Eva Balogh again:

>>And I am not a historian. Never claimed to be one.

>No, you didn't claim to be a historian. At least not in so many
>words.

Here we go again.

>But history is your hobby horse.

Yes that I have mentioned, but still I claim. I am not a historian,
thank God!

>You said somewhere something to the effect that you want "to demolish
>historical myths." Well, it is terribly difficult to come up with really
>original ideas in history; that is, to demolish "historical myth." Other
>historians are just as smart, if not smarter, than you are, and they read
>the same documents as you do.

I never claimed to be smart either. :-) And don't say "other historians"
because I am not one of them.

>In fact, professional historians are much more familiar with the
>"literature," than you are. You have to read and re-read those documents
>many, many times before you can offer a new interpretation.

Professional historians like you? And what makes you so sure, that I am
not re-reading "those" documents before I make my judgements?

>You have to check every statement in every document.  You have to ponder,
>sometimes for days, before you can come up with something you consider to
>be a new interpretation.

I say at again. I don't need lecture from you. You just go on and on
preaching from the high above. Please don't be so full of yourself.

>It is not enough, as I said many, many times before, to discover a document
>by some captain in Omsk who says such and such. One has to prove that the
>captain knew what he was talking about!

The problem is, that you don't even know why the example was brought up.
It proved only, that the American Archive is full of documents, where
players of the world event are named by their race or religion. That was
the point.

>One doesn't have to be a genius to be a historian, but one has to think
>straight.

Then how come, you don't accept your own preachings?

>One can't just pick up any a document out of the blue and claim that this
>is the gospel truth.

Of course not. That is why I use to give many different sources of the
same subject. If you want me to prove the very subject with other examples,
I can flood you.

>Unfortunately, this is what you do. You pick up some document from the tens
>of thousands (if not not more than that) dealing with the Hungarian
>political situation in the British Foreign Office, let's say, written in
>1943 and claim that the contents of this document overrides any other.

That document was only one of the many examples I can bring up to prove,
that the Hungarian leadership had no choice to escape the German influence,
due to British interest, which wanted to keep Hungary within the German
sphere.

>This is not history. Do you understand that?

I might understand what history is better than you do.

>A former colleague of mine, Robin Winks, wrote a book called "The Historian
>as Detective." You really don't need to be smarter than a good detective.
>But you have to have the patience and the perserverance to be a detective.

Oh but I have patience. I am conducting a correspondence with you.

>You cannot act as a detective who is crooked, who already knows, at the very
>beginning of the investigation, who the culprit is. And that is what you are
>doing. You have an agenda and you are madly looking for proofs. And it doesn't
>matter what the value of a certain document as far as you are concerned as
>long as it says what you want to hear.

It seems that you are the one, who is looking for excuses to prove me wrong.
Trust me, I don't care how great historian you are. I just can't take, when
you by "training" act like a historical yes-man. Like it or not, many lies
of the past will come under scrutiny. What we can read today, is not the same
thing we have learnt let's say twenty years ago. Is this, because of the
different "training" of the historians, or more freedom for them to write
what they didn't dare before?

>Please, read what you wrote again. I am not whimpering, I am simply
>telling you that as long as there is no hard evidence, I cannot be in your
>corner.

There are enough, but I don't want you in my corner.

>Give me the hard evidence I will be in your corner.

I tell you again. I don't want you in my corner. You have had that chance,
but you handled me like a superior being. I simply don't trust you anymore.

>Keeping it to yourself and to your friends unfortunately doesn't help the
>general status of your case.

I never stated, that it will stay within a small circle. Trust me, there is
a preceding in that case, and in due time, I notify you of the results.
Your letter even though harsh and full of animosity, somehow has a tinge of
different tone.

>And then, please read the text before you with a little more
>care. I said that I don't think that you are liar.  However, I simply can't
>say that you are *not* a liar until I hear otherwise. So, why are you saying
>that I am calling you a liar?

Listen, you know how much I care of someone calls me a liar. After being
abused so many times, being called so many names, a little more, wouldn't
bother. I understand your frustration, but after what you did, I can not
approach to you with trust. And you know what I am talking about. You knew
very well, who "Karesz" was, because you gave him, your inside infos, but
kept quiet, finding his smear tactics funny and amusing.

