on the Slovak
side,people do not use the shallow wells for human consumption as it
is presumed the Danube is polluted.  You only have to look at it to
see that is true.  Deep water is not affected as the water table is
refilled from the drop off from the geological Carpathian/Alpine rock
structure just south and west of Bratislava into the silt/gravel bed
of the plain.  This is not at all affected by the dam or reservoir.
    The water quality at Budapest is now improved because it gets
aerated from flowing over the Gabcikovo dam and the side spillways.



> >  The amount of water flowing past Budapest remains exactly the same.
> >Look at a map of the river. The diversion reroutes part of the water
> >through the new canal instead of the old bed, and puts it back into
> >the channel below Gabcikovo.   The volume is necessarily the same. In
> >fact, it would HAVE to be or there would not have been any sense to
> >the plan to build a dam at Nagymaros.
>
> This reflects a lack of understanding of the hydrology of the region and
> the source of Budapest's water supply.  Budapest does not take water
> directly from the river - cleaning that thin sewage flavoured with heavy
> metals and all sorts of organic compounds of proven health effects would
> be prohibitively expensive.

    That is correct.  That is also why anyone using shallow wells for
human consumption is nuts.  And I do not think most people living
beside the river are that stupid.

> Rather, Budapest relies on wells sunk in the extensive gravel layers left
> behind by the previously meandering river.  Gravel and similarly permeable
> geological formations filter the groundwater that is also flowing in a
> south-south-easternly direction in the Hungarian section of the Danube Bend
> region (north-west of Budapest).  That is, the water lifted from wells on the
> western side of the river in the region of Budapest originates mainly in the
> section of the river before the Danube Bend, and by the time it gets to
> Budapest it is well filtered

   Quite correct.  But also a reflection of lack of knowledge of
hydrology.
 The main entry point for the water in the underground reservoir is
not affected by the diversion.  In fact, the reservoir created by the
dam (which would be one-third bigger if Dunakilti weir were closed)
allows MORE water to enter the underground.  Still water sinks in.
Flowing water does not.

>    By cutting the flow in the main channel,
> the Slovak authorities lowered the water table and the amount of water
> that would normally filter through to Budapest underground.  This
> shortfall can only be made up from wells sunk into the current floodplain
> of the river above Budapest that supply much dirtier water.

> > >much more by the effect of dams in Austria over the past 20 years on
> >silt deposition than by the new diversion.
>
> You must be joking.  The few metres drop recently in the water level of the
> former main channel is the direct consequence of the Slovak diversion
> upstream and has nothing to do with whatever the Austrians may have done.

       I think you should get some of the statistics directly from the
Hungarian authorities themselves.  Of course there was a drop from the
diversion.  The question is not the drop, it is the extent of it, and
the effect on human use of water.

> >In fact, this condition
> >could be mostly cured by completing the reservoir at Dunakilti and the
> >dam at Nagymaros, which would slow down the erosion and back up the
> >water to create a larger reservoir below Gabcikovo.
>
> Yep, that would create eventually a big brakish pool of water in the
> former main channel instead of the small one now.  While the water
> table would certainly be raised, it would be much higher than
> before near the dam, with consequent salinity problems on the surface
> upstream from the dam.  Further back, along the former main
> channel, the groundwater level would be restored but its quality would be
> worse than before the Slovak diversion.

      These are hypothetical arguments which, in fact, the two years
of operation of the Gabcikovo dam have already refuted. The quality of
water on the Slovak side has, as tested, been improved.  That is one
of the positive effects allegedly cited in the reports. Unless water
changes its nature suddenly on the Hungarian side, the Nagymaros dam
should not do things much differently from the Gabcikovo dam.

> In addition, a dirty big dam in one of the most scenic parts of Hungary
> is not something Hungarians want.  In the good old heady days of
> grandiose Stalinist nature-transforming developments this was not an
> issue, but nowadays it is.  It seems that this change of thinking
> has not yet permeated official Slovak circles.

      I understand that not all people want the same things.  The
Danube has been polluted since the 1800s when steamship navigation
began in earnest.  So let us not talk about restoring the Blue Danube,
but of improving it.  The Gabcikovo site is worth touring. It is
already being prepared for recreational boating and swimming as the
second phase of development.
    I like your description of the "grandiose  Stalinist
nature-transforminfg develoopments."  As you and most well-informed
Hungarians know, the original Gabcikovo-Nagymaros development was
planned in 1913.  Ask for a copy from your Hungarian sources. It
differs in detail but not in principle from the present plan.
     I was not aware that Stalinists were was running Hungary at
the time, but presuming they were, they were frustrated by the
 first world war and then, of course, the division of Austria-Hungary
which led to a domestic plan becoming an international plan.  It was
tentatively proposed again in the late 1920s, but frustrated (Horthy
and those Stalinists of his get all the bad luck) by the recession,
then by the Second War, and the turmoil following it.
   the old plans were dusted off and improved only after the 1965
floods.  Again, as you surely ar aware, the cost of the damages of
those floods in both Hungary and Slovakia was much higher than the
cost of building the whole complex.

> >Dams have a habit
> >of backing water up and raising underground water tables.
>
> One learns something new every day.
>
    Thank you. Being an educator, I am glad I have served my purpose.

