||Re: Doctoral titles, degrees and prestige in Central Eu (mind)
|| 17 sor
||Re: autonomous status (mind)
|| 18 sor
||Slovak language law and Slovak Constitution (mind)
|| 25 sor
||Re: The Durant-Stowe Dustup (mind)
|| 122 sor
||Re: To Joe about PC. (mind)
|| 16 sor
||Political Correctness 101 (mind)
|| 76 sor
|| 22 sor
||Re: Superiorty. (mind)
|| 15 sor
||Re: Anti-feminist bias or not? (mind)
|| 45 sor
||Re: The Durant-Stowe Dustup (mind)
|| 18 sor
||Re: Political Correctness 90210 (mind)
|| 195 sor
|+ - ||Re: Doctoral titles, degrees and prestige in Central Eu (mind)
> >I heard that in the UK kisdoktori is generally
> >taken to be an M.Phil., which (if my understanding is correct) is a
> >coursework only degree, somewhat similar to the US "terminal masters", a
> >consolation prize of a degree, generally awarded to those who were deemed
> >unfit to go for a full PhD but completed the first two years of a PhD
The system is changing too fast at the moment int the UK.
There are now 4 years MSc, MSci, MMath etc
courses usually for students with high "A" level grades,
so you get your first degree and go on automatically
to the master's course at the same university, if the degree
is good enough.
|+ - ||Re: autonomous status (mind)
Csaba Zoltani wrote:
>The book, now available in paperback, can be highly recommended to
>anyone interested in the second largest minority in Europe, the
>Hungarians living outside of their own country.
>CSABA K ZOLTANI
So, who is the largest minority in Europe, anyway. I guess is would be the
Sammi (Lapps) right??
john_czifra @ shi.com
|+ - ||Slovak language law and Slovak Constitution (mind)
The Hungarian translation of the Slovak language law is available in the HIX
archive: simply send an e-mail to the adress
in the subject. You can also obtain the text of the former (1990) Slovak
language law (Hungarian translation again) via sending an e-mail to the same
in the subject. Some time ago we also posted an English translation of the
text of the 1995 law (joint work with Roman Kanala) to HUNGARY and SLOVAK-L.
That was surely not a perfectly correct version (neither Roman nor me is a
lawyer, after all), but - except for a few places - should be at least
readable. That version is still available from me )
upon request. In fact, Karl Pollak promised to have a look at our work and
come up with a more authoritative translation, but somehow it seems to take
a bit too long.
The (presumably official) English version of the Slovak Constitution is
available via WWW at the address
as part of The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic homepage
|+ - ||Re: The Durant-Stowe Dustup (mind)
> Okay, it is time for me to put in my two cents in the Communism/Socialism
> vs. Capitalism debate. I have absolutely no academic credentials in this
> area since the era of my undergraduate studies many moons ago, but I have
> given a lot of thought to the issues you all have raised, and, as usual, I
> probably disagree somewhat with everybody in this debate.
Thank you for contributing. I don't think you need high qualifications
for that, otherwise people should be forbidden to discuss how
to vote! We all learn (I hope) something.
> I agree with Celia that people are by nature selfish, one of the prime
> survival instincts. Yes, as Eva D. suggested, it is in everybody's interest
> to have a better society. But the problem lies in a determination of what is
> a better society. Probably every one of us has his or her own individual
> ideas as to what would constitute an improvement in our society. So, people
> with very different world views find it virtually impossible to agree on
> just what changes are desirable.
I think democracy means people putting forward and explaining their
ideas, and the most convincing at a particular time, gets
elected (I wouldn't go as far as "and put in practice"...).
Surprisingly, people can be convinced to vote "unselfishly"
- because they learn how to be more wisely selfish...
> Joe has said that socialism would give people more choice and greater
> fairness. He says communism as defined by Marx is an economic system, not a
> political one.
You cannot really completely isolate the two. Any number of
surprising issues can be seen as political, if somebody wants
to populise it/ make it common practice etc.
> Now, I am going back a few centuries to my undergraduate
> studies, but if I remember my Marx correctly, it was he who developed the
> concept of socialism as well as communism. Socialism, the dictatorship of
> the proletariat, was the first step in the process, and socialism meant the
> ownership of the chief means of production by the state.
under democratic control, don't forget this most important
criteria! Others did, and what a mess!
> It was after the
> dictatorship of the proletariat had been firmly established that at some
> point the state would "wither away,"
When the state loosing it's function as an oppressor, as there
are no classes anymore.
> Okay, Joe, please tell me how socialism, which involves the ownership of the
> means of production by the State, can be considered an economic and not a
> political system? If it is not political, then why does every single western
> democracy have a socialist party?
You're right, any idea is political, if you want people to
vote for it, whether it is a democratic system, or
saving the whales.
> And if you say, I was talking about
> communism, not socialism, well, communism may be an economic theory and not
> a political theory, but it has never existed in practice for any length of
> time on any scale in practice, so you can say whatever you like about it in
> theory, that doesn't mean it will be valid in the real world.
You need some argument to make this point. I say it is more
valid for survival, than capitalism is, which cannot forexample
unite the world, to solve our environmental problems together.
> (P.P.S. Hungarian content - Eva D. had said that things were much better in
I did not say things were better. I hope, and it is probable, that
the buses are running just the same (just probably more expensive).
I just pointed out positive features, that probably escapes all
westerners, who's picture of a pre-90 Hungary is a uniformly grim and
grey police-state, where everyone was constantly unhappy.
> of Eastern Europe, the fact is that it cost Russia lots of rubles to
> maintain her empire, and, as I noted above, Russian citizens sacrificed
> their own happiness to keep the system going. The Hungarian government now
> has lost its monetary supports from Russia, and is cast adrift in a world of
> hard, cold economic realities.
This will surprise a few people on this list. They are convinced,
that Hungary was sucked dry by the russians.
> I am convinced that part of Hungary's
> problems now are a result of the same trends that are occurring in countries
> around the world. Canada, as Joe and Barna should be able to attest, is not
> as rich a country as it was when I came here 18 years ago, and the same
> concerns about the willingness of international investors to lend which are
> so prominent in Hungary right now are driving the provincial and federal
> governments here to slash government spending in all the areas in which
> Canadians had previously congratulated themselves for maintaining - medicare
This trend is called for lack of a better term: capitalism. Sorry...
> like I am being exploited! The ones that seem to benefit most from the
> system right now are the politicians, with their great salaries, cushy
> perks, and pension benefits that can't be beat.)
The shareholders/speculators/top 10% earners are doing even better.
And they seem to win every election...
|+ - ||Re: To Joe about PC. (mind)
At 12:13 PM 1/31/96 -0500, Sam Stowe wrote:
>Geez, Joe, I wouldn't want you walking the floor after midnight thinking
>of me. Besides, listening to Patsy is good for the soul.
>Hungarian content -- Contrary to what he says, Joe's not falling to
Sam, it's strange that you can be so wrong thinking that I might be having
sweet dreams of you. I hope you're not going crazy.
Hungarian content -- nothing that I can think of. I'm posting this because,
as usual, I have to satisfy my need to have the last word.
|+ - ||Political Correctness 101 (mind)
At 03:43 PM 1/31/96 -0500, Czifra Jancsi wrote:
>But Joe, I want to spin you around the floor some more.
Why? Are you feeling lonely being dizzy all by yourself?
>How 'bout a Csardas, this time.
You're on buddy! But you'd better hold on to your pants.
>First off, you, not I, started off the whole PC thing.
This is not a good start Jancsi. I did not start off "the whole PC thing".
Several writers to this newsgroup made snide remarks about this or that
being politically correct. What I did was to explain my position on
political correctness. Some people agree with my position and some don't.
You just don't understand, period.
>I just merely
>added the point that your argument was very one sided, but
>you passionately deny that the Soviet Bloc imposed their form
>of "political correctness". You call it "opression", they considered
Oh please! Your ability(?) to link a civil request to call people by
non-offensive terms to political dictatorships shows that not only do you
not understand politics, you don't understand human communication either.
>On the other hand, what you call "correct" maybe
>considered "opression" by those with a different view.
Yes. So what's your point? If a white racist calls African Americans,
'niggers', and that person is told, or asked not to do that, and that racist
calls the request oppression, what would you do. From your rants it would
appear that you would allow the racist to continue to be a racist for fear
of being oppressive. The fact that the racist is oppressive is lost on you.
>About where you stand, politically, I could care less.
And understand not at all.
>I just think your one-sided PC bantering has about as much
>buoyancy as crap filled with buckshot.
Hmmm. Finally, a topic you know something about.
>Secondly. Are you offended that I call you Jozsi??
Yes. My name is Joe.
>It's not PC to call Joe Szalai: Jozsi, folks. The politically correct
>way to address Joe Szalai is "The person formerly known as Jozsi.".
