>In the Pannoian regions the Franks had two major incursions. One was aimed
>at the Avars, the other at a Slavic chieftain (based on sources most likely
>Croatian named Ljudovit. There is no discussion of Moravians in relation to
>these wars.

Yes, but Sventopolk's ancestry is discussed by medieval Croatian and
Dalmatian documents, thoroughly analyzed by Boba but ignored by others
exactly because of these sources associate Sventopolk with the south.

Thus, Liudevit's South-Slavic realm was controlled in in 838 by another
Slavic prince Ratimar (see Conversio Bagoarium). "Regnum Sclavorum" recorded
that Ratimar was succeded by four kings, without mentioning whether they
were succesive rulers or Ratimar's sons ruling their own patrimonial
principalities. Presbyter Diocleas, the author of "Regnum Sclavorum,"
mentioned that "from this tribe" was born Sventimir, whose son was Sventopelek.

"Chronica Ragusina Junii Restii," describing only events related to Ragusa
and its neighbors, mentions a peace between the city and "Svetimir, re di
Bossina, padre di Sventopelek." The Bosnian origin of Sventopolk is further
supported by two other independent sources, Annales Ragusini anonymii and
Annales Ragusini di Nicolai Ragnina. Both mention that in 977, after a
5-year rule of an uzurper, the Bosnian realm was taken over by the Moravian
line of Croats (Et si faceva altro re della linea de Moravia de Harvati).
The "Moravian line," entitled to assume the throne in Bosnia, once ruled by
Sventopolk's father Svetimir re di Bosnia, must have been the branch of
Slavonian-Croat ruling family associated with the city and region of Morava.

Going back to "Regnum Sclavorum," the Presbyter mentioned that a
philosopher, Constantine, visited the Khazars, during Svetimir's lifetime,
and later converted the Bulgars. Invited to Rome, the same Constantine
visited Sventopelek's realm.

There is no doubt, I hope, these are not events involving characters
different than the personalities related to megale Moravia's history. There
is also nothing in the Franks Annals contradictig this information.

>As a matter of fact they are mentoned only once for 822: "At
>this assembly he [Louis the Pious] received embassies and presents frommall
>the East, that is, Obrodites, Sorbs, Wiltzi, Bohemians, Moravians, and
>Praedencenti, and from the Avars living in Pannonia."

On this short paragraph, Boba wrote a paper in 1984, "Abodriti qui vulgo
praedenecenti vocantur" or "Maravi preaedenecenti" [Paleobulgarica, 8/2,
29-37], a beautiful illustration of his working principle "When everything
else fails, go back to the sources!" For the following I'll also make used
of Bowlus treatment of the issue.

The Praedenecenti, who appear only twice in the Royal Annals and are not
mentionesd in any other source, were involved in conflicts with the Bulgars.
The 824 entrance recorded were the Praedenecenti lived, "in Dacia adjacent
Danube near the Bulgarian border." Your translation reads

>"The emperor also received the envoys of the Obrodites who are commonly
>called the Praedenecenti and live in Dacia on the Danube as neighbors of
the >Bulgars, of whoes arrival he had been informed.

Since Abodrites are mentioned 32 times in Annales regni Francorum, and
always associated with territories east of Elbe and along the Baltic
litoral, but this time located in Dacia, on the Danube, something is
obviously wrong. And Boba, going back to the original source, discovered
that the editors of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica were cavalier in
capitalization and punctuation, interpolating medieval text according to
modern standards.

Boba discoverd that two early editors made notes that in the original text,
ethnicons were nither capitalized nor abreviated. The original 822 entrance
actually read:

"822 in quo conventum ommnium orientalium sclavorum id est abodritorum
soraborum wilzorum beheimorum maravanorum pred. (or pdenec.) et in pannonia
residentum abarum legationes cum muneribus as se directas audivit."

Therefore, Boba concluded that pred.(pdenec.)cannot be an ethnic
designation, but an adjective modifying Maravni, an ethnic slur created by
the Frankish annalist from the noun praeda [booty or loot] and the verb
necare, meaning to kill, to put to death, or to destroy. Thus "maravani
praedenceneti" might be translated as "those booty-taking, murdering Moravs."

Omitting the punctuation of modern editors, the 824 entry reads:

"Caeterum legatos abodritorum qui vulgo praedenecenti vocantur et contermini
bulgaris daciam danubio adiacentem incolunt qui et ipsi adventare
nuntiabantur ilico venire permisit."

In this case, went Boba's argument, "qui" does not function as a relative
pronoun, but it is equivalent to "et hic" and begins a main clause. The text
should read "legati Abodritorum et hic vulgo praedenecenti vocantur."
"Praedenecenti" were not Abodrites, but the "Maravani" of 822, "commonly
called booty-taking murderers and settled in Dacia on the Danube."

Therefore, it seems that the Frankish annales, DAI, Croatian and Dalmatian
sources, all converge in supporting the hypothesis of a southern Moravia.

If you still have questions on this issue, I have a copy of Boba's paper.

>822
[This is the year when first mention is made
>of the Moravians as quoted above, but still indicating Avars in Pannonia.]

The Avars were living in Pannonia, but in a small reservation, between
Szombathely and Petronel on or near Kis Alfold, granted to the newly
converted to Christianity khan, Theodorus, by Charlemagne.

>818
>"The envoys of other peoples were also there, that is, of the Obrodites, of
>Borna, duke of the Guduscani, and the Timociani, who have revolted against
>the Bulgars and come over to our side; [ indication of direct borders
>between the Bulgars and the Franks]also of Ljudovit, duke of Lower
Pannonia, >a schemer and agitator, who tried to acccuse Count Cadolah,
commander of the
>March of Friuli, of brutality and arrogance."

Let's stress someting here: Borna's realm extended from the Kupa River to
the Dalmatian coast. Liudevit had his center in Sisak, on the Sava, in
Pannonia inferioris, east-northeast of Borna, and was under the tutelaje of
Cadolah. Therefore, the boundary was, striclty speaking, between Liudevit
and Bulgars, or Slavs (Serbs, Timociani, Moravs) threatened by the Bulgars,
not between Franks and Bulgars. Later on, when Svetimir and Sventopolk, from
the Moravian line of Croats, will inherit Liudevit principality, the
boundary will be between Moravs and Bulgars.

>823 ...
>
>The above is interesting in decsribing of who was where in the early part
>of the IX century in Pannonia. Ljudovit blocks the Timociani who are
>defecting from the Bulgars to the Franks. Thus while the Timociani are
>likely to the east of Ljudovit, they are neighbore of the Bulgarians.
>Ljudovit escapes to the Srebs, thus there is no mention of any Moravians
>nearby to th south or east of him.

There is plenty of room inside Liudevit's principality and toward
east-southeast of Sisak, in the Drava-Sava watershed.

>From this point on, all your comments, I think, are already explained.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

>Antapodosis I/5
>" "At this date the most mighty king Arnulf, who had succeeded Charles
>surnamed the Bald, was overlord of the Bavarians, the Swabians, the
>Teutonic Franks, the Lotharingians and the bold Saxons; but was vigorously
>opposed by Centebold Duke of the Maraveni."
>

>This qoute, by the listing of the fors and the contras, indicates that the
>good Centobald [Svatopluk] was neighboring the folks who were in his realm.
>

Of course, but let's keep in mind that Sventopolk's realm expanded, starting
from his center of power in the south, and included the lands east of the
Danube (c.870), north of the Danube (c.880), Pannonia, north and east of the
Lake Balaton (882-884), and Bohemia, a 890 grant from king Arnulf.

>"Meanwhile, Arnulf, the strongest ruler among the northern peoples, found
>himself unable to overcome the vigorous resistance offered to him by the
>aforsaid Centebald dke of the Maravani. Accordingly he broke down         -
>O grievous tale! - the strong barriers which, as we had said before, are
>usually called the closures and called in the Hungarians to help him.."
>"What happened? Centebald was beaten, subdued and forced to pay tribute;"
>" After defeating Centebald, duke of the Maravani, Arnulf settled himself
>peacefully in his kingdom. The Hungarians for their part surveyed the
>country, and while they waited to his [Arnulf] end, were already, as
>afterwards made plain, devising mischief in their hearts."
>
>Now the closures indicated were set up to keep the riff-raff out of the
>Frankish controlled areas, if these needed to be broken down to let the
>Hungarian rapid reaction force to come to Arnulf's assistance, the
>indication is again that Centebold was not wardheeler in the southern
>precincts. There is also no indication that the Franks had control south of
>the Danube.

This issue is at the core of Martin Eggers (1995)work. It is summarized in
Bowlus. Following the Avar defeat, Carolingian rulers, for protecting the
central Danubian basin agains intruders, rejuvenated extensive earthen
ramparts that the Romans had constructed. Thes ramparts, 550Km in lenght,
formed an arc east of the Danube and the Tisza that enclosed 65,000 sq.km.
Begining to the northeast of Budapest, the walls run eastward, crossing
Tisza near Nyirgyhaza, then bending sharply southward in the direction of
Debrecen, passing the towns of Arad and Timisoara, they finally reached the
Danube just opposite the confluence of the southern Morava with the Danube.
They served as blockades that impeded the ingress of large armies houling
supplies and egress of raiding parties encumbered with booty. Lacking
manpower to garrison strategic locations behind the ramparts, Caroligian
leaders settled confederated in the Alfold. The settlers were Moravians.

Eggers used archaeological evidence to support his southern Morava
hypothesis. He shown that the material culture of wall-forts of teh northern
Moravia was a continuation of late Avar culture, made to protect against
Slavic infiltratiion in that region. In addition Moravia north of the Danube
consists of open country that would have been relatively easy for the Franks
to dominate, and the wall-forts there hardly strong enough to have resisted
determined sieges that Franks were able to conduct. On the other side,
military operations against a Moravia situated on the Grat Alfold, would
have involved larger distances and difficulties in maintaining
communications and logistic systems over such distances.

>
>II/2
>"In the first year after Arnulf's death [899] and his son's succession, the
>Hungarians collected a large army and laid claim to the territory of the
>Maravani, a people in whom Arnulf had thought to find support against their
>attacks. They also seized the land of the Bavarians, destroyed their
>castles, burned their churches, massacred their people, and to make
>themsleves more and more feared, drank the blood of those whom they had
>slain." [the blood sausages came only later].
>
>Considering that the bavarians were in nominal control of even Pannonia at
>the time, it is reasonable to take the war as a westward movement. There is
>no reason to speculate that a small principality in the south of the lower
>Danube would have been in the way of the described Hungarian movement.

Since the Hungarians returned to the Carpathian basin from Italy, were they
have plundering for several years, it is not reasonable to assume it was a
westward movement; neither is to say that Moravia was a small principality,
although, most certainly, it was smaller than in 890.

Annales Fuldenses (900)"By the same route, by which they (Hungarians)had
come (to Italy), they returned, devasting a large part of Pannonia.

Bowlus dedicates a whole chapter in his boook to the Hungarian contest, in
which he proves that all the existing sources support a southern Moravia
location.

>So here is a contemporary of Porphyrogenitus, whose work does not assist
>the southern megale Moravia theory.

Nowhere said Liudprand of Cremona that megal Moravia was in north. Moreover,
none of  his statements contraticts a southern Moravia location.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

Steven M. Kremer/s Home page has the real reasons America On-Line (AOL)
was closed for 19 hours:

1-The new version 3.0 software code was written by the IBM Olympics
software team.

2- Changing the name to AWOL.

3- Steve Case was reading his latest net-worth statement and began
clapping. He forgot that the AOL server was turned on and off by //The
Clapper//.

4- Bill Gates, in his usual //I do not get angry, I get even// way,
decided that time for the Justice Department anti-trust investigation
payback.

5- America Online. Closed, Attendant Cleaning Chat Rooms.

BTW: Electrical Blackout in Western U.S. blamed on AOL disk.

At 05:55 PM 8/18/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:

>I cant believe it.... I actually agree with what Joe Szalai said?!?!
>Peter Soltesz

You're going to have to do a lot more recanting before you can snuggle up to
me, big guy.  And, by the way, I hope you read, and understood, Eva Balogh's
post (Re: Toronto).  Hopefully, one day, your hormones will settle down and
you'll learn how to appreciate and understand people rather than how to
control them.

Joe Szalai

"I would there were no age between ten and three-and-twenty, or that youth
would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in the between but getting
wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting."
                  William Shakespeare

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

<lots of his usual blather deleted>

>Germany had a flourishing
>democracy in the end of twenties and in the beginning of
>thirties -- maybe with lots of controversies.

Just as I thought -- you are absolutely incapable of answering any of the
questions you raise. Nice try mentioning Adorno, Horkheimer and company,
but I've read enough of their stuff to know that they never explicitly
tied Heidegger and Lukacs together in the sense you keep mentioning. I
hope you are a much better mathematician than you are either a historian
or philosopher.
Sam Stowe

"Amiguito, amiguito
soy yo de diablos juradores..."
-- Cervantes

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>Or you are not literate in the language of the modern philo-
>sophy? Is Heidegger too incomprehensible to you? Boy, try
>harder. Or shut up.
>                                                    Sz. Zoli

No, it's that I try to read something and make damned sure I understand
what the author is getting at before I claim to truly have grasped the
material. It's the exact opposite process from your method of operation,
you ignorant twit. You've proved to me that your knowledge of Heidegger
stops just east of his name. I wouldn't be surprised if your knowledge of
Lukacs is similarly bereft of any depth.
Sam Stowe

"Amiguito, amiguito
soy yo de diablos juradores..."
-- Cervantes

In article >, "Zoli
Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq" > writes:

> I must say I find absolutely fabberglasting that anyone with Hungarian
>interest would consider the language chauvinist appeal not only the right
>thing, but a harmless one too...

It's "flabbergasting." And if you had paid any attention whatsoever to my
posts, you would have recognized instantly that I'm arguing against
language laws of any kind. But you either don't read that carefully or you
don't want to really read it at all and prefer to just put words in my
mouth. Judging from the juvenile behavior you indulge in whenever you get
behind the count in any public debate, I'd have to say the latter is
probably closer to the mark. If you can't debate me on what I have said,
Zoli, then don't bother responding.

>
>>[...] Or we get creeps like Gheorghe
>> Funar who can't leave decent people alone to speak whatever language
they
>> wish among themselves.
> Whereas making a state/federal law sanctioning said desire is certain to
>take the wind out of their sail, right? Sure.

I haven't said this. My argument is that using the law to dictate winners
and losers in language is fruitless and creates unnecessary division. Why
is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

>
>> Full participation in
>> civic life in the U.S. requires that you speak English.
> Note that the point of the law making the language official is not that
>one should speak English (most would in any event without the law, and
the
>rest is unlikely to be influenced by legislature), but that ONLY English
>can be spoken officially.
> And as a matter of fact even the Republican presidential nomination
(what
>could be more of a civic event ;-() was conducted in Spanish by some
>delegates - an act reportedly praised by VP nominee Kemp (before his flop
>on immigrants, I believe). But don't let the facts creep into this
>attractive 'one country - one language - one nation' picture - after all
>it's such a powerful slogan, even after losing some in the translation
>from the original German ;-(...

You must be one of those people I mentioned in the previous post whose
total experience of the United States comes from living in a major
metropolitan area like Boston, New York or Los Angeles. And you're proving
my point. The vast majority of people in the United States speak English
and that's all they speak. The major government institutions from the
federal level to the local level overwhelmingly use English. Almost all
electronic and print media outside the major cities use English. English
is the language of almost all corporations and businesses in the United
States which are not engaged in some type of import/export activities.
These are facts, Zoli. You can insult me all you want, but it's not going
to change them. And thinking that English won't be the majority language
in this nation for many decades and centuries to come is downright
delusional. Are you certain that you and Zoltan Szekely aren't one in the
same person? You have done your damndest recently to act just like him.
Sam Stowe



"Amiguito, amiguito
soy yo de diablos juradores..."
-- Cervantes

In article >, Joe Szalai
> writes:

>>I think California became a hot bed for the
>>official English movement because state politics moved much too
forcefully
>>in the direction of protecting minority languages.
>
>You may think that but can you prove it?

Give me the money to conduct focus groups and polling and I'll get you a
definitive answer. As it is, I've posed a theory that's a lot more
compelling than anything you usually spout off the top of your head.

>
>>It is a particularly
>>cruel form of child abuse to educate a kid from Kindergarten through the
>>senior year of high school in a language which is not the standard koine
>>of commerce, government and public discourse of the society in which he
or
>>she is expected to become a full-fledged member.
>
>Does that really happen, Sam?  You mean that in California I can run into
a
>recent high school graduate who doesn't know how to read or write
English?
>Gee-whiz, I meet high school graduates here who can't read or write
English.
>And they were educated in English.