>Again, as long as you don't tell it openly, to all the readers of
>HIX, the "details," I am afraid, I can't believe you. It doesn't matter
>whether you told your story to Joe Pannon or Barna Bihari. That's not
>enough. I want hard evidence and I doubt very much that these two people
>recieved the kind of hard evidence I am looking for.

See Eva, I didn't just told them, but provided them with hard evidence.
And not just them, but many more people. Few of them already indicated
on Forum, that they have no doubt in my case anymore. For them the evidence
was enough, and I hope if the case takes on legal route, there will be
some more people, who are going to be satisfied with the available evidence.

>The issue is not freedom of speech as long as we don't know whether
>you were forced resign on the account of your antisemitic remarks on the
>Internet or not. If we get hard evidence that Argonne National Laboratory
>made you resign just because you made antisemitic remarks on the forums of
>HIX, then the issue is going to be freedom of speech. But not until then!

Now the official ass-covering story by ANL. is, that they were only interested
of unauthorized computer usage. But the evidence points out otherwise. There
are many discrepancies in ANL.'s official explanations, and their argument
couldn't hold water in case of a legal suit. They just can't shut up bunch
of their employees. Easy as that. I ask you to relax, and let me conduct my
business in this matter. If I succeed, I promise to notify you of the
outcome of the case immediately. Is it a deal?

NPA.

Gabor Farkas wrote:

>P. S. Interesting, how nobody ever writes: Petofi (Petrovics) Sandor.

>>I wonder why is that urge on Mr. Farkas's part, to always cite things,
>>foolishly?

>I took the trouble to search out the word Petrovics in the Forum archives.
>And yes, there are 13 issues of the Forum, where people talk about Peto"fi
>and mention his original name, Petrovics.

Before Farkas explains,.. how about reading his sentence again? >I wonder..
blah, blah, blah....

>Nemeny forgets to mention (or maybe he is just too stupid to detect the
>difference) that in all of those postings the topic is the use Peto"fi's
>original name to show foreign origin. The topic was not once Hungarian poetry.

No, Nemenyi is not stupid, because he also went through all the archives and
seen that few writers of different articles actually called Petofi, Petrovics
and that is opposite of what Farkas wanted us to believe.

>When Nemenyi and his ilk write Rakosi (Rosenfeld)  or Trotsky (Bronstein),
>the topic usually is communism and the names in parentheses are included to
>show  they were Jewish.

Why? Is there any reason, why an origin should be kept secret?
And by the way. I can cite you famous books, where origin is spelled out.
And somehow those writers are not my ilk, but well known American historians.
Perhaps some examples? :-)

>But I think Hugh explained this much better in the start of this thread.

So he did. One explanation is just as good as many.

NPA.

"Eva S. Balogh" > wrote:

>        Of course, we agree that Slavic people were there before the
>Magyars. However, there was an organized entity before the arrival of the
>Slavs: the Roman Dacia. It would have been logical, at least to me, that the
>Romanized Dacians would continue to call the place Dacia.

Roman Dacia was not around for such a long period of time. As for the
Romanized Dacians, if there ever was such a people, memory lapses are
perfectly normal for them after almost 700 years.

>I find it compelling. I always have. Geographic names are
>quite sensitive indicators of the comings and goings of people.

The degree of sensitivity is, I think, debatable. However, and I am
sure you will agree, the comings and goings of people, as well as
their ethnicity, are infinitely much better and trustworthy recorded
by chroniclers and historians. Not like toponimy or archaeology,
written documents provide direct evidence for who was where at a
certain moment in time.

>>The Bulgar newcomers  have not picked up the original name of Thracia
>>or Moesia, right? And how about the Frank newcomers, or the Russ ones?

>        But you must admit: the two are not comparable.

Why not? The chains of succession are perfectly comparable.

>The Bulgars (whether
>they were Turkic people or Huns or whatever) settled in the middle of some
>Slavic population who themselves were newcomers to the region.

And the Hungarians settled in the middle of  a predominantly  Vlach
and  Slavic population who themselves were newcomers to the region.

>They could have not had any, even faint, recollection, of Thracia or Moesia.

Which  is not  true for the Slavs that end up assimilating the
Bulgars, isn't it?

>The Romanians were supposed to be there all along from the withdrawal of the
>Roman troops on.

Hmmmmm, that's very interesting! In my book  most probably
Romanized Dacians=/=Romanians,  but I'm ready to hear your
saying that proves me wrong.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

In article >,
 says...
>
>        Arpi Rambo, a well known correspondent on the Forum, tried three
>times to post the material here to HUNGARY but failed. He failed because he
>doesn't seem to realize that one must subscribe to HUNGARY in order to post.
>In any case, due to his inability to post this piece in HUNGARY, he decided
>to publish it in the Forum,

It is not necessary to subscribe to bit.listserv.hungary to post an article. I
do not subscribe, but I am posting this now. Bit.listserv.hungary is one of the
over 12,000 newsgroups offered by my private internet provider. I had been
regularly reading this newsgroup on the university's news server, via my
university internet account. When I switched to a private provider at home (so
I could have complete freedom of speech) I noticed that bit.listserve.hungary
was not included in the newsgroups. One email to the support people and 10
minutes later and I was again reading the news group.

David Hinds

In article >,
 says...
>I've tried Beerenauslese once.  It's a great wine but it's out of my price
>range, just like Trockenbeerenauslese, which I've never tried.  While
>Tokaji Aszu is a very good wine, I prefer to drink a Spatlese because it
>tastes less sweet, less heavy.

Incredibly :-) I know others who say this about Tokaji Aszu (like one
of my cousins.) No accounting for taste (or philistinism) but I find the
better bottle of Aszu something beyond sweet, more like a divine nectar,
with an effect of getting higher on successive glasses (erm, occasionally
bottles) rather than drunk in the ordinary sense. Heavy? For crying out
loud, do ya want fizzy pop or a real wine? ;-) (just kiddin')
(And, hey - heavy, robust, etc, is Portugese wine!)

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC

A bit of self-disclosure here...

This week my thallium (cardiac) stress test came back 'positive.' That
is, there was a blockage in one my main heart arteries.

My first reaction? "Oh, Lord, I will never be able to eat Hungarian
sausage again!"

Ergo, not being able to eat Hungarian sausage is a fate worse than
death.

Bandi

P.S. Yesterday's angiogram (for those who care) gave me
(incontrovertibly) a clean bill of health. Arteries clean like a
whistle, heart pumping vigorously. My conclusion? Ingesting plenty of
paprika, dill pickles, and garlic is a better indicator of cardiac
health than thallium stress tests.

Please scatter smilies ad lib, throughout this post.

> =============================================================
      Andrew J. Rozsa - Birmingham, Alabama, USA
      <OR>  
> -------------------------------------------------------------
          Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
> =============================================================

Hi,

I am a computer professional working on the Intranet and the Web side. I
need a penpal from you country with whom I can exchange views and ideas
and know your country.

I am looking forward to receiving an email.

Cheers,
Parshuram Mishra
New York, USA
Email: 

At 05:17 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Gabor D. Farkas wrote:

>At 10:37 AM 8/2/96 -0400,Joe Szalai wrote:
>
>>I've tried Beerenauslese once.  It's a great wine but it's out of my price
>>range,
>
>as it is out of mine (I also had it only twice, on round birthdays)
>
>>just like Trockenbeerenauslese, which I've never tried.
>
>Where can you buy that? 50 is coming up...
>
>Gabor D. Farkas

I can't even buy Beerenauslese around here let alone Trockenbeerenauslese.
And I live in a German community!  Perhaps list members can go on a search
and locate a bottle for you, for your 50th.  My political ideology informs
me that if you got a bottle of Trockenbeerenauslese, you'd have to share it
with us.  Is it a deal?

Joe Szalai

At 09:17 AM 8/3/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
.>My political ideology informs
>me that if you got a bottle of Trockenbeerenauslese, you'd have to share it
>with us.  Is it a deal?

Elveim fenntartasaval (maintaining my principles), it's a deal. Bring your
own glasses (I don't think we have so many).

Gabor D. Farkas

I am forwarding this obituary from Anthro-l.  It might interest some of
you.  For those with anti-semitic tendencies  (if there are any such among
you), it is yet another demonstration that Jewish Hungarians contribute in
many excellent ways to the betterment of humanity.  As for the rest of you,
it is another demonstration of how vast our ignorance is in comparison to
the little the most erudite among us can possibly know.  Even though I
study the Anthropology of Religion, I have never heard of this man, to my
sorrow.  I guess it's off to the library for me.