You don't have the foggiest idea of what I was formerly known as. But this
insight into how your brain works is telling. You seem to think that
because women were called girls when they were young, it will always be OK
to call them that. Also, because parents call their children by
affectionate terms, you figure that it's all right for you to do the same,
even when the person is a mature adult. No doubt in your world, only you
mature. The rest of us remain children.
Late last year you referred to Eva Balogh, as Evikem. Why? You are not her
parent and you are younger. Rather than showing affection, you were
unmasking your pig-headed, chauvinist, arrogance. Have you ever apologized
The idea of political correctness was developed because of attitudes like
yours. Unfortunately, rather than learning or changing your male chauvinist
pig views, you accuse me and others of being oppressors. Trying to get you
to not call women, 'girls', has nothing to do with state oppression, the
soviets, the gestapo, or the AVO.
Get a life!!
|+ - ||Superiorty. (mind)
>To: Hix Hungary
>From: (Andy Kozma)
>Yes I like Eva Balogh writings.Most of the time she is right(in certain things
>But in her latest letter I found she is superior,to some peole.
>Well dear Eva maybe yourknowledge as far as your education is concerned is
superior to mine.Most probabley it is,sinve I hade to work for a living.But
this work has taught me many things,and I presume some other people too,what
you can notlearn in school,nor in university.Some of you who are writing in
>have degrees,wich shows in your writing.We probaley the majoritie,hade to
work and make a living not having time to educate ourself to the heigth of
you.So you are welcome to critisize my spelling and grammer,I won't be
hurt,but do not take advantage of your knowledge,and most of all your Caracter.
>I realise this was not ment for me,but I take it,since I feel your superior
behavior alittle estaunding,from an educated person as you.
>Sorry if I don't agrre with you on this.
|+ - ||Re: Superiorty. (mind)
At 12:48 PM 2/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>Yes I like Eva Balogh writings.Most of the time she is right(in certain
>>But in her latest letter I found she is superior,to some peole.
>>Well dear Eva maybe yourknowledge as far as your education is concerned is
>superior to mine.
You know Andy very well whom I meant. There are some pretty awful characters
on the Forum. Bigotted people who think they are superior to everybody.
Don't ask me to name names--I could! I certainly didn't mean you; I didn't
talk about spelling either.
Eva Balogh >
|+ - ||Re: Anti-feminist bias or not? (mind)
At 07:09 PM 1/30/96 -0500, Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker wrote:
>Thanks for the chuckle Joe. It shows you _have_ read some of Tom Peters
>books. A couple of them are good for insomniacs. He does have a tendency
>to be both repetitious and overly detailed sometimes. However, he does
>have a lot of good stuff, and at least two of them are better. The best,
>however is not by Tom, but another couple of members of his group, James
>Kouzes and Barry Posner. Their book is much livelier. Oh yes, the name of
>the book? _Credibility_. ;-)
Tom Peters and his ilk are charlatans. No. They are pimps! And if they
haven't invaded Hungary and Eastern Europe yet, they soon will. They've
done this part of the world already and have left their indelible stain.
The only thing that has changed, is that they, like all whoremasters, have
left with more money than they came with. But that's the real game, isn't it?
I don't know if you've ever attended any of their 'development' seminars.
If you have, did you notice that most, if not all of the attendees were
women. Certainly, that has been my experience. Often, I wondered why more
men were not going to these seminars. Then it occured to me that men are
less willing to please their boss than women. And that's because men have
much more power than women. If they can't please their boss, they can
always boss their partners.
Most of the 'self-help' books, and seminars are aimed at women because
someone figured out that women are often trying to 'improve' themselves.
Often, women who are battered, blame themselves for the abuse. They think
that "if only I was this", or "if only I did that", they wouldn't be abused.
Upon entering the work force, many women bring these feelings of inadequacy
with them. Being called 'girls' at work, and making less money than men,
many women jump at the opportunity to please and improve, in the hope that
working conditions will improve. But it seldom does.
Promoting these men and their ideas is like promoting the 'etiquette' books
for women at the turn of the century. It's not 'etiquette', 'development',
or 'improvement' that women want. It is equality.
>However, I think I have a much better recommendation for life, economy,
>philosophy, governmental studies, etc. reading all wrapped up in one
>writer-not a library, or maybe even a full shelf, at all-that might really
>spare the lobotomy--Mark Twain. ;-)
I have no argument with that recommendation.
|+ - ||Re: The Durant-Stowe Dustup (mind)
At 08:29 PM 1/31/96 -0500, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
>I agree with Celia that people are by nature selfish, one of the prime
>survival instincts. Yes, as Eva D