||Re: Horn and Clinton (mind)
|| 9 sor
||Re: Relative backwardness (mind)
|| 34 sor
||Re: ***HUNGARY***** (mind)
|| 16 sor
||FW: First Amendment and Internet (fwd) (mind)
|| 273 sor
||Re: Hungarian House Events (mind)
|| 7 sor
||Re: New History Book (mind)
|| 9 sor
|| 7 sor
||Re: Cadfael (mind)
|| 7 sor
||Hungarian pessimism (mind)
|| 30 sor
||The list is on Hungary (mind)
|| 23 sor
||Horn and the hotels (mind)
|| 16 sor
||Ragasz v. Ragasz (mind)
|| 9 sor
||Relative backwardness (mind)
|| 20 sor
||Cognitively challenged (mind)
|| 23 sor
||Leninism v. Stalinism (mind)
|| 15 sor
||Relative backwardness (mind)
|| 27 sor
||Re: Horn and the hotels (mind)
|| 50 sor
||Re: Was soll ich meinem kind sag (mind)
|| 25 sor
||Charles Fenyvesi (mind)
|| 14 sor
||Re: Ragasz v. Ragasz (mind)
|| 16 sor
||Re: Hungarian trip (fwd) (mind)
|| 14 sor
||Hungarian Kuvasz Club (mind)
|| 29 sor
|+ - ||Re: Horn and Clinton (mind)
On Wed, 25 Jan 1995 11:05:10 -0600 Norb the Hungarian said:
> Horn was FM in the last MSZMP government, not the Antall government.
>That should clear up the confusion. 8-)
--Thanks, Norb. The passage I was reading jumped around a bit, and I
it wasn't clear which year the sentence referred to.
|+ - ||Re: Relative backwardness (mind)
Isn't it also true, that the money-lending policy to
countries resembles that of loan-sharks?
It is a fact, that more money is going towards the rich countries
(that is, their financial institutions) as interest payments, than
the other way as "assistance of development", isn't it?
> Greg wrote:
> >if these countries were once poor because of European robbery,
> >when did the robbery stop, and how was it stopped?
> It hasn't stopped:
> *Western countries are paying third world countries to
> take toxic waste that the first world (FW) deems
> too dangerous to store.
> *FW countries are paying pennies to third world countries (TW)
> for their resources of wood (I think Thailand is one axample)
> *FW countries are paying pennies for beef from South America, which i
> raised on land cleared of tropical rain forrest.
> *FW countries are paying pennies to Jamaica for boxite, which is
> required to produce aluminum. The cost is well below
> what would be fair market value, but it was agreed to 50 year
> ago when Jamaica was desperately poor, as it still is because
> they do not get the income they are rightly entitled to.
> It hasn't stopped.
|+ - ||Re: ***HUNGARY***** (mind)
In article >
>And people of mixed origin have less value? Actually, I heard rhetoric
>almost identical to this last night on tv. Some skinheads were addressing
>some African Americans, telling them that they didn't hate them, they just
>wanted to preserve racial diversity. I'm not saying you're a skinhead...I
>just think your arguements draw on some of the same sources of legitimacy.
Well, as long as the skinheads 'walk the walk', what's the problem? Skinheads
are despised is because they have a history of hate and violence. If they
would really believe what they said on this tv show, then there would be
nothing wrong with them. The problem is that they probably don't believe
what they said - they said it for public relations reasons.
|+ - ||FW: First Amendment and Internet (fwd) (mind)
As there is a bit of a lull, I thought I post this as
it seems a contribution to the debate about what is or isn't
suitable internet material. Also it has something against
rightwing historians (if I got the gist of it right...)
which suits me well.
- I think this list is moderated very well, I have no
Delete here if you think it is irrelevant!
> Subject: First Amendment and Internet (fwd)
> Date: Tuesday, January 24, 1995 8:16AM
> Given the issues brought forth about the use of certain socially
> sanctioned vs. unsanctioned words, and the flurry of sign-off messages, I
> thought I would pass this on..... Joe Plaud
> From: Campaign for Peace and Democracy >
> Subject: First Amendment and Internet
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Here is my article from the January 20 Chronicle of Higher Education, "The
> First Amendment is Under Attack in Cyberspace." I welcome comments.