TTYL, Tibor Benke



>X-UIDL: 838367779.065
>Date:         Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:42:39 GMT
>Reply-To: 
>Sender: General Anthropology Bulletin Board >
>From: Jay Bernstein >
>Subject:      Raphael Patai dead at 8
>To: Multiple recipients of list ANTHRO-L >
>Content-Type: text
>Content-Length: 990
>
>Raphael Patai died last week, according to today's New York Times.  He was
>a leading anthropologist and folklorist specializing in Jewish studies and
>secondarily Arab studies.  He was perhaps the last person to be not only a
>cultural anthropologist but an archaeologist and physical anthropologist.
>He wrote a book called "The Myth of the Jewish Race."  He had two
>doctorates (Budapest and Hebrew University,) and wrote over three dozen
>books.  That's not a typo!  He was the first person to get a doctorate from
>the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  He wrote a book about Hebrew
>goddess-worship.   He taught at Dropsie College, the Herzel [Herzl?]
>Institute, and Fairleigh Dickinson University.
>
>I quote from the obituary by Robert McG. Thomas, Jr.:
>
>He was given a word-processor on his 80th birthday.  He mastered the new
>tool and turned out eight books in his last five years, including "Jewish
>Seafaring in Ancient Times," which is awaiting publication.
>
>Incredible.
>
>
>Jay H. Bernstein
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
> And OK here I am admitting my ignorance as usual - but how did you manage to
> discern that *jferengi* is a *nom de plume*, as it were? And how is it that
> it reveals itself to be so? I just assumed when I saw it that the guys who
> created Star Trek must have borrowed a Hungarian name for the name of their
> avaricious entrepreneurial race. Are you telling me I'm wrong, and the truth
> is that *jferengi*, our esteemed Listmember, borrowed the name from the Star
> Trek series and not the other way around?
 He *IS* from the series ;-).

> > The fact is, as a practical matter 'stowewrite' does not assume any more
> >responsibility than 'jferengi' does - so there, deal with it...
>
> On this one I am inclined to side with Sam, Zoli. I believe you are who you
> claim to be,

 OK I'll tell Zoli if I see him and we'll both have a good laugh (note
that the previous remark may be a joke in no way proving that the entity
"Zoli" actually exists ;-)).

> because there is a history of posts from you, if one cares to
> search back a ways, which seems to reveal you as a distinct entity, and a
> generally reasonable one to boot.
 This is flattering {1} - too bad you're married {2}. But it has no real
bearing on me being "Zoli Fekete", or vice versa. How would this be any
different were I be, let's say, ZFerengi?
 More to the point, I can't see how this would effect what I write and
what others should think about the content (as opposed to the person).

> I am automatically somewhat sceptical of
> those who are only willing to use pseudonyms, even when their opinions are
> revealed to be reasonable.
 This is the serious problem with your thinking (and I am really truly
serious here)! The issue has two sides, both of which seem rather poorly
understood by you&Sam, if you don't mind me saying.
 One side is that many if not most nyms may have their good reasons,
not some unspecified dark motives you're imputing, for not using their
real-life identity. In any case who are we to decide what are good
reasons - either their opinions are reasonable or they aren't,
irrespective of whether their online name is a real one.
 Which leads to the other side: nefarious purposes would much better be
served by unconspicious false names than mere obvious pseudonyms. But you
seem to be putting blind faith in things that appear to be real - having
wasted due scepticism on those declaring straight that they are not
giving out their real name. While ignorance may be bliss until the goo
hits the fan, I should point out that this is far larger danger than the
alleged breach in public scrutiny by nyms in innocent discussions of
little consequence.
 Actually there's a third side too (although saying that in the beginning
would've botched my metaphor ;-(, but perhaps I could call this the edge
of the two-sided coin ;-)). 'Stowewrite' mentioned the net.kooks roaming
around, who do indeed spread an incredible amount of unadultered fecal
matter all over the net as well as cause serious real-life damages to
unfortunate victims. Alas these attackers fall mainly in two categories,
neither of which has to do with pseudonames as such. The first variety is
making outright forgery (either to mask the culprit, or to impersonate to
target, or to do both in order to implicate the victim). The second, even
more virulent strain launches, proudly under their own name, harassment
campaigns easily amplified in the virtual media. I am afraid people of
your convictions about the magic verifying power attached to real names
could be gullibly falling for such tricks based on the "where there's
smoke there's fire" tempting premise...

 But of course all this does not tell one way or another why posting as
"Sam Stowe"/'stowewrite' would be significantly different from doing so
by "JFerengi"/'jferengi'.

> I wonder for instance why Jeliko, a person for
> whom I have developed a rather large degree of respect, does not reveal his
> real identity for us.
 Because it should not make an iota difference in dealing with what he
posts. But maybe he is in the phonebook after all!?

> However, in his case, I am willing to put up with a
> certain degree of discomfort that I feel from this fact in order to have the
> benefit of his comments, which have been unusually enlightening about  some
> often obscure (at least to me) elements of Hungarian culture.
 I'd say that this right there should tell you something about how
unjustified said discomfort is in the first place ;-(...

> But I tend to
> believe that if one is the holder of reasonable and sensible opinions, there
> is no reason to hide behind a pseudonym, because there should not be
> repercussions from promulgating reasonable beliefs, and in any case, one
> should be prepared to stand up for one's beliefs if one feels that they
> *are* reasonable.
 There should not be repercussions, but there may well be - and often not
even for beliefs but just because the speaker rubbed someone in a wrong
way, or simply encountered someone having a combination of loose screws
with power to harm. Moreover the nature of the online communications is
such that things can come haunting you without a chance for effectively
standing up on the virtual stage. So there could be reasons to hide, if
that's the motive for someone's using a nym; but also there are other
motives as well, just as Sam enumerated for off-line characters.
 And again I should point out that for most practical purposes the
' handle gives no less (nor more) "hiding" than
'.

> Johanne (I'm listed in the phone book) Tournier
 Not in mine ;-). In any event, please note that being listed proves
precious little unless someone calls and talks to you - which could
happen with anyone with pseudonymous email address just the same!

- -- Zoli "I'm listed too - but what if someone else answers" Fekete

 {1} Really!
 {2} This is a gratious personal remark meant to illustrate {3} what some
netizens may not want to get subjected to when mingling into discussions
 {3} Altough I have indeed always pictured you cute enough so that even
those three kids wouldn't matter {4}
 {4} See also {2}
- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgN2LcQ/4s87M5ohAQEo5wH+PXEarnUnHVgTvHK/3UtkXINioy+BXwNW
bWxgrW7fa1UcgUHuEDIlbtwyrmigGo0jm+P5CC3AjV2P3TsckymxqA==
=ZD44
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tibor Benke wrote:

>Raphael Patai died last week, according to today's New York Times.  He was
>a leading anthropologist and folklorist specializing in Jewish studies and
>secondarily Arab studies.  He was perhaps the last person to be not only a
>cultural anthropologist but an archaeologist and physical anthropologist.
>He wrote a book called "The Myth of the Jewish Race."  He had two
>doctorates (Budapest and Hebrew University,) and wrote over three dozen
>books.  That's not a typo!  He was the first person to get a doctorate from
>the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  He wrote a book about Hebrew
>goddess-worship.   He taught at Dropsie College, the Herzel [Herzl?]
>Institute, and Fairleigh Dickinson University.

Raphael Patai's work was incredible. His death is a great loss for the
Human Kind. I wonder if his books are widely available in Hungarian?

NPA.

At 10:08 PM 8/2/96 -0400, "Peter A. Soltesz" > wrote:

>I see tha "crazy Jose" is incompetent in French as well!
>You better watch your tongue before someone steps on it.

I'm quite competent in French, thank you.  And, if you allow me, my dear,
I'll show you that I'm competent in Greek, too.  Very competent!

By the way, "tha" is not in my dictionary.  Were you trying to write "daaa"?

Joe Szalai

P.S. Bad spellers of the world, UNTIE!

At 09:24 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Gabor Farkas wrote:

>I took the trouble to search out the word Petrovics in the Forum archives.
>And yes, there are 13 issues of the Forum, where people talk about Peto"fi
>and mention his original name, Petrovics. Nemeny forgets to mention (or
>maybe he is just too stupid to detect the difference) that in all of those
>postings the topic is the use Peto"fi's original name to show foreign
>origin. The topic was not once Hungarian poetry.

        Can you imagine the following: "The famous poem written by  Sandor
Petofi (Petrovics) `Rise Hungarians! The fatherland calls! Here it the time,
no or never.'" (Poor, poor translation by Eva Balogh). That will be the day.

        ESB

At 05:51 PM 8/2/96 GMT,Liviu wrote:

>>The Romanians were supposed to be there all along from the withdrawal of the
>>Roman troops on.
>
>Hmmmmm, that's very interesting! In my book  most probably
>Romanized Dacians=/=Romanians,  but I'm ready to hear your
>saying that proves me wrong.

        Liviu, you may want to tell me how you interpret the Daco-Romanian
continuity theory because by now I am confused. You know this is not really
my field and I may have misunderstood the few secondary sources I read on
the subjec.

        Eva Balogh

About Petrovits...

Some of Petofi's poems are shame on the Hungarian people.
Some others are glory.
                                               Sz. Zoli

Eva writes:

>        Liviu, you may want to tell me how you interpret the Daco-Romanian
>continuity theory because by now I am confused.

In the absence of convincing historical, linguistical and archaeological
evidence to support a continuous ethnic presence in Transylvania from the
time of the Roman colonization of Dacia, I think the use of the word
"theory" is entirely justified.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

At 01:04 AM 8/3/96 -0500, "Peter A. Nemenyi" > wrote:

>Gabor Farkas wrote:

>>When Nemenyi and his ilk write Rakosi (Rosenfeld)  or Trotsky (Bronstein),
>>the topic usually is communism and the names in parentheses are included to
>>show  they were Jewish.
>
>Why? Is there any reason, why an origin should be kept secret?

In an ideal world, no, one's origin should not be kept secret.  It would be
irrelevant.  But we don't live in such a world, do we?

Don't tell me that you can't think of any reasons why some people kept their
origin secret.  If you can, why not tell us?

Joe Szalai

At 02:30 PM 8/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>About Petrovits...
>
>Some of Petofi's poems are shame on the Hungarian people.
>Some others are glory.
>                                               Sz. Zoli
>
        Yeah, and what does this mean in this context.

        ESB

At 02:25 PM 8/3/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Eva writes:
>
>>        Liviu, you may want to tell me how you interpret the Daco-Romanian
>>continuity theory because by now I am confused.
>
>In the absence of convincing historical, linguistical and archaeological
>evidence to support a continuous ethnic presence in Transylvania from the
>time of the Roman colonization of Dacia, I think the use of the word
>"theory" is entirely justified.
>
>Regards,
>
>Liviu Iordache

        In that case, is there any convincing historical, linguistic and
archaeological evidence of the early history of Romanians elsewhere, let's
say on the Balkans or around Moldavia, Wallachia?

        Eva Balogh

Joe Szalai wrote:

>>Why? Is there any reason, why an origin should be kept secret?

>In an ideal world, no, one's origin should not be kept secret.
>It would be irrelevant.  But we don't live in such a world,
>do we?

But if we keep the origin secret, will this world any better?

>Don't tell me that you can't think of any reasons why some people
>kept their origin secret.  If you can, why not tell us?

I might understand why people in any given moment hide their origin.
But after so many years, should it be kept secret still?

NPA.

Dear Colleagues,

During the last couple of years the Foundation to Protect the Hungarian
Environment has sponsored the planting of trees in the Danubian Basin.
Slightly over 1000 young people participated in this effort. Later, some met
and formed something like an organization.

At their last meeting they decided, that they had enough of the inaction of
the Hungarian Government and Parliament about the Danube and that they will
take action themselves.

They decided that they will print postcards and air mail envelopes with the,
by now internationally known "Save the Blue Danube" logo and they will ask
all Hungarians to use nothing but these from now until the lawsuit is over in
the Hague, when they send any mail outside the country. They hope, that if
all the mail from Hungary brings this message to the outside world, that
might compensate for the  ear-piercing silence of their government. They feel
that the Danube is their border river, to protect it is their duty and as you
all know; those who plant trees are not the spectator type.

They did not ask for help from anybody. It is their fight and they will take
care of the designing, printing and distributing of this stationary. Yet I
know that life is not that simple, that they need  encouragement, advice and
help. So if you feel like dropping them a line, the leader of this effort is:

 Laszlo Kertesz, he lives in Veszprem at Varga u. 8/8.

 If you want to, please drop him a card, a line of encouragement, and if you
want to, put a dollar, mark, frank, gulden, or yen in the envelope, which
they did not ask for, but which we, the "no longer teenagers" know, is needed
for such efforts.

Best regards: Bela Liptak

PS: An other group of tree planters is going up to Gabcikovo on the 24th of
October (the 4th anniversary of this outrage) to bring the attention of the
World to the lawsuit in the Hague, starting on the 17th of February and to
the fact, that Hungary has been robbed of $1 billion worth of water during
that period, disregarding all the other consequences of this disaster. This
year, our foundation is not going to sponsor buses and trains to Gabcikovo
(because we have no money), but I for one, will be there with them.

Eva writes:

>        In that case, is there any convincing historical, linguistic and
>archaeological evidence of the early history of Romanians elsewhere, let's
>say on the Balkans or around Moldavia, Wallachia?
>
>        Eva Balogh

Regarding the "original cradle," if this is what you mean, no, there is no
convincing evidence but several theories based on many successive layers of
assumptions and hypotheses. IMHO, the best candidates are Moesia Superior,
Dalmatia, and Pannonia Inferior.

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

At 06:26 PM 8/3/96 -0500, Liviu wrote:
>Eva writes:
>
>>        In that case, is there any convincing historical, linguistic and
>>archaeological evidence of the early history of Romanians elsewhere, let's
>>say on the Balkans or around Moldavia, Wallachia?
>>
>>        Eva Balogh
>
>Regarding the "original cradle," if this is what you mean, no, there is no
>convincing evidence but several theories based on many successive layers of
>assumptions and hypotheses. IMHO, the best candidates are Moesia Superior,
>Dalmatia, and Pannonia Inferior.

        These are quite disperate regions. I heard of the Dalmatian
hypothesis, based on loan words from Albanian but I didn't hear the others.
Do you care to elaborate for us?

        Eva B.

At 05:47 PM 8/3/96 -0500, Nemenyi wrote:

>I might understand why people in any given moment hide their origin.
>But after so many years, should it be kept secret still?

        You don't get it, do you? Normally we don't put in parentheses the
original names of people who for one reason or other changed their family
names. That is, we don't say Lenin (Ulianov), Stalin (Dzhugashvili), Petofi
(Petrovics), Gorkii (Peshkov) and so on and so forth. Except, you do when it
comes to Jews who changed their names. Why? For historical accuracy? If that
is the case, please, do so in every case. For example, here is a few for you
to learn: Gusztav Ja'ny (Hautzinger), Hugo So'nyi (Solarcz), Ferenc
Szombathelyi (Knausz), Sztojay (Stojakovics). And one could continue.

        ESB

At 05:47 PM 8/3/96 -0500, "Peter A. Nemenyi" > wrote:

>I might understand why people in any given moment hide their origin.
>But after so many years, should it be kept secret still?

Why worry about it?  Does it enrich your historical knowledge to know that
so and so was a Jew?   Only those who think in terms of conspiracies would
worry about such things.  Only they would find such information valuable.
When I read general history, the last thing that interests me is whether or
not someone is jewish.  It really doesn't enter my mind.  Nor should it.
It's meaningless and irrelevant.

Joe Szalai

"I determine who is a Jew."
     Karl Lueger (1844-1910), Austrian lawyer, politician.
     The statement has also been attributed to Nazi leader Hermann Goering.

Eva Balogh wrote:

>>I might understand why people in any given moment hide their origin.
>?But after so many years, should it be kept secret still?

>You don't get it, do you? Normally we don't put in parentheses the
>original names of people who for one reason or other changed their family
>names. That is, we don't say Lenin (Ulianov), Stalin (Dzhugashvili), Petofi
>(Petrovics), Gorkii (Peshkov) and so on and so forth. Except, you do when it
>comes to Jews who changed their names. Why? For historical accuracy? If that
>is the case, please, do so in every case. For example, here is a few for you
>to learn: Gusztav Ja'ny (Hautzinger), Hugo So'nyi (Solarcz), Ferenc
>Szombathelyi (Knausz), Sztojay (Stojakovics). And one could continue.

Oh I do Eva. I do! I don't know about "WE" but I know that I found in many
foreign history books, Lenin (Ulianov), Stalin (Dzhugashvili), etc. You say
>" Except, you do when it comes to Jews who changed their names."

So does it mean, Lenin & Stalin were Jews? ;-)

>Why? For historical accuracy? If that is the case, please, do so in every
>case.

You mean, accuracy is better off without accuracy? And thank you for the
advice,  I try to follow it. The only problem is, that  even  though you
seem  like knowing :-) a  great number of  accuracies, it is hard to get
the full picture at all the times.

NPA.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 I've been reluctant (for such notices are hardly ever heeded ;-<) to say
this to all would-be champion flamers that have recently tried out, but
your attempts to shine at this art would require a lot more skill and
gusto than you're exhibiting for even getting considered a good beginner,
so you'd better give it a rest.

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgPlecQ/4s87M5ohAQFuOwIAnO7vcS5NgogudaqVjZwbbPOXNDE+1Szh
rwXkQm4yMBti6bpldFOdFWQVfT8XYbCYyUK3HlEIKbqRkjvXzyF0sQ==
=ID+f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 04:59 PM 8/3/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:
>At 05:47 PM 8/3/96 -0500, Nemenyi wrote:
>
>>I might understand why people in any given moment hide their origin.
>>But after so many years, should it be kept secret still?
>
>        You don't get it, do you?

No, he doesn't. Forget about it.

Gabor D. Farkas

Joe Szalai wrote:

>>I might understand why people in any given moment hide their origin.
>>But after so many years, should it be kept secret still?

>Why worry about it?  Does it enrich your historical knowledge to know that
>so and so was a Jew?

Yes. Just as much as knowing that a great musician or scientist was a
Jew. Or do we judge some people differently, based upon, what they did?

>Only those who think in terms of conspiracies would worry about such
>things.

So also mentioning that some scientists, like Einstein was a Jew instead
of just a German, means conspiracy but with the opposite interest? :-)

>Only they would find such information valuable.

They who?

>When I read general history, the last thing that interests me is whether
>or not someone is jewish.  It really doesn't enter my mind.  Nor should it.
>It's meaningless and irrelevant.

Oh, I see. Someone on this list is very interested if Jesus was a Jew or
not. Is this meaningful or relevant? ;-)

>"I determine who is a Jew." Karl Lueger (1844-1910), Austrian lawyer,
>politician.
>The statement has also been attributed to Nazi leader Hermann Goering.

So, why the cited statement? Are we arguing about Lueger or Goering.
Or should I say, the German Lueger and German Goering?

NPA.

ESB:
>
> At 02:30 PM 8/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >About Petrovits...
> >
> >Some of Petofi's poems are shame on the Hungarian people.
> >Some others are glory.
> >                                               Sz. Zoli
> >
>         Yeah, and what does this mean in this context.
>
>         ESB
>
To be exited by a revolution can be a Hungarian thing, but
to kill the king: never. Petofi was too eager to play the
role of a Camille Demouliens, but 1848 in Hungary was not
the same as 1789 in France.
                                                  Sz. Zoli

The Romanian satirical weekly published the following:

"The cultural organization Romanian Hearth (Vatra Romaneasca), having the
role of objecting and protesting, is making itself heard by protesting the
presence of many Hungarians from abroad in our country. And it is protesting
because it is not enough that these are Hungarians but on the top of it they
also belong to the Reformed Church. Even more, on their own money they will
stay in our hotels, will feed themselves with our food and will gather in a
congress with other Hungarians, from us, but who are also Reformed
Christians! This tops everything! This is it! After all Vatra Romaneasca
tolerated all kind of congresses in English, reunions of fracophones, held
in French, but Hungarian, well, that's not correct! The Hungarians are
suspicious and that's it! They should have been asked for example that at
the border each of them should leave a half a pint of their blood, as
guarantee and also so that they become more anemic while in our country.
This blood would be re-injected when they leave. We need stronger steps,
more patriotic steps: they should show Vatra Romaneasca the map of all their
movements, they should declare that they will have no public and official
meetings and finally, they should be subjected to a test in the Constitution
of our country."

Gabor D. Farkas