Yes, it really does, Joe. And I meet people on here working on doctorate
degrees who can't think for themselves. But that's their choice, as it is
for those who slack off in high school and don't bother to learn how to
read and write English. I think that's a little different than setting up
K-12 programs in Spanish or other languages, placing children in them and
expecting them to somehow survive and live productive adult lives in a
predominately English-speaking culture around them. One stems from
personal failure, the other from ideological excess.

>>Full participation in
>>civic life in the U.S. requires that you speak English. That's not a
law,
>>it's just a plain fact. And administering the oath of citizenship in any
>>language other than English simply obscures it. You can live here
happily
>>for decades without speaking a word of English. But that doesn't mean
>>you're fully participating in the culture. Without English, you'll
always
>>be standing on the outside looking in, with an outsider's very limited
>>grasp of what's going on around you.
>
>Immigrants are always left standing on the outside looking in.  My
English
>language skills are now passable but I know that I'll never belong to one
of
>those old clubs that are in every city in Canada.  To belong, you have to
be
>a member of the old, monied, Protestant, elite.  And if you're from that
>group they already know you and you're probably already a member. The
>nouveaux riches and people with strange sounding foreign names will never
be
>members.  Not that I would want to belong...

Good material for a Frank Capra movie, but very short on realism. Full
participation as a citizen in Canadian and American society doesn't
require that one join one of those old clubs. We now know what you're
aspiring to, however, so thanks for the unintended personal revelation. I
bet you look good in a smoking jacket.
Sam Stowe
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>



"Amiguito, amiguito
soy yo de diablos juradores..."
-- Cervantes

At 05:28 PM 8/18/96 -0700, Eva Balogh, in Re: Toronto, wrote:

<snip>
>And while we are
>making this kind of generalization, one could safely say that the French, on
>the whole, don't speak foreign languages and if they do, not well. (Although
>even that is changing.)

<snip>
>        (4) And there is individual talent and temperament. Shy people,
>people who hate making mistakes, people who are not musical, people who
>don't like to mimic are at a disadvantage. They will be most likely have
>difficulties learning a new language. Or, those with a cultural superiority
>complex--see, for example, the French.

The French have a cultural superiority complex?  Really?  If someone asked
me, who in the world has a cultural superiority complex,  I would, without
hesitation, say the Hungarians.  If you don't believe me, just listen to
Hungarians talk about food, music, medicine, math, and sports.

Joe Szalai

"We now have a whole culture based on the assumption that people know
nothing and so anything can be said to them."
           Stephen Vizinczey

Sam:
> >Germany had a flourishing
> >democracy in the end of twenties and in the beginning of
> >thirties -- maybe with lots of controversies.
>
> Just as I thought -- you are absolutely incapable of answering any of the
> questions you raise. Nice try mentioning Adorno, Horkheimer and company,
> but I've read enough of their stuff to know that they never explicitly
> tied Heidegger and Lukacs together in the sense you keep mentioning.
Nice try. The quote you chose has nothing to do with
the Frankfurter Schoolers, you mention here. Or in
your mind these two topics are the same?

Anyway, you may try Halberstam.           (Sz. Zoli)

Sam, let me put it this way: If Heidegger for you is
a Bavarian peasant, then you are below the level of
a karakoszorcsogi paraszt. Clear now?       (Sz.Z.)

ESB:
> >> You may have noticed
> >> that I put the words, "strand of extreme nationalism" into quotation marks
> >> and for good reason. The quotation is from Marjorie Grene, professor of
> >> philosophy at the University of California, Davis, author of Introduction
 to
> >> Existentialism (1959), Heidegger (1957), and several other books.

I just heard another nice piece of cake from the same line
of thinking:

"Jesus Christ was a royalist. That's why he spoke so much
about the Kingdom."

;-(   ;-(   ;-(
                                                  Sz. Zoli

To help you see better in the Heidegger question, a message from 1989:

                                                               (Sz.Z.)

SYMPOSIUM ON HEIDEGGER AND NAZISM

Edited and Introduced by Arnold I. Davidson

   * Arnold I. Davidson: "Questions Concerning Heidegger: Opening the
     Debate"
   * Hans- Georg Gadamer: "'Back From Syracuse?'"
   * Jurgen Habermas: "Work and Weltanschaung: The Heidegger Controversy
     from a German Perspective"
   * Jacques Derrida: "Of Spirit"
   * Maurice Blanchot: "Thinking the Apocalypse: A Letter From Maurice
     Blanchot to Catherine David"
   * Phillipe Lacoue- Labarthe: "Neither an Accident nor a Mistake"

Sam, you tried to make fun of Heidegger's views on the technology
without mentioning any part of his views whatsoever. I feel bad
about you for this, so I try to put this whole issue in a more
edible context.

Samuel Ebersole has a short writing about the question of technology
and possible social/moral consequences, regarding especially the
question of neutrality in the technological process. I put here
some parts of his paper, discussing 3 thinkers, Freenberg, Pacey
and Heidegger on this, in order to see the importance of Heidegger's
views in context about technology (emphasis by me, Sz. Zoli):

The Neutrality of Technology
(by Samuel Ebersole)

The instrumental theory

Andrew Feenberg, in Critical Theory of
Technology (1991), argued that theories of technology fall into one of two
major categories: the instrumental theory, and the substantive theory. The
instrumental theory, "offers the most widely accepted view of technology. It
is based on the common sense idea that technologies are 'tools' standing
ready to serve the purposes of their users. Technology is deemed 'neutral,'
without valuative content of its own" (p. 5).

Arnold Pacey (1992) described the person who holds to an instrumental theory
of technology. For such a person, when technology fails them or when it has
negative consequences, it is not the technology but the improper use of it
by "politicians, the military, big business, and others" (p. 2).

The substantive theory

In contrast to the instrumental theory is the substantive theory of
technology. Best known through Ellul and Heidegger, the substantive theory
"argues that technology constitutes a new type of cultural system that
restructures the entire social world as an object of control" (Pacey, p. 7).

Heidegger (1977) claimed that we are engaged in the transformation of the
world and ourselves into "standing reserves," raw materials waiting to be
used up in the process (p. 17). According to Feenberg (1991), "Heidegger
                                                               ---------
asserts that the technical restructuring of modern societies is rooted in a
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
nihilistic will to power, a degradation of man and Being to the level of
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
mere objects" (p. 7).
 -----------

Feenberg continued, "The issue is not that machines
have 'taken over,' but that in choosing to use them we make many unwitting
cultural choices. Technology is not simply a means but has become an
environment and a way of life: this is its 'substantive' impact" (p. 8).

While acknowledging the apparent neutrality of a basic machine, Pacey (1992)
said that we must look further, at the "web of human activities surrounding
the machine, which include its practical uses, its role as a status
symbol....Looked at in this second way, technology is seen as apart of life,
not something that can be kept in a separate compartment" (p. 3). According
to Pacey, "a technocratic value system...gives rise to what is often called
a 'technocratic' outlook that is single-mindedly insistent on an unambiguous
view of progress, of problem-solving, and of values" (p. 127). Those
intolerant of ambiguity see only once course for technology, one that leads
to greater progress and efficiency (p. 127).

The following poem (I put here in some PARTS) is very typical
about the handling of Heidegger and his philosophy, directly
connecting child murder by the Nazis in 1943 in Terezin,
Czechslovakia to him and his philosophy, and calling him
'small' because of that.

(Now, you show me similar poem about Lukacs and the GULAG??)

                                                    Sz. Zoli

A poem by Maria Bonn

Small Philosophy

In 1933, Martin Heidegger was silent
or imprecise about delicate questions
--especially the Jewish question.

Yet I must say, I am bored
by the question of Heidegger's Fascism
I say, as we walk the streets of Prague,
city of charms and memories,
kept whole by chance and design
. We are footsore and footloose,
three Americans far from any place
we've thought to call home.
I recognize, I go on,
the importance of asking,
but wonder if its always necessary
before we can give the work its due.
And really, he was mostly a man
who wanted to be left alone,
who was taken up with questions of being,
and ran a university under the Third Reich.

Art from the children of Terezin
the plaques on the wall tell us --
there were 15,000 of them and 100 came back.

Perhaps it is best here to lose my tongue
and listen for theirs still speaking.
There were 15,000 of them,
and 100 came back.

When I used to live at home,
it never seemed so dear and fair,
as it did to all these children
sick with desire and hunger,
who knew what it took Heidegger
so many years to know,
what I still don't know,
not in my living bones:
Everything essential, everything great
originated from the fact
that man had a home.

At lunch, paging travel guides
puzzling over unfamiliar histories,
we first spoke of Heidegger,
of his years in the war.
of the entire faculty divided into three groups.
First those who could be dispensed with completely;
second, those who could only partially be dispensed with;
third; those who were indispensable.
The category of completely dispensable people
included Martin Heidegger.
In the summer of 1944
he was ordered to work
on fortifications on the Rhine.
In the winter semester of 1944-45,
after finishing his work
on the fortification of the Rhine,
he gave a lecture course
with the title "Poetizing and Thinking."

By the summer of 1944
the children of Terezin
had almost done poetizing and thinking,
by the winter semester of 1944-45
they were completely dispensable people,
charred bones that crumbled
at a whisper or a kiss,
the dust of a wish to live
and go back home again.
They had lost
even their names, grown anonymous,
no biographical data are available.
There were 15,000 of them.
100 came back.

We founder
though a time made dark
by the ashes of the children of Terezin
blown against the sun,
small philosophers who poetized
in the absence of the god
who would not come to save them.

My life has twice eclipsed theirs,
but they are the ones who know
if Martin Heidegger is in the category
of completely dispensable people.
I ask this of the traces
they have left upon these walls.
They hold their tongues
in a proper silence,
or perhaps I do not know their language.

I must not lose faith
I must not lose hope
There were 15,000 of them
and 100 came back.

In the face of the god
who is absent,
we founder.

ESB:
>
>         Well, I had to ask the question because you just don't let go of
> Lukacs. You keep hammering at it and hammering at it. No answer seems
> satisfactory to you.

Now, I see the source of misunderstanding. When I asked if
"dismissing someone's views on the basis that his/her mind
is not appealing" is OK, you thought I wanted more. No, that
was not the case. I was really surprised that this kind of
dismissal, according to you, is a legitimate argument in the
discussion. I was not surprised because I wanted to hammer
Lukacs, not at all. I can not do anything about Lukacs. I was
surprised because this "not appealing mind" thing, in my
opinion, is much too controversial.
                                                   Sz. Zoli

At 02:43 PM 8/19/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>The French have a cultural superiority complex?  Really?  If someone asked
>me, who in the world has a cultural superiority complex,  I would, without
>hesitation, say the Hungarians.  If you don't believe me, just listen to
>Hungarians talk about food, music, medicine, math, and sports.

        Often superiority complex actually comes from feeling of
inferiority. But, before we get to this bit of psychoanalysis, let's talk
about the French and their superiority complex.

        No question, for centuries French culture was paramount in Europe:
the English tried to imitate them and the Germans tried to imitate them. And
everybody else tried to imitate them. The language of diplomacy was French.
All those "Anglos" in England had to learn French if they wanted to serve in
the diplomatic service. And surprisingly, they did manage to learn the
language. And then came World War I and after and the French became less and
less important in world affairs. By the time World War II rolled around,
France collapsed under the German attack like a deck of cards. And with it
the French language. And although England lost is empire, those robust
American boys appeared on the scene and with them the primacy of the English
langugage. And the French never managed to reconcile themselves to the loss
of their cultural supremacy.

        In my original piece on learning foreign languages, I mentioned that
even in France the situation is changing as far as learning foreign
languages is concerned. Twenty-thirty years ago it was almost impossible to
find a Frenchman/woman who could actually mutter out a sentence in German or
in English. (Just like us, Hungarians when it came to Russian!) I remember
how terribly surprised I was to meet a woman from France (she was teaching
French in the French Department at Yale as a visiting scholar), who spoke
English as well as a native. But nowadays you can hear French people on the
radio or tv actually speaking English which sounds like English--as opposed
to French! But one ought not to be terribly surprised: there is the European
Union and mobility which surpasses anything we have ever dreamed of before.
The French are also forced to speak other languages because fewer and fewer
people know French.

        As for the Hungarians' superiority complex! Well, it sounds like
superiority complex but is it possible that all that bragging originates
with a huge dose of inferiority complex?

        Eva Balogh

At 06:01 PM 8/19/96 -0400, Zoli Fekete wrote:
>To help you see better in the Heidegger question, a message from 1989:
>
>                                                               (Sz.Z.)
>
>SYMPOSIUM ON HEIDEGGER AND NAZISM
>
>Edited and Introduced by Arnold I. Davidson
>
>   * Arnold I. Davidson: "Questions Concerning Heidegger: Opening the
>     Debate"
>   * Hans- Georg Gadamer: "'Back From Syracuse?'"
>   * Jurgen Habermas: "Work and Weltanschaung: The Heidegger Controversy
>     from a German Perspective"
>   * Jacques Derrida: "Of Spirit"
>   * Maurice Blanchot: "Thinking the Apocalypse: A Letter From Maurice
>     Blanchot to Catherine David"
>   * Phillipe Lacoue- Labarthe: "Neither an Accident nor a Mistake"
>

        Were the papers of that symposum ever published?

        Eva Balogh

At 06:54 PM 8/18/96 -0700, Gabor D. Farkas wrote:

>At 11:28 AM 8/18/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
>>You're right, Gabor.  However, those jokes can still be called racist,
>>sexist, or what have you.
>
>I agree. But the libertarian in me feels, that I would rather hear people
>telling racist, etc. jokes than having some kind of joke-police regulate
>their content.

Don't be ridiculous.  We're all joke-police.  All we have to do is to find
an unsympathetic person telling an off-colour joke and I'm sure both you and
I would tell that person where to get off.  Well, I would.  Wouldn't you?

>>  Besides, I'd like to know why some people feel a
>>need to tell jokes at the expense of some identifiable group.  I guess they
>>get some satisfaction from knowing that, despite their own problems, at
>>least they're not members of the targeted group.
>
>Generally, these jokes exaggerate existing stereotypes. And in many cases
>they are funny.

And in many cases they are not.  The problem is that stereotypes are used,
and they are already an exaggeration.  Notice that it's almost always the
same groups that are targeted.  And, also notice how well, or not, members
of those groups fared historically?  Is there a connection?

Telling a racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive joke is a little bit like
rape.  Rape is about power, not sex.  A racist, etc., joke is about
elevating the status of the teller.  It's not about humour.

>>What concerns me about these jokes is that they bolster and strengthen
>>stereotypes about others.  And after one's managed to stereotype a group of
>>people, discrimination becomes a virtue.  I mean, after all, if one hears
>>enough jokes(?) about how gossipy or dumb women are, why pay them the same
>>wage as the 'smarter' man?  And members of other targeted groups often don't
>>even get a chance at a decent job.  Is it any wonder then, that governments
>>sometime have to resort to policies like affirmative action, etc..
>
>The following statement is only based on instinct: I think that jokes in
>good taste that exaggerate stereotypes do not harm anyone.

Well, yes, but what else could it be based on?  And can you really have a
joke that deals with stereotypes that's in good taste?  Can you have rape
that's a little bit sexy?

>>Don't get me wrong, though.  I enjoy a good laugh and a joke as much as the
>>next person.  However they don't have to be at the expense of an
>>identifiable group.  Self-deprecating jokes can be just as humourous.
>>Perhaps even more so.
>
>I think that many "objectionable" jokes start out this way, then they get
>into the hands of the "enemy".

Perhaps, but I think that many objectionable jokes just keep circulating,
and only their targets change, and sometimes, not even that.

Joe Szalai

"Humour is by far the most significant activity of the human brain."
              Edward De Bono

At 04:41 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:

<sznip>
>        No question, for centuries French culture was paramount in Europe:
>the English tried to imitate them and the Germans tried to imitate them. And
>everybody else tried to imitate them. The language of diplomacy was French.
>All those "Anglos" in England had to learn French if they wanted to serve in
>the diplomatic service. And surprisingly, they did manage to learn the
>language. And then came World War I and after and the French became less and
>less important in world affairs. By the time World War II rolled around,
>France collapsed under the German attack like a deck of cards. And with it
>the French language. And although England lost is empire, those robust
>American boys appeared on the scene and with them the primacy of the English
>langugage. And the French never managed to reconcile themselves to the loss
>of their cultural supremacy.

I think French (and German, to some extant) lost its cultural supremacy
because this century turned out to favour those who dominated commerce,
finance and trade.  And I think that those robust American boys were more
instrumental in spending money and semen, then in spreading the language.

<snip>
>        As for the Hungarians' superiority complex! Well, it sounds like
>superiority complex but is it possible that all that bragging originates
>with a huge dose of inferiority complex?

Whatever it is, it would be interesting to know where it originates from.  I
wonder if it's related to Hungarians' pessimism, negativity and high suicide
rate.

Joe Szalai

I found this on HIX SPORT a few days ago.  Thought you all may get a chucle
out of it.

Ferenc
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ATLANTA (KRT) -- And now for NBC's impression of the Olympics on TV:

TRUMPETS: BOM! BOM! BOM-BOM BOM BOM BOM!

BOB COSTAS: Good evening, and as you can tell by the sound of the Olympic
Theme Song that we play almost as much as we show Kerri Strug's historic
vault, it's time for our broadcast of The Recently Videotaped Olympic Games
Featuring Americans. We're going to start by taking you right to the
track-and-field stadium, where the men's 100-meter dash is about to get under
way, despite the fact that it actually happened four hours ago.

TRACK COMMENTATOR: Bob, this promises to be an exciting race, featuring
Americans.

COSTAS: And what are the obstacles that these Americans have overcome to
create a Human Interest Factor for our broadcast?

TRACK COMMENTATOR: Bob, from left to right, they have overcome psoriasis,
vertigo and a bad allergy to vinaigrette dressing.

COSTAS: We'll come back to the men's 100-meter final, but right now we're
going to replay the video of Kerri Strug, an American, overcoming her ankle
to make her courageous vault.

(Kerri Strug vaults.)

COSTAS: What a human moment! Time for a commercial.

ANNOUNCER: We're IBM. We're a giant corporation with vast computer expertise.
That's why we're in charge of keeping track of all the statistics for these,
the Olympic Games of 1953. Thank you.

BOM! BOM! BOMBOM BOM BOM BOM!

COSTAS: Now we're going to take you to women's beach volleyball, where the
sun is shining brightly despite the fact that it is now 10:37 p.m. on the
East Coast.

BEACH VOLLEYBALL COMMENTATOR: Thanks, Bob. This is Holly McPeak, an American,
and as you can see in this digitized, computer-enhanced, ultra-slow-motion
Beach Cam closeup shot, she has overcome cellulite.

COSTAS: I'll say. When is she going to serve?

BEACH VOLLEYBALL COMMENTATOR: She'll be serving in about 4 seconds, Bob.

COSTAS: I'm sorry, but we don't have that kind of time, because we need to
show this Heartwarming Moment.

(Kerri Strug vaults.)

COSTAS: Now let's go out to the cycling competition, where I believe we have
a race involving an American.

CYCLING COMMENTATOR: That is correct, Bob. We have an American shown here
pedaling furiously in 637th place, with a solid chance to move up to 636th.

COSTAS: What obstacle has this American overcome?

CYCLING COMMENTATOR: Bob, he is overcoming one hellacious case of
hemorrhoids.

COSTAS: We'll have more on that exciting cycling race, but right now we're
going to return to the Olympic track stadium for an update on the men's
100-meter dash.

TRACK COMMENTATOR: Bob, the race started about two seconds ago and should be
over in about eight more seconds. None of the Americans has fallen down.

COSTAS: We're going to break away from the men's 100-meter dash at this
point, but we will be covering it throughout the course of the evening.
Right now, however, we want you to see this moment, captured by our NBC
cameras.

(Kerri Strug vaults.)

COSTAS: Now let's head out to the pool to check on the progress of the
American swimmers, all of whom have overcome asthma.

SWIMMING COMMENTATOR: Bob, here we see an American swimmer winning a race.
This happened earlier.

COSTAS: How much earlier?

SWIMMING COMMENTATOR: Twenty-four years, Bob. This is Mark Spitz.

COSTAS: Time for this commercial.

ANNOUNCER: We're the Nike Corporation. We pay famous athletes millions of
dollars to wear our shoes. Because of this, you, the public, pay absurdly
high prices for these shoes. Is that stupid, or what? Thank you.

BOM! BOM! BOMBOM BOM BOM BOM!

(Kerri Strug vaults.)

COSTAS: OK, right now there are exciting live gold-medal competitions going
on in archery, shooting, rowing, kayaking, table tennis, softball,
volleyball, team handball and judo, so right now we're going to take you to
beach volleyball, recorded earlier today.

BEACH VOLLEYBALL COMMENTATOR: Bob, as you can see, American Holly McPeak is
bending over.

COSTAS: I'll say.

BOM! BOM! BOMBOM BOM BOM BOM!

(Kerri Strug vaults.)


--by Dave Barry

(R) All Rights Reserved
(C) Copyright


--SWFG

At 02:43 PM 8/19/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>The French have a cultural superiority complex?  Really?  If someone asked
>me, who in the world has a cultural superiority complex,  I would, without
>hesitation, say the Hungarians.  If you don't believe me, just listen to
>Hungarians talk about food, music, medicine, math, and sports.

Well, there are many nations whose representatives I have not met yet, but
those that I have all fit the above described mold. Just listen to them talk
about food. etc.

Gabor D. Farkas

Partly out of genuine puzzlement, partly to introduce a serious Hungarian
topic to HUNGARY in addition to the FORUM-style sanctimonious gaybashing/
Jewbashing/mudslinging that is infesting HUNGARY:

Would anybody know about the background of the US Government's stand that
has effectively pulled the rug from under the Hungarian Government's
negotiating position with the Romanian Government re the Basic Treaty
between the two countries ?

All there was in newswires is a shorty about the US Government stating
its stand that cultural/linguistic autonomy is all that ethnic minorities
can aim for in Central-Eastern Europe and not adminitstrative/regional
autonomy.

This was contrary to the Hungarian position and supportive of the
Romanian and Slovak stands.  Following this statement, the Hungarian
Government was forced to abandon its demand for regional autonomy for
Hungarians in Romania to be included in the Basic Treaty and will now have
to settle for the Romanian/Slovak interpretation of the Council of Europe
Recommendation No. 1201.  It also represents an intervention into the
disputes Hungary with Romania and Slovakia that the European-Union
countries have avoided doing and can be seen as contrary to the
unrestricted interpretation of Recommendation 1201.

Would this US stand represent the ascendancy of Romanian political lobbies
in Washington or the decline of Hungarian influence, whatever there is ?
It is also interesting to note that this came after a time of concentrated
lobbying effort by the Hungarian Lobby.

George Antony

At 07:36 PM 8/19/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>Don't be ridiculous.  We're all joke-police.  All we have to do is to find
>an unsympathetic person telling an off-colour joke and I'm sure both you and
>I would tell that person where to get off.  Well, I would.  Wouldn't you?

I try to associate with people whose jokes are not off-color to me. I can't
stop others to tell off-color jokes to each other, that is against a basic
freedom of Americans.

>>Generally, these jokes exaggerate existing stereotypes. And in many cases
>>they are funny.
>
>And in many cases they are not.

But there are all types of jokes that are not funny.

> The problem is that stereotypes are used,
>and they are already an exaggeration.  Notice that it's almost always the
>same groups that are targeted.  And, also notice how well, or not, members
>of those groups fared historically?  Is there a connection?

There is a connection, however, the jokes did not cause the problems but
vice-versa.

>Telling a racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive joke is a little bit like
>rape.  Rape is about power, not sex.  A racist, etc., joke is about
>elevating the status of the teller.  It's not about humour.

Comparing a joke with rape sounds to me as exaggerated as those feminists
who call any kind of sex rape.

>>The following statement is only based on instinct: I think that jokes in
>>good taste that exaggerate stereotypes do not harm anyone.
>
>Well, yes, but what else could it be based on?  And can you really have a
>joke that deals with stereotypes that's in good taste?  Can you have rape
>that's a little bit sexy?

See above.

>>I think that many "objectionable" jokes start out this way, then they get
>>into the hands of the "enemy".
>
>Perhaps, but I think that many objectionable jokes just keep circulating,
>and only their targets change, and sometimes, not even that.

Joe, I think we agree in principle on this. All I am trying to say is that I
prefer people joking about gas chambers to people building them.

Gabor D. Farkas

At 07:59 AM 8/19/96 -0400, Sam Stowe wrote:

<snip>
>Give me the money to conduct focus groups and polling and I'll get you a
>definitive answer. As it is, I've posed a theory that's a lot more
>compelling than anything you usually spout off the top of your head.

I'm so happy that you find your own theories compelling.  At least they're
not a total waste.

<snip>
>Yes, it really does, Joe. And I meet people on here working on doctorate
>degrees who can't think for themselves. But that's their choice, as it is
>for those who slack off in high school and don't bother to learn how to
>read and write English. I think that's a little different than setting up
>K-12 programs in Spanish or other languages, placing children in them and
>expecting them to somehow survive and live productive adult lives in a
>predominately English-speaking culture around them. One stems from
>personal failure, the other from ideological excess.

We allow people personal failure.  And if their ideological excess doesn't
cost you an inordinate amount of money, then why not allow them that?
Where's your liberalism, Sam?  If ideological excess leads to personal
failure, then, so be it.  The US is a free society, no?

Joe Szalai

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in 'what' opinions are held,
but in 'how' they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are
held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any
moment lead to their abandonment."
            Bertrand Russell

any one out there can help me ?
mike

PS I DO NOT WANT TO BUY
i have 900 machines to unload at 175$ US !!!
all great toshiba NOTEBOOKS !!!


http://www.complast.com
http://www.autoroute.net/~complex
E-Mail 
E-Mail 

George Szaszvari wrote:

>And even after Stalingrad. That campaign was ineptly managed by Hitler,
>the result of his obsession with the political sinificance of the city's
>name. Stalingrad was for the taking by encirclement, but Hitler insisted
>on its direct capture by force, a big blunder that allowed the later
>encirclement of the German forces instead.

As far as I know nobody was against the encirclement. It just
did not succeed. They (Germans) were about to encircle the
Soviet army fighting between the Don bend and Stalingrad (I
think this was the 62nd, but I am not sure), but either Paulus
was late to close the pocket or the Russian was too strong and could managed to
 escape back to Stalingrad (I should check
my books for the details). So that is why the Germans had
to take (or had to try) Stalingrad by force. Also the original
German attack (I think it was called 'The Blue') had two main
attacking direction and the 6th German Army was supposed to
go on north of Stalingrad. However the Russians were to strong
so the Germans had to reorganize their attack, making only
one 'iron spearhead' concentrated most of their strongest
units, to keep on the momentum of their offensive. Stalingrad
was chosen as target for this second part as Hitler considered
huge economical and political importance to it. The weakness
of such a plan (concentrated German units and relativly weak
units, mainly from satellite countries on the flanks) was
obvious for everybody.

>the Germans bit the dust (or, ice). Even, later, Operation Zitadelle
>(to pinch off the Kursk pocket, Summer 1943) might have succeeded had
>Hitler not pulled out at the crucial moment (see von Manstein's *Lost
>Victories*, Paget's *Manstein* and Carell's *Scorched Earth* amongst

I doubt that but this a personal opinion. By that time (1943)
the Russian front had no weak point, they just simple
bleed out any German offensive and when the Germans run out
their force they just keep on throwing new units in the battle
and won. Much like playing chess such way that one side can put five new figure
 on the board in each round while the other cannot. My opinion is that the
 Germans had already lost the
war in 1941 when they could not break the Russians with the Barbarossa. (and ha
d
 not got to much chance to win it anyway)

>superiority (even if they didn't have the fanaticism of the Japs), but
>with a bozo like Hitler running the show no wonder they lost in the end
>(and a good job, too).

Hitler wasn't so big bozo (I don't know what this means but
I assume appr. stupid) in my opinion, at least not in this
sense. For example he had a major role in the quick victory
over France by supporting von Manstein's plan (in fact forcing
it against the plan of the old fashioned High Command).

J.Zs