> Jesse Lemisch
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Page A 56 The Chronicle of Higher Education
> January 20, 1995
> POINT OF VIEW by Jesse Lemisch
> The First Amendment
> Is Under Attack
> in Cyberspace
> There is no First Amendment in cyberspace.
> Right now, in the thousands of Internet discussion
> groups, we find a cyberspace full of gatekeepers
> and fiefdoms, where those who would disagree must
> learn the oblique expression of the dissident under
> autocracy. This marvelous form of electronic
> communication -- whose essence is spontaneous,
> informal, unconstrained and speedy interactivity --
> is being trammeled and tranquilized. If this new
> medium is to be a place of freedom for ideas, all
> of the classic First Amendment issues must be
> revisited: censorship, pornography, hate speech,
> the costs of freedom versus the costs of
> I have been a dissenter in cyberspace. My
> adventures are important because dissent defines
> the system's limits. I have been an active
> participant in 13 Internet groups, known as
> bulletin boards or discussion lists, to which
> subscribers electronically submit queries, notices
> and opinions. I frequently receive 75 or more
> messages a day. I have participated in both
> academic and non-academic groups covering history,
> American studies, and issues concerning women,
> left-wing politics, labor, science, and health. In
> "unmoderated" groups, everything submitted is
> distributed electronically to the entire
> membership; in others, moderators decide what will
> and will not be distributed or "posted."
> For example, a man who directs several
> networks told me that he had killed a submission
> from a graduate student who asserted that some
> noted historians did not know their historiography.
> The director said that he was saving him from "real
> professional trouble." On a network devoted to
> women's studies, a female folklorist attempted to
> solicit jokes about Lorena Bobbitt's attack on her
> husband, for a research project the scholar was
> conducting. The moderator refused to post such
> material, fearing that it would just aid the spread
> of sexist jokes. To me, both these actions
> prevented critical scrutiny and discussion, one of
> the Internet's most valuable features.
> These problems are not peculiar to a specific
> field or to academic lists. On a list devoted to
> discussion of chronic-fatigue syndrome (largely a
> support group for those who suffer from the illness
> and those who care for sufferers), I suggested that
> we prepare and distribute a leaflet summarizing the
> variety of ways that government agencies obstruct
> treatment and understanding of the illness. Many
> participants on the list hit the roof, describing
> my adversarial approach as "terrorism." One
> particularly enraged member mounted racist, anti-
> Semitic, obscene and threatening attacks on me,
> both on and off the net (and with impassioned
> frequency). As a First Amendment absolutist, I
> locked my door, and made it clear to the list's
> moderator that I had no desire to suppress such
> heinous expression.
> But the hate mail distressed me less than the
> response of the moderator, who lectured me on
> provocation and required that both I and my
> attacker submit any future messages to him ahead of
> time so that he could decide whether to post them.
> "Messages that challenge the patient/reader to
> serious and complex contemplation," he wrote to me,
> "will be asking them to use talents whose exercise
> may negatively impact their health." The health
> concerns of participants in the discussion group,
> he added "necessitate a limitation on 'freedom of
> A list devoted to American studies, in which
> anything submitted is screened by its moderator, is
> governed by similar reflexes. In response to a note
> stating that the National Endowment for the
> Humanities was soliciting nominees for its
> prestigious annual Jefferson Lecture, I noted that
> a couple of recent lecturers were well-known
> conservative scholars. I voiced no objection to
> them, but suggested that people debating political
> correctness should note such possible right-wing
> P.C. by a leading cultural institution. A good
> discussion ensued, but it was sidetracked by a
> sociologist who clearly didn't even recognize the
> names of the conservative historians I had cited.
> I sent a message pointing that out, noting
> that he had "only the most narrow and idiosyncratic
> notion of P.C., which makes him incapable of
> comprehending the simple notion of right-wing
> political correctness."
> That was the extent of my crime. Two hours
> later, I got a private e-mail message from the
> moderator of the list, saying that he wouldn't post
> the message unless I changed it. "This kind of
> 'flaming' is unnecessary and counterproductive," he
> wrote. "X's reponses have been courteous; yours
> should be likewise."
> Privately feeling that I had, in fact, been
> discourteous but surprised to see discourtesy
> offered as a rationale for rejection, I sent a
> brief message to the moderator -- for posting --
> which described his refusal and suggested that the
> list discuss censorship. He refused to post it,
> suggesting that the discussion would amount to
> little more than "navel-gazing." I later discovered
> that the moderator first sends some submissions to
> the people whose views are being criticized so that
> he can take their feelings into account in deciding
> whether or not to post the material.
> These are just two examples of lists in which
> the obstacles to free debate are clear: censorship,
> capricious rejection of messages, and a sacrifice
> of freedom to personal feelings. Those who moderate
> and direct discussion groups seem not to understand
> what more than 200 years of debate about the First
> Amednment have shown, most recently with hate
> speech and pornography: There is absolutely no way
> to ban valueless or offensive speech without
> banning valuable speech as well.
> Moreover, no clear, agreed-upon definition of
> "flaming" exists. Moderators repeatedly have
> accused me of flaming, while list members,
> including those whom I was debating, found nothing
> objectionable. One person's meat is another
> person's poison. But the problem is not simply the
> lack of a consensus on what constitutes appropriate
> decorum on the Internet. Net moderators and
> participants who make much of the horrors of
> flaming always seem to have an approved target
> against whom flaming is condoned and even
> encouraged. For example, on lists on which I
> participate, I've noticed that it is all right to
> attack "anti-Semitic loonies" or people who
> erroneously assert that chronic-fatigue syndrome is
> psychosomatic. Thus flaming is in the eye of the
> beholder. I would argue that it is the price that
> we pay for free expression. Attempts to prevent it
> are analogous to banning "irresponsible" media.
> Legally, it is an open question whether
> existing laws regulating free speech -- including
> bans on certain types of expression such as
> slander, libel, and obscenity -- apply to the
> Internet. The system currently operates in a gray
> area between what is considered public speech and
> personal correspondence. I'm skeptical about
> placing limits on speech in general: I listen
> sympathetically to those who oppose libel laws. But
> the moderators who are imposing restrictions aren't
> really concerned with issues of libel or other
> legal limits on free speech. Many are unilaterally
> placing repressive limits on communications in the
> name of decorum and civility.
> Too often, guidelines for moderators of
> discussion groups offer them no positive statement
> to aid them in making decisions. My experience on
> the American-studies list, for example, might have
> been caused by an overzealous moderator; like many
> others, he is a graduate student, with limited
> experience in scholarly debate. But the American-
> studies list is only one of 43 history-oriented
> discussion groups that make up H-net. That network
> is an influential model; with the support of the
> American Historical Association, H-net recently
> received a six-figure grant from the humanities
> The only time that the H-net guidelines
> mention free speech is in a passage that justifies
> constraint rather than freedom: "It is so easy to
> set up a (free) printing press, that control over
> messages on H-net lists does not stifle the free
> flow of information."
> The director of the history network, Richard
> Jensen, professor of American history at the
> University of Illinois at Chicago, has stated his
> position unambigously to me in correspondence:
> "Internet provides rather too much freedom right
> now." He also said that "excessive freedom"
> seriously hinders the ability to improve
> communications among scholars, and that the net
> should "emphasize gentility, politeness and
> courtesy, and demand it of the participants." He
> wants postings written "in the style of
> dispassionate nonpartisans" and instructs
> moderators who are confronted with flaming to use a
> "quick DELETE finger."
> How far we have come since the American
> Historical Association issued a Statement of
> Professional Standards in 1974 that endorsed
> "candor, forcefulness, or persistence" in the
> "expression of differences of opinion"! It rejected
> "civility" as a standard, on the grounds that it
> would interfere with free debate.
> Mr. Jensen's position sacrifices freedom to
> sensitivity. it also seems to me that attempts to
> enforce civility place many moderators in loco
> parentis, treating scholars and other Internet
> users as children to be protected from their
> supposed indiscretions.
> I come from a school that believes that
> ridicule of ridiculous ideas is a legitimate
> debating strategy. It might be possible to express
> my ideas less dramatically -- maybe even within
> somebody's prescribed limits of gentility and
> decorum. But would they then be the same ideas and
> present the same critique? I don't think so. Ban
> the medium of flaming, and you ban the message of
> dissent. It's time to remember our sacred and
> distinctive traditions of academic freedom and free
> debate and to ask basic questions about who will
> control the Internet and how. If the Internet is to
> be free, the default position must be ON.
> Jesse Lemisch is professor of history at John Jay
> College of the City University of New York.
> Copyright Jesse Lemisch 1995
|+ - ||Re: Hungarian House Events (mind)
Please put me on your email list.
|+ - ||Re: New History Book (mind)
Wed, 25 Jan 1995 Jeliko writes:> The Indiana University Press just
>issued "A History of Hungary" Peter F. Sugar editor, Peter Hanak
>associate editor, Tibor Frank editorial assistant. The price is $17.95
>in soft cover.
This book is not so "new" it was originally published in hard cover in
1990. I purchased a copy in 1990. Each chapter is written by a
specialist in the topic or historical construct covered.
|+ - ||Pensions (mind)
If I were to move to Hungary after retiring, and thus have my pension
sent to me, how much tax would I be liable for for doing this? I ask this
because apparently the tax on income received from abroad by a person who is
a Hungarian citizen living in Hungary, this tax is quite hefty.
|+ - ||Re: Cadfael (mind)
In answer to Victor`s question: Yes, Cadfael was filmed in Hungary. On
the outskirts of Budapest where the monastery in the programme was build from
The series was shown in Britain about a year ago.
|+ - ||Hungarian pessimism (mind)
>been a big fan of the "national character" studies that were
>popular in social anthropology and sociology some years ago,
>because they can easily degenerate into stereotypes. With that
>disclaimer, thought, I suppose that one might make the case that
>there is a certain pessimism that is widespread in a culture whose
>society has lived in a great deal of tension for a long time.
Keeping in mind the disclaimer, I think that this is a very interesting
point. Hungarian pessimism is legendary. Every time I told my friends and
acquaintances that I thought that the economic situation would eventually
improve they looked at me as if I was "cognitively challenged." If you ask
people in their 50s whether they are thinking of starting something slightly
new now that it is possible, the answer is always negative. Oh, it's too
late, they say.
I wanted to start a thread about this unhealthy Hungarian pessimism a few
months ago on the Hungarian-language Forum but the Hungarians there were not
interested. I think there was only one comment basically saying that "well,
that is how we are." I think that this pervading pessimism has the
possibility of becoming self-fulfilling prophecy.
P.S. Since I wrote this piece I see that my last issue of HVG has an in-depth
analysis of Hungarian attitudes toward material and political matters. It
looks very interesting. As soon as I have a little time I will summarize the
article for you. It also touches on this proverbially pessimism.
|+ - ||The list is on Hungary (mind)
Tony Matlby writes:
>I do find that
>much of the 'discussions' could be sent direct to the individuals
>concerned rather than to the list. I am finding that I am
>simply deleting most of the messages.
>Frankly, I am not interested in the self-opinionated rhetoric
>of some of the lists contributors. I could name names but
>am concerned about the legal consequences!!! :-)))))
>Therefore would it be possible for those of you who wish to
>indulge in idle chat to pease do so outside of this list and on an
>What do list members think?
I think that you are right! And I hope that I am not one of those you are
referring to. I try to stick to Hungary or related matters. And I wish others
|+ - ||Horn and the hotels (mind)
Jeliko wrote in connection with the hotel deal:
>Please remeber that one can buy debt free and with debt at significantly
>different prices. It is important to distinguish what specifically the
>different offers mean.
Sure. Very true. By the way, since then a Swiss firm offered 265 million.
Maybe! The former head of AVU said that these were not serious offers. If I
recall the original deal also included a promise of $20 million in investment
in the next few years. The chain does have a debt load, if I recall. By the
way, it is interesting to note that although some people claimed that there
was no "contract" there seemed to be a deposit of $900,000,00 which is being
returned to the American firm. Is it customary to ask for a deposit without a
|+ - ||Ragasz v. Ragasz (mind)
Bela Somosvari brings up the possibility that the name is not really Ragasz,
but Ravasz. This possibility already occurred to me. Ravasz is still not a
very common name. The best known Ravasz was Laszlo1 Ravasz, Reformed bishop
of the Budapest district after the Second World War.
P.S. By the way, ravasz means sly, cunning in Hungarian. Ravasz ro1ka = sly
|+ - ||Relative backwardness (mind)
>You are bringing up examples of Prague, Heidelberg, Cologne, etc. Now do
>you consider these Eastern or Western Europe?
I simply went to a reference book and copied out these dates. The book I used
talked first about the very early medieval universities: the Italian, French,
English, Spanish and Portuguese. Then moved on and mentioned some later
French universities. The next category was Central Europe--which basically mea
nt the Holy Roman Empire, or, if you prefer, the Germanies, including Bohemia
and Moravia (i.e., the Czech lands). The next category (and here where I
erred because I forgot to mention that I moved from Central Europe to Eastern
Europe) was Eastern Europe. As you can see there is a progression from
West/South to East, including Central Europe. Now admittedly, the Romanian
and Bulgarian examples are not quite fair because of the Turkish occupation
there until very late in the nineteenth century but Russia, of course,
without any kind of occupation, was extremely late. There seems to be at
least 150-200 year difference between South/West and Central Europe.
|+ - ||Cognitively challenged (mind)
Eva Durant comments on my posting on "cognitively challenged":
>> I am ready to come out of the closet. I don't really know what
>> challenged" means but if I just use my common sense it just might mean:
>> person cannot think adequately. It might just mean deficient in cognitive
>> powers. And if this is the case, Norb's question is most justified.
>> Eva Balogh
>If you are referring to me, I think I have a right to challenge the
>majority view on this list; that Hungary should copy a market-economy
>structure which is not capable to provide a viable future.
Aren't we oversensitive. Moreover, you have not read the postings on this
subject terribly carefully. Tibor Benke told us practically every day that he
was "cognitively challenged." No one was talking about you. You didn't say
that you were cognitively challenged. You simply have a closed mind when it
comes to Marxism-Leninism. That's all.
|+ - ||Leninism v. Stalinism (mind)
Eva Durant, our socialist, writes:
>Who are this post-modernists who call stalinism leninism?
Oh, so you are one of those who still believes that Lenin was radically
different from Stalin and Stalinism is not a logical extension of Leninism. I
really wish you read a few books on this subject. The latest I read is
fascinating: Dmitri Volkogonov, *Lenin: A New Biography,* New York-London,
Free Press, 1994. Volkogonov is the chairman of the presidentical commission
examining the Soviet archives. He was the first man who had access to highly
secret documents on Lenin never released before.
Once you read the book, we can talk about Leninism versus Stalinism again.
|+ - ||Relative backwardness (mind)
Tony, answering me about the relatively late date of the establishment of
East European universities, says that
(1) a university established in Bratislava (Pressburg, Pozsony) was
established in 1467 but folded later because of lack of financial support.
That's exactly my point.
(2) Tony then gives a long description of "equality" of Slovaks with Germans,
Hungarians with Germans, and Czechs with Germans. The upshot of this
discussion that the Slovaks were made "equal" with the Germans the earliest.
Let me first say that this whole discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with
the discussion on hand. Also, if I may say so, most of the people on this
list (even those who are from those parts) will not even understand what Tony
is talking about. Just a brief background. Because Eastern Europe was
economically less advanced, early tradesmen were invited by the Crown (mostly
from the Germanies) to settle in, let's say, the Kingdom of Hungary. These
settlers had to be induced to come east and among many other inducements they
also enjoyed self-government, including the use of their language, their own
courts, using German law. So, most of the towns in Eastern Europe were German
in speech and spirit. However, slowly the natives also emigrated to these
towns from the countryside until they were either equal in number or outnumber
ed the German settlers. (Also, there was the normal assimilation. The Germans
first became bilingual and eventually they lost their original mother
tongue). These native people, Slovaks and Hungarians in this case, eventually
demanded a say in city government. However, this has nothing to do with the
discussion on hand.
|+ - ||Re: Horn and the hotels (mind)
Eva Balogh wrote:
>it is interesting to note that although some people claimed that there
>was no "contract"
It is not a matter of "some people" claiming this or that: there was no
contract signed about the sale of the hotels, full stop. Is there any
indication that this is incorrect, or are we back at discussing the
definition of a sales contract ?
>there seemed to be a deposit of $900,000,00 which is being
>returned to the American firm. Is it customary to ask for a deposit without a
It does happen. In recent Australian government tenders there was a
case when this was employed: the government was sellling off pay-TV
licences and found that many bidders were not serious. When it came
for the winning bidder to take up the licence, they could not find the
money to pay for it. This happened two or three times, after which
the government changed the rules and required a sum of cash to be
lodged with the bids. Unsuccessful bidders would get it back, the successful
bidder would pay that much less in the settlement, BUT if the successful
bidder cannot come up with the money the initial sum would be forfeited.
The privatization programmes of any country attract some shady people and
companies and this is especially so in the case of Eastern Europe. THe
Hungarian government would be not only foolish not to take steps to prevent
them from making off with the family silver for pennies, it would be
negligent. Eva Durant is spot on pointing to the danger of asset
stripping in this context: there are entrepreneurs looking for undervalued
companies to buy not because they want to run them profitably, but
because one can make a quick buck by breaking up the company and selling
off the assets for more than the cost of acquisition.
This way the company will be wiped out with certainty. If it was not
viable in the first place, no great loss. However, if only the asking
price (or share price) was too low, a productive company is lost forever.
For there is more than the value of material assets; a company also
builds up goodwill. In a breakup this dissipates, together with the
employment and flow-on economic effects that a productive company
creates. Mind you, asset stripping is not illegal. Once you buy
something, you can do with it whatever you like, hence even the most
reputable people or companies may indulge in this way of turning a quick
Thus, I am glad to hear that some precautions have been (are being) taken
in the Hungarian privatization process to lock out the opportunists and
try to sell to those who would carry on with the businesses.
|+ - ||Re: Was soll ich meinem kind sag (mind)
writes in HUNGARY #204:
>... It is in this respect that Hungary deviates from the other
>successor states in that minorities in Hungary have not as yet been >able to
achieve an _elected_ Parliamentary representation, whereas >in the other
successor states the minorities are represented in >Parliament.
This statement is highly misleading in that, in Hungary's case, the plan
calls for members of the country's minuscule minorities to elect their own
"minority" representatives to Parliament in a special election, in addition
to casting their individual ballots as all citizens do. In other words,
unless I am totally misinformed, minorities would in effect have a double
There is no corresponding plan in any neighboring countries to give their
minorities any special representation in their Parliaments.
As for some successor states' minorities being represented in their
respective Parliaments, such representatives were elected by normal
balloting, a result of their constituents' choice. Lest anyone forget,
there are compact Hungarian-speaking regions in Rumania and Slovakia that --
not surprisingly -- tend to elect Hungarians to represent them.
|+ - ||Charles Fenyvesi (mind)
Eva Balogh referred to Charles Fenyvesi yesterday:
> ..... There is a bilingual American-Hungarian journalist
>called Charles Fenyvesi. I seem to remember that he works for the Washington
>Post and here and there contributes to Hungarian papers mostly about American
I like to add to this that Charles Fenyvesi wrote a very interesting book:
"When The World Was Whole / Three Centuries of Memories" Key Porter Books,
1990. The cover say that Charles Fenyvesi is a writer at the US News and World
Report, and contributes a gardening column to The Washington Post. The book is
about the life of a Jewish family in Hungary, a subject which is often
discussed in this list.
|+ - ||Re: Ragasz v. Ragasz (mind)
> Eva Balogh writes:
> P.S. By the way, ravasz means sly, cunning in Hungarian. Ravasz ro1ka = sly
In fact, the original meaning of ravasz _was_ exactly that: fox, from
which its current use: foxy.
I have never heard of Ragasz as a name, either, but then it is not
unthinkable. For instance: there are lots of Germans named Kleber, and if
you were to translate this, or "Magyarize" it, you would wind up with
something like Csiriz, or Ragasz. Stranger metamorphoses have taken
place, so I would hesitate to rule it out. (Cf. English Cleaver, which
is the same root.)
|+ - ||Re: Hungarian trip (fwd) (mind)
HELP??? (In ENGLISH!)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 21:52:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Jozsef Hollosi >
To: Richard L Russell >
Subject: Re: Hungarian trip (fwd)
Hi, you can ask these questions on (mainly Hungarian,
but much larger list) or on (English, but only a
few hundred people). Ask for replies to your own address.
|+ - ||Hungarian Kuvasz Club (mind)
Somebody asked me to find the information about how
to join the Hungarian Kuvasz club in Hungary: here is the information:
President of the Hungarian Kuvasz Club is:
Mr. Geza Hetenyi
Mailing address is:
Hungarian Kuvasz Club
Zalai ut 11/a
I talked to Mr. Hetenyi who told me that one should write to him
directly and they would readily send any information needed, photos etc.
He also said that there is a book in preparation about breeding of the
Kuvasz. They expect that it will be published in May this year. One can
order the book directly from te Club.
With best regards
Magdolna Zimanyi Phone: +36-1-175-8257
Central Research Institute for Physics FAX: +36-1-169-6567
Computer Networking Center E-mail:
H-1525 Budapest 114, P.O.B. 49, Hungary