    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
+ - Re: Slovak dam (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

W. BATKAY writes:
>
> Re: Jan George Frajkor's posting re: the Gabcikovo dam--
> Ok, touche'!  But could we cut out the snideness?  It would make your sub-
> stantive information more credible, at least to me.  My understanding re-
> mains that environmental degradation of the Szigetko"z wetland area occurred.
> Am I wrong about this?
> Dzenkuje,
> Be1la
> 

       It would be surprising if environmental degradation did NOT
occur in this circumstance.  The water flow in the old channel is
naturally lower now from Bratislava to Gabcikovo.
     the question is what to do about the
degradation.  From the Slovak side, the answer is to complete the
Nagymaros portion of the dam and thus help refill the old channel.

    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
+ - Re: beer/god/Sartre (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>
> >>And Camus was pretty much a radical.
> >
> >"they" all were.
> >
> --My point exactly.  That's why I didn't find it surpriseing that Durant
> Eva was allowed to read them.
But they were decidedly not dialectic materialists, still counted as
bourgois philosophers, all I wanted to hint, that reading materials
were wider than the the hunlist is allowed to believe so far. Eva Durant
(p.s. I am only talking for the late sixties/seventies)
Other non-radicals I remember from my literature reading list:
(Secondary school:
Petrarca, Sappho, Moliere (sorry, radical for you...) Twain, ...etc.
By the way, why is it so embarassing for two people to live together for
so many years, I thought you conservative americans were all for that!
+ - Holidays... (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Gabor wrote:

f this is the essence of Catholicism, please, can I join in?
The best of both world would be if this version of Catholicism or whatever
"new" religion that might be, would come with no ceremonies, no churches, no
priests.  We all could exercise our faith - along the above lines - at home,
looking into our private souls.  No joint chantings, no clergymen, no decretes,
no confessions, no holly scripts.  No Christmas, no Easter, no Thanksgiving, no

Wait!!!  Hold it, I can live without Easter or Xmas but, no Thanksgiving?!?
Not only is it one of the few secular holidays that we celebrate but is one
of the few not tampered by market forces...

My Hungarian family (mostly in Philadelphia) have always celebrated
Thanksgiving with a really dry turkey(ugh) and a lot of Szeged Goulash (don't
know if I spelled that right).  When I was a child I thought everyone in
America had goulash for thanksgiving.  I thought everyone drank sherry and
apricot brandy before the meal. In any case, Thanksgiving is by far my favorite
holiday.  It is also one of the few holidays celebrated by my jewish friends.
...marc
+ - Morality... (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

-     >             There is no such a thing as MORALITY...
-
-
-     Remind me to count the silverware after you visit.  :-)
-
-     --Greg

Brilliant response!!...marc horchler
+ - Re: Sinead, the army and the churches (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>
> Eva Durant writes:
>
> > Please spell out for me, which of the human standards of behaviour are
> > exclusively Christian.
>
> Who has made that claim?
>
> --Greg

Everyone who stated, that without religious education/church
society will not function properly, there were such or similar
assertions. Eva Durant
+ - Re: beer/god/Sartre (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Mon, 12 Sep 1994 08:29:16 +0100 Eva Durant said:
>But they were decidedly not dialectic materialists, still counted as
>bourgois philosophers

--It is hard for me to think of Sartre, de Bouvier (I still can't
spell it), and Camus as bourgeois philsophers, but I defer to your
opinion.

, all I wanted to hint, that reading materials
>were wider than the the hunlist is allowed to believe so far.

--Point well taken.

Moliere...sorry, radical for you...

--Never thought of him that way.  Tartouffe as radical critique
of society?  Or just a funny play about a boring old man like me?

>By the way, why is it so embarassing for two people to live together for
>so many years, I thought you conservative americans were all for that!

--I was being facetious!  I wrote it with a twinkle in my eye!  Couldn't
you see it?  It is, after all, an old custom here.  Our youth think that
they discovered "living together" in the 1960s.  Back in the 1930s in my
small town in the Midwest, it was a common occurrance.
+ - Re: Atheism v. agnosticism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>
> > So. Those people who live "good" life, do not need religion.
> > They can learn from other people, who also live "good" life.
> > Don't you think? Eva Durant
>
> Yes, by golly, and if they start an institution which relies on a bit
> of faith in the goodness of humanity, or perhaps that goodness can be
> taught, or that a good life is possible, then we have a church, don't I think
.
>
> --Greg

My "good" is in quotation mark! I have nothing against "good" schools.
In our times of frightening emotional deprivation/sickness, schools
should show love/care/community - so far the only such school I've
seen was a non-religious small country primary in Hungary, '83-87.
 Sorry...Care cost money, capitalist England  cannot afford it
anymore.  Eva Durant
+ - Re: beer/god/Sartre (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>
> --I was being facetious!  I wrote it with a twinkle in my eye!  Couldn't
> you see it?  It is, after all, an old custom here.  Our youth think that
> they discovered "living together" in the 1960s.  Back in the 1930s in my
> small town in the Midwest, it was a common occurrance.
OK, Charles, I didn't notice it was you, there are others, not so
twinkly.
+ - Re: Slovak dam (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Mon, 12 Sep 1994, The Only Reader wrote:

> > The Slovak name for the place is, I believe, Gabcikovo, and my understandin
g
 i
> >...
> May I advice all for you initiation of Prof. Be'la Lipta'k Yale Universty
> into this discussion.? SB

Why?

                                                                Attila
+ - > (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> HELP
>

+ - Need Hungarian Composers (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I am interested in gathering as much information as possible about the current
music (serious/classical) scene in Hungary.  Who are the happening composers?
How can I get in touch with them...hear their music?  I would like to make
a presentation on the subject at the Ethnomusicology forum here at Wesleyan
University...

Any help would be appreciated...

sincerely,

Joshua S. Freeman



"There is nothing about art that requires theory."  -D. Korobkin
+ - Re: Is this a joke? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

The village where we lived in the 80s was inhabited by
Hungarian families uprouted from Czecoslovakia in the manner described
below, occupying houses left in  similar circumstances (kitelepites)
by ethnic (Hungarian born) germans... Eva Durant


>
> >>Just in a nutshell: in Czchoslovakia, the post-war Benes government
> >declared
> >>Germans and Hungarians collectively guilty for the war.
>
> Vitriolic as always but more opaque than usual, Imi Bokor appears to
> display considerable sympathy with the Benes doctrines:
>
> >perhaps the reason for this was the "non-invasory" crossing of the
> >borders by hungarian armed forces and the re-annexation of territories by
> >horthy's hungary which the learned gentlemen so painstaikingly assured
> >were
> >acts of humanitarian inmtervention, marred only by the fact the that the
> >ungrateful bastards didn't like being helped at bayonet point.
> >
> >i don't blame the czechs and the slovaks for misunderstanding, even the
> >encyclopedia britannica got it wrong and writes that hungary "invavded"
> >what was left of czechoslovakia, and also later ruthenia. and if the dons
> >of oxford and chicago can get it so wrong, what can you expect of such
> >ungrateful and ignorant masses?
>
> Let us take a hypothetical example of Janos Kiss, a farmer owning 10 acres
> in the vicinity of Kosice (Kassa in Hungarian).  During the war, he manages
> to avoid conscription by the various authorities (let's say he had lost the
> crucial finger needed for pulling a trigger), keeps out of trouble lying
> as low as possible, joins nothing, participates in nothing, pays his
> taxes to the authorities of the day, works his land and looks after his
> family.
>
> After the war, someone in the new regime decides on a clean sweep of
> the enemies of the state in the village.  Since the Benes Doctrines declared
> all Hungarians and Germans collectively guilty for everything committed by
> Hungarians and Germans during WWII, it is not necessary to establish guilt
> in a court of law, individually.  Rather, all ethnic Hungarians and Germans
> are woken in the middle of the night, given 10 minutes to get ready, packed
> into boxcars and shipped out.  Janos Kiss is sent to a lead mine in Bohemia
> with the rest of able-bodied men, his family straight to Hungary.  After a
 year
> he is let go: back at home he finds his farm and house given to a Slovak
 family,
> his own gone.  He is told that he is an alien, as he has been stripped of his
> Czechoslovak citizenship by the authorities, and he had better clear out or h
e
> will be in trouble.  His health ruined, property and family gone, he too
> crosses the border into Hungary.  Similar, and worse, things happened in
> sufficient numbers not to make this little fable a mere tear-jerker.
>
> Imi's reaction, quoted above, reiterates the guilt of the Hungarian armed
 forces
> and 'Horthy's Hungary' (all of it, presumably) in the annexation of
 Czechoslovak
> territory.  As there is nothing else in his response, one can only assume
> that these unlawful acts committed by Hungarians weigh sufficiently heavy in
 his
> view to justify acts like that described above.
>
> This is the legal principle of 'two wrongs make one right', closely related t
o
> the concept of the vendetta.   Modern Western legal approaches do not usually
> rely on these principles, and specifically rule out collective guilt.  The
> Nuremberg Trials confirmed that such an approach was considered by the Wester
n
> Powers to be the appropriate response even then.  The USSR followed a
 different
> approach, but Czechoslovakia prided itself on being part of Western culture.
> Hence, the Hungarian government as is justified in raising the issue as was
> its predecessor.  The political wisdom of doing so is another matter.
>
> George Antony
+ - Re: Need Hungarian Composers (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

kurtag, Gyorgy, for starters
+ - Media watch (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Readers of the list may remember that about a month ago I reported on the
coverage of "The Technomark Scandal" as it appeared in *168 ora* (July 26,
1994, pp. 6-9). Quite a discussion followed. Subsequently, I reported on a
letter to the editor concerning the "scandal" from which it became obvious
that one of the so-called proofs, an alleged letter attributed to Ge1za
Jeszenszky, actually was not written by the former foreign minister. Another
letter to the editor followed which was answered by Akos Mester, the
editor-in-chief of the weekly. In my opinion that answer was not
satisfactory. (You may recall that Andras Kornai defended Mr. Mester by
stating that it is better to err in this manner than not investigating
abuses.)

It seems that I was not alone in thinking that Akos Mester's answer was
unsatisfactory. Peter Esterhazy in *ES* (Elet es irodalom) wrote not once but
twice, urging the editor-in-chief of *168 ora* to apologize to Geza
Jeszenszky. First, the editorial board planned to wait until the trial, but
there is no way of knowing when that will take place. Therefore, "Peter
Esterhazy is right. We are apologizing to Geza Jeszenszky."

I am glad that there are people in Hungary who also find this kind of shoddy
reporting appalling and demand an apology which *168 ora* was reluctant to
offer. Eva Balogh
+ - Is this a joke? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Imi Bokor is at it again about horrid Hungary's attack and invasion of
Czechoslovakia. If I recall this topic has been discussed once on the list:
it was mostly a dialogue between Andras Kornai and Imi Bokor and, honestly, I
don't even remember what their final resolution was, or whether there was a
final resolution at all. I don't think that I contributed anything whatsoever
to this topic because I felt that Imi Bokor's mind is already made up on the
subject. He learned from the Encyclopedia Britannica all there was to know
about Czech-Slovak-Hungarian relations in 1938 and 1938 and therefore he
needed no further enlightenment. Now that the time topic came up again I
would like suggest to Imi to read a few more books on the subject, including
Gyula Juhasz's excellent work on Hungary's foreign policy between the two
world wars. Macartney's monumental work on interwar Hungary also has many
interesting details on Czechoslovak-Hungarian-Polish relations in 1938-1939.
Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Is this a joke? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

It should be noted that the Germans deported from Hungary were
expelled because of their alleged membership in the pro-Nazi Volksbund
(although many of them were only accused such falsely), not based on
their nationality. Making ethnicity an officially punished crime was
unique to the Benes administration, I believe.

-- Zoli 

On Mon, 12 Sep 1994, Eva Durant wrote:

> The village where we lived in the 80s was inhabited by
> Hungarian families uprouted from Czecoslovakia in the manner described
> below, occupying houses left in  similar circumstances (kitelepites)
> by ethnic (Hungarian born) germans... Eva Durant
>
>
> >
> > >>Just in a nutshell: in Czchoslovakia, the post-war Benes government
> > >declared
> > >>Germans and Hungarians collectively guilty for the war.
> >
> > Vitriolic as always but more opaque than usual, Imi Bokor appears to
> > display considerable sympathy with the Benes doctrines:
> >
> > >perhaps the reason for this was the "non-invasory" crossing of the
> > >borders by hungarian armed forces and the re-annexation of territories by
> > >horthy's hungary which the learned gentlemen so painstaikingly assured
> > >were
> > >acts of humanitarian inmtervention, marred only by the fact the that the
> > >ungrateful bastards didn't like being helped at bayonet point.
> > >
> > >i don't blame the czechs and the slovaks for misunderstanding, even the
> > >encyclopedia britannica got it wrong and writes that hungary "invavded"
> > >what was left of czechoslovakia, and also later ruthenia. and if the dons
> > >of oxford and chicago can get it so wrong, what can you expect of such
> > >ungrateful and ignorant masses?
> >
> > Let us take a hypothetical example of Janos Kiss, a farmer owning 10 acres
> > in the vicinity of Kosice (Kassa in Hungarian).  During the war, he manages
> > to avoid conscription by the various authorities (let's say he had lost the
> > crucial finger needed for pulling a trigger), keeps out of trouble lying
> > as low as possible, joins nothing, participates in nothing, pays his
> > taxes to the authorities of the day, works his land and looks after his
> > family.
> >
> > After the war, someone in the new regime decides on a clean sweep of
> > the enemies of the state in the village.  Since the Benes Doctrines declare
d
> > all Hungarians and Germans collectively guilty for everything committed by
> > Hungarians and Germans during WWII, it is not necessary to establish guilt
> > in a court of law, individually.  Rather, all ethnic Hungarians and Germans
> > are woken in the middle of the night, given 10 minutes to get ready, packed
> > into boxcars and shipped out.  Janos Kiss is sent to a lead mine in Bohemia
> > with the rest of able-bodied men, his family straight to Hungary.  After a
>  year
> > he is let go: back at home he finds his farm and house given to a Slovak
>  family,
> > his own gone.  He is told that he is an alien, as he has been stripped of
 his
> > Czechoslovak citizenship by the authorities, and he had better clear out or
 he
> > will be in trouble.  His health ruined, property and family gone, he too
> > crosses the border into Hungary.  Similar, and worse, things happened in
> > sufficient numbers not to make this little fable a mere tear-jerker.
> >
> > Imi's reaction, quoted above, reiterates the guilt of the Hungarian armed
>  forces
> > and 'Horthy's Hungary' (all of it, presumably) in the annexation of
>  Czechoslovak
> > territory.  As there is nothing else in his response, one can only assume
> > that these unlawful acts committed by Hungarians weigh sufficiently heavy i
n
>  his
> > view to justify acts like that described above.
> >
> > This is the legal principle of 'two wrongs make one right', closely related
 to
> > the concept of the vendetta.   Modern Western legal approaches do not
 usually
> > rely on these principles, and specifically rule out collective guilt.  The
> > Nuremberg Trials confirmed that such an approach was considered by the
 Western
> > Powers to be the appropriate response even then.  The USSR followed a
>  different
> > approach, but Czechoslovakia prided itself on being part of Western culture
.
> > Hence, the Hungarian government as is justified in raising the issue as was
> > its predecessor.  The political wisdom of doing so is another matter.
> >
> > George Antony
>
+ - Benes-Bokor-Doctrine (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear List Members,

   I have honestly thought that we have come to an understanding,
in connection of another topic, about the appropriatness of the
doctrine of *collective guilt or responsibility*. As I have under-
stood it, the concensus was that the doctrine is *nonsense* at
least and *inhumane* at most. Eva Balogh is a lady rejecting the
doctrine and Zoli Fekete is a gentleman. But this approach does
not seem to get through to some people. I am getting sick and
tired about this Hungarian bashing. It is one thing to find the
action of a certain government to be wrong, good, or neutral. It
is something else again to dish out collective responsibility or
guilt to an entire nation. And I don't give a hoot whether the
doctrine is advocated by somebody named Benes or Micky Mouse, or
reported by the Encyclopadia Britannica. It is still wrong, dead
wrong. It is as dead as the nearly one million ethnic Germans
who died during the deportation by (mostly) Czechs. What does
the EB say about this?

   Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the topic is not dead.
So here is my view of the doctrine of collective responsibility
or guilt: it is GARBAGE!!! Ethnic cleansing has never been, is
not, and will never be right. And collective responsibility and
guilt comes down to this.

                                 Amos

*  *                   Amos,..."not the famous"                 *  *
**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**
**             "Cherish yesterday, Dream of tomorrow,             **
**                     and Live for today!"                       **
********************************************************************
**                || Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey **
**                ||        Library of Science and Medicine       **
** AMOS J. DANUBE ||   P.O.Box 1029, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1029    **
**                ||     T.:908, 445-2896  Fax: 908, 445-3208     **
**                ||      E-mail:       **
**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**+**=**
+ - Re: Slovak dam (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

SB wrote:

>May I advice all for you initiation of Prof. Be'la Lipta'k Yale Universty
>into this discussion [on the Gabcikovo Dam].? SB

Sure, every new discussant is welcome, especially if they have a detailed
knowledge of the issue.  However, I do not know the gentleman, if you do
you may like to invite him to give us his opinion.

George Antony
+ - Re: The Slovak dam (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

George Frajkor wrote:

>George Antony writes:
>>
>> George Frajkor wrote:
>>
>> > The effect
>> >on the environment has been positive according to reports of the
>> >technical and enivornmental panel set up to report to the
>> >International court of Justice.
>>
>  And no, it is not a world record nor anything unusual.
>   To be precise, there were negative
>effects on four per cent of the territory, positive effects on 16 per
>cent of the territory, and neutral effects on 80 per cent.  It is my
>interpretation that that this means a net positive effect. You may
>disagree but in most mathematical systems that would be a proper
>conclusion.

I would have thought that a somewhat more sophisticated method of
cost-benefit assessment is desirable than merely counting the affected
square miles.  For the latter has the implicit assumptions that (1) the
effect (cost as well as benefit) per unit area is uniform, (2) it does
not matter where the costs and benefits occur, and (3) the
beneficiaries compensate those incurring costs, hence a straight
balance can be calculated.

My understanding is that most of the adverse effects appear in Hungary
and most of the benefits in Slovakia, something that your post seems
to confirm also.  There is a radical difference on what constitutes
damage and costs - something that will impact on compensation.

>> Along the former main channel of the Danube, forests on the floodplain are
>> dying due to the drastic reduction of flow.  This would happen both in
>> Hungary and Slovakia.
>
>     Not quite so.  The plain on the south side of Gabcikovo dam in
>Slovakia now supports more greenery and wetlands than before.

Sure, as most of the water that previously flowed through the old main
channel has been diverted from it, into a previous secondary channel
well to the north.  Consequently, there is less water to support
the ecosystem of the previous main channel whose southern bank is
Hungary.

I was specifically talking about the former main channel.  Its Hungarian
side especially is severely affected by the lack of water, and my
understanding is that the Slovak side is too.  In this argument it is
irrelevant that vegetation is thriving along the former secondary
channel that is fully in Slovakia.

>The
>reason is actually quite simple. The danube, unmanaged, meanders.  All
>rivers do in flat lands.  The mouth of the Nile and the mouth of the
>mississippi are no longer in the same places they were years ago, and
>some land is now flooded and some has dried.  The forests south of
>Gabcikovo suffered from periodic bursts of growth in wet years and
>death in dry.

Some people, not only deep greens, would argue that this was the natural
state that had an inherent value.  Besides, the Danube cannot be compared
to the Mississippi or the Nile in its present-day meandering.  In fact,
regulation of the Danube so far made it to stick to its current bed
pretty well.

They are now watered constantly by the spillover from
>the main channel and the seepage canals.  It is quite easy to see--
>just take a tour.  Old waterways through the swamps are now full and
>get fuller during floods,

Some people, not only deep greens, would argue that this is not
necessarily a desirable state of affairs.  Then, again, these benefits
are wholly in Slovakia.

>when the spillways are used to dump excess
>water through the wetlands into the old channel.

That is exactly the point: the old main channel only gets some of the
flood flows and it is deprived of its regular flow.

>> On the Hungarian side (and most likely in Slovakia
>> also), the water table along the former main channel has dropped by a
>> few metres, causing wells to dry up.  The reduced flow in the former main
>> channel caused brakish pools of water to collect in the channel, due to
>> lack of sufficient flushing.  This leads to deteriorating water quality
>> in the pools and also in the groundwater that is fed from the channel.
>> Hence, whatever water is still available from shallow wells becomes less
>> suitable for human consumption than previously.
>>
>       Again, not quite so. The water levels in the old channel have
>indeed been dropping quite steadily since the 1960s (These are
>Hungarian figures -- ask for them) when dams in Austria and Germany
>were completed.  The effect was to trap silt and gravel upstream.
>Downstream, through the old Danube, the river ran so rapidly that it
>washed out the old bed and steadily lowered its suface levels.  More
>than 10 years ago, the former Czechoslovakia proposed that underwater
>weirs or dams be built in the old bed to trap sediment and keep it
>from flowing.   In fact I heard (cannot confirm right now) that
>Czechoslovakia offered to pay ALL the costs instead of its normal
>half, but that this was rejected by Hungary.
>     Shallow wells on all sides have indeed suffered from the drop in
>the water table from the previous effect, plus the effect of the
>diversion.
>   But they are not the problem since, at least on the Slovak
>side,people do not use the shallow wells for human consumption as it

I do not think this is correct.  Even if it were true that NOBODY in
Slovakia along the Danube takes water from shallow wells directly
(and I doubt that), reticulated supplies still rely on shallow wells.

>is presumed the Danube is polluted.  You only have to look at it to
>see that is true.  Deep water is not affected as the water table is
>refilled from the drop off from the geological Carpathian/Alpine rock
>structure just south and west of Bratislava into the silt/gravel bed
>of the plain.  This is not at all affected by the dam or reservoir.

What matters is how far the water travels and through what geological
formations, not in what direction.  The gravel of the old riverbeds is
an excellent filter, and this is what gives quite good-quality water
for Budapest.  These wells are not artesian, they are not lifting
water from the artesian basin.  Similarly, shallow wells in north-
western Hungary can give acceptable water if there is no additional
surface pollution and they are in a favourable geological formation.
Obivously, further purification is desirable and the convenience of
reticulation is significant.

The quantity of water getting into the groundwater table and the
artesian water table would be the same as before only if the
Gabcikovo dam did not impose any water losses on the system.  That
is, if evaporation from the surface of the lake were no greater than
from the river before (obviously not so), and if evapotranspiration
from the Slovak section of the region were the same as before.  As
the water table upstream from the dam has been raised significantly,
evapotranspiration by the existing vegetation necessarily increased too:
you mentioned that everything is so much greener in the Slovak section now.

Once the irrigation potential of the dam is utilized (you seem to be
well informed on the intentions of the Slovak government, would you
care to tell us about the intended irrigation use of the dam>, further
evapotranspiration losses will occur from the additional vegetation.
The extreme example of rivers used up for irrigation is the dying
Aral Sea: while in Slovakia the heat is not as great and the possible
extent of irrigation more restricted, it is only the extent, not the
fact, of water losses that can be debated.

>    The water quality at Budapest is now improved because it gets
>aerated from flowing over the Gabcikovo dam and the side spillways.

This still does not make the surface water potable, hence it does
not compensate for the loss of groundwater that requires much
less purification.

>> This reflects a lack of understanding of the hydrology of the region and
>> the source of Budapest's water supply.  Budapest does not take water
>> directly from the river - cleaning that thin sewage flavoured with heavy
>> metals and all sorts of organic compounds of proven health effects would
>> be prohibitively expensive.
>
>    That is correct.  That is also why anyone using shallow wells for
>human consumption is nuts.  And I do not think most people living
>beside the river are that stupid.

You may like to check the water sources used.  You cannot supply the
whole population along the Danube from Bratislava to Budapest from artesian
sources.  You have no choice but to use shallow wells, and just because
the water may flow out of a tap it still originates from that source.
Purification works and reticulated supplies are mainly fed from shallow
(i.e., non-artesian) wells, and a reduction in the yield of the wells and
deteriorating quality of the water imposes considerable costs on the towns
along the river, particularly along the former main channel but even in
Budapest.

Once again, it is mainly Hungary that is affected by this, plus Slovakian
settlements along the northern bank of the former main channel.

>> Rather, Budapest relies on wells sunk in the extensive gravel layers left
>> behind by the previously meandering river.  Gravel and similarly permeable
>> geological formations filter the groundwater that is also flowing in a
>> south-south-easternly direction in the Hungarian section of the Danube Bend
>> region (north-west of Budapest).  That is, the water lifted from wells on th
e
>> western side of the river in the region of Budapest originates mainly in the
>> section of the river before the Danube Bend, and by the time it gets to
>> Budapest it is well filtered
>
>   Quite correct.  But also a reflection of lack of knowledge of
>hydrology.
> The main entry point for the water in the underground reservoir is
>not affected by the diversion.  In fact, the reservoir created by the
>dam (which would be one-third bigger if Dunakilti weir were closed)
>allows MORE water to enter the underground.

Of course, the main entry point is affected: the main channel has been
shifted north by more than 20 kms at some points.

>Still water sinks in.
>Flowing water does not.

It seems that when I last studied hydrology this priciple had not been
discovered yet.

>> You must be joking.  The few metres drop recently in the water level of the
>> former main channel is the direct consequence of the Slovak diversion
>> upstream and has nothing to do with whatever the Austrians may have done.
>
>       I think you should get some of the statistics directly from the
>Hungarian authorities themselves.  Of course there was a drop from the
>diversion.  The question is not the drop, it is the extent of it, and
>the effect on human use of water.

The effects of the German and Austrian works have already been accommodated,
now we are talking about the effects and costs caused by the Slovak works.
They are significant enough themselves, so pointing fingers at everybody else
who may have also misbehaved before is kindergarten stuff.

>
>> >In fact, this condition
>> >could be mostly cured by completing the reservoir at Dunakilti and the
>> >dam at Nagymaros, which would slow down the erosion and back up the
>> >water to create a larger reservoir below Gabcikovo.
>>
>> Yep, that would create eventually a big brakish pool of water in the
>> former main channel instead of the small one now.  While the water
>> table would certainly be raised, it would be much higher than
>> before near the dam, with consequent salinity problems on the surface
>> upstream from the dam.  Further back, along the former main
>> channel, the groundwater level would be restored but its quality would be
>> worse than before the Slovak diversion.
>
>      These are hypothetical arguments which, in fact, the two years
>of operation of the Gabcikovo dam have already refuted. The quality of
>water on the Slovak side has, as tested, been improved.  That is one
>of the positive effects allegedly cited in the reports. Unless water
>changes its nature suddenly on the Hungarian side, the Nagymaros dam
>should not do things much differently from the Gabcikovo dam.

This is sophistry and you know that best.  The hydrology of the two
channels remains very different even if the river were dammed up at
Nagymaros.  The Gabcikovo dam now has practically the whole flow of the
Danube diverted through it, while the dammed-up old main channel would be a
50 km-long lake with hardly any flow.  It stands to reason that as it would
not be replaced in a hurry, the water in it would not take long to become
a stinking brew.  Just look at the Balaton and Lake Velencei in Hungary, and
all the costly efforts to restore the original flow regime as much as
possible, after the earlier achievements in taming nature.

>> In addition, a dirty big dam in one of the most scenic parts of Hungary
>> is not something Hungarians want.  In the good old heady days of
>> grandiose Stalinist nature-transforming developments this was not an
>> issue, but nowadays it is.  It seems that this change of thinking
>> has not yet permeated official Slovak circles.
>
>      I understand that not all people want the same things.  The
>Danube has been polluted since the 1800s when steamship navigation
>began in earnest.  So let us not talk about restoring the Blue Danube,
>but of improving it.

So far there is no improvement that can be identified on the Hungarian
side, but plenty of damage.

>The Gabcikovo site is worth touring. It is
>already being prepared for recreational boating and swimming as the
>second phase of development.

Some people prefer the natural beauty of the Danube Bend to another
artificial lake, especially given how little of the former is left
along the Danube.

>    I like your description of the "grandiose  Stalinist
>nature-transforminfg develoopments."

I am glad, as I find it particulary fitting.  Just as the age of
flight is the 20th century, not the Renaissance when Leonardo
started to draw flying machines, it was Stalinism that made
nature transformation part of the state religion: dam the rivers,
clear the land and everybody will be better off.  I can still
recall the heroic story entitled "The Conquering of the River
Angara", in which natural environments were valued to the same
extent as by the section of Slovak bureaucracy and opinion-
makers idolizing the damming of the Danube.

As you and most well-informed
>Hungarians know, the original Gabcikovo-Nagymaros development was
>planned in 1913.  Ask for a copy from your Hungarian sources. It
>differs in detail but not in principle from the present plan.
>     I was not aware that Stalinists were was running Hungary at
>the time, but presuming they were, they were frustrated by the
> first world war and then, of course, the division of Austria-Hungary
>which led to a domestic plan becoming an international plan.  It was
>tentatively proposed again in the late 1920s, but frustrated (Horthy
>and those Stalinists of his get all the bad luck) by the recession,
>then by the Second War, and the turmoil following it.

The only difference between Horthy and Stalin in their attitude to
the natural environment was that the latter elevated its 'conquering'
to the rank of worship.  The Slovak propaganda justifying the damming,
despite evidence of damage that became available since the initial
plans and the changing priorities in natural-resource use of this
age, is vintage Stalinist.  Anyone familiar with the style can
feel the deja vu.

>   the old plans were dusted off and improved only after the 1965
>floods.  Again, as you surely ar aware, the cost of the damages of
>those floods in both Hungary and Slovakia was much higher than the
>cost of building the whole complex.

No, I am not aware of that, but neither do I consider it relevant, unless
its implication in this context, i.e., that that due to the dam a
1965-like flood would cause negligible damage, is true.  I believe
that the latter would be a heroic statement.  Besides, while the old
state of affairs had floods and associated damage, it also had benefits
even if many of these cannot be counted in MWh.  Normal floods are part
of the natural state of the river and the ecosystem.  Once you remove them
with the dam, you remove a component of the ecosystem.  Catastrophic floods
will still wreak havoc, as building the dam big enough for containing them
would be prohibitively expensive.

George Antony
+ - Re: Religion (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Subject: Religion
From: H. MARC, 
Date: 2 Sep 94 14:35:29 GMT
In article > H. MARC,
 writes:
>Eva Durant:
>   Just because religion might be useless to you (and me) does not mean
that
>it is without use.

i doubt that ms durant believes religion to be of no use. my guess is
that she feels that its usefulness is to pernicious ends.

>In other words perhaps the majority (not the moral
>majority) of the human race needs some sort of religion.

the "majority... needs" religion in the way a person with two broken legs
"needs" crutches.  but if we did not insist on breaking legs and
knee-capping people, the "need" for the crutches would be substantially
reduced.

> Not everyone can reason and think in a logical manner.

i thought that was one of the hallmarks of mankind and especially
"civilisation". i cannot imagine any human being who is not medically
deficient going through life without some recourse to thinking logically.
but perhaps i lack sufficient imagination.

>In fact most people can't.

i would like some evidence.

>Most people are ignorant, just look at the people they put in office.
Just look at the
>music they put on top 40.  Just look at the books that fill the
bookstores.
>The fastfood joints that take over Paris and Budapest.  People are in
general,
>stupid.  "There is a sucker born every minute."-PT Barnum

de gustibus .... people liking music, books, politicians distasteful to
you
do not constitute a sound reason. you need to explain why "top 40 music"
is
a sign of a want of ability to reason and to think logically.

>    These people need religion.

or maybe "they" are the way "they" are partly because of the mediate
consequences of religion?

>They can't think.  They can only regurgitate

are you sure "they" can't think? or maybe "they" no longer bother,
choosing
instead to make "their" lives more tolerable in a society where
conformity to "higher authority" is the ultimate virttue?


>(yes, I know I spelled that wrong...just because I am illiterate, does
not
>mean I am stupid, does it?) what they hear on the radio, on the TV, and
in
>their church halls... And perhaps on Internet as well.... Society needs
>believers in order to function.

that is one of the uses of religion i am sure ms durant would acknowledge.

> Without the masses buying into the christian
>work ethic, nothing would get done (for nothing)

so it is *very* useful.

d.a.
+ - Re: religion/Hungary/schools (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Subject: Re: religion/Hungary/schools
From: The Old Theologian, 
Date: 3 Sep 94 19:10:42 GMT
In article > The Old Theologian,
 writes:
>>
>>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.

that makes god a whimp! here he is, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good
and he lets a bunch of imbecilic thugs sully his name. the least he could
do is to get a court order to prevent them from using his name for these
atrocities. the least he could do is to make the machine guns
of murderers jam, the chemicals of the gas-chambers degrade!

> Godless Huns  also
>murdered/tortured/persecuted, but I'm not sure that any atheist-as-
>philosopher can be held responsible for that.

the huns were not atheists, even if they were not judeo-christian-muslim
monotheists.



d.a.
+ - Re: Freud snippets on religion (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article > The Old Theologian,
 writes:
>
>--I would make the above comment about psychoanalytic theory.


since you discount freud's statements about religion nbecause he was not
a theologist, i presume you are a suitably certified
psychoanalyst/psychologist

> Freud's view of human behavior is not based on science as we know it.

quite the opposite. freud was actually a neurophysiologist who had
several reaearch papers published. since he was jewish he was barred from
pursuing an academic career and turned to medicine as a way of supporting
his family. freud and his views epitomise the scientifica culture of his
day and today again. he was a physical reductionist. he believed that
ultimately
all of pstchology would be reduced to biochemistry, physiology, etc. ---
and so ultimately to chemistry and physics --- when our knowledge was
sufficiently advanced

>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.


i presume, on the basis of your earlier dismissal of freud's views on
religion that you are also a certified natural scientist. so let me ask
you:  why is the ego, the id or the superego less scientifically
acceptible than electric fields, or electrons.


>--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."

when was this letter written?

d.a.
+ - Re: The Slovak dam (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

George Frajkor wrote:
>     New Scientist magazine, of England.
>   (sorry, since it was two months ago or so
>I have forgotten the date but can probably find it. )

16 July 1994 issue, page 8.

The article takes the same supranational line that the World Wild-
life Fund seems to have acquired.  It details the benefits of
taking water to the dried-up old channels on Slovak territory,
which are pretty obvious.  What it does not address is the
corresponding environmental damage along the old main channel,
caused by diverting most of the flow.

The conclusion seems to be that benefits in one part of Slovakia
justify damage in another part of Slovakia and in Hungary.

>   it also quotes some Hungarian experts and
>one of the titles was something to the effect that Hungary is
>begginning to backtrack or reconsider its position on the dam.

Far from it.  What the article says is that Hungary is using an expensive
method for taking water into the old main channel (i.e., pumping) and that
there is consensus that the dam whose foundations blight the Danube Bend, one
of Hungary's most scenic spots, is unlikely to be built.

Hence, Hungary can only come out a loser.  Either the Nagymaros dam is
built, ensuring the quantity of water in the old main channel (the quality
cannot be restored without restoring the flow) at the cost of the permanent
visual pollution of the Danube Bend, or the ecosystem of the
old main channel will be significantly damaged.  And these are only the
environmental factors.

Of course, the story is hardly unusual: the guys upstream have others
downstream over a barrel in every river system around the world and, unless
there is an unusually good spirit of cooperation between the parties,
conflict is common.

George Antony
+ - Re: Need Hungarian Composers (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

One of the most happening Hungarian composers is Gyula Csapo. He formerly
taught at Princeton, now in the hinterlands of Saskatchewan. He was a graduate
of the Ferenc Liszt Academy and the State University of New York at Buffalo,
where he studied under the late Morton Feldman. He is also somewhat of a
protege of the late John Cage. His work is powerful and quite disturbing. I can
recommend him without reservation.

He can be reached at the following address:
Professor Gyula Csapo
Department of Music
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon S7N 0W0
Saskatchewan, CANADA

If you need his home phone, I'll e-mail it to you directly. Let me know.

Regards,

Marc Nasdor

+ - MetaForum '94, Budapest, Oct. 7-9 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

The Budapest Autumn Festival, the Intermedia Department of the
Hungarian Fine Arts Academy, and the Media Research Foundation are
pleased to announce MetaForum '94, an event to be held on October 7-9
at the Academy of Fine Arts as part of Budapest's annual Autumn
Festival of the Arts.  The MetaForum '94 multimedia conference will
cover a broad range of topics, including CD-I, CD-ROM, hypertext,
communication networks, and interactive games.  The conference is
designed to stimulate interest in multimedia activities within Hungary
and Eastern Europe.  Ideally, this conference will provide a forum
where the future of art and technology is examined, questioned and
developed.

The list of invited guests includes Heath Bunting of the cybercafe in
London; Masuyama, a Japanese interactive games expert; Andras Nyiro,
programmer of the first Hungarian CD-ROM; Salvatore Vanasco of Ponton
European Media Lab, as well as artists, writers and media experts.  The
conference will feature a CD library and Cybergallery, an international
collaborative computer-generated art workshop.  The target audience
consists of those currently working within the media, cultural
institutions, students, artists and computer enthusiasts.

The conference is funded through the Autumn Festival, the Intermedia
Department, the Media Research Foundation and the generous support of
the British Council and the Goethe Institute.

For information, questions, or comments please contact the conference
organizers:

Geert Lovink, Diana McCarty, Janos Sugar
MetaForum '94
Intermedia Department of the Academy of Fine Arts
Andrassy ut 69-71  H-1062
Budapest, Hungary
Fax:    36.1.156.1565
E-mail: 
+ - Re: Slovak dam (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Sat, 10 Sep 1994, W. BATKAY wrote:

> Re: Paul Gelencser's query about the spelling and status of the "Slovak
> dam" on the Danube--
> The Slovak name for the place is, I believe, Gabcikovo, and my understanding 
i
s
>...
May I advice all for you initiation of Prof. Be'la Lipta'k Yale Universty
into this discussion.? SB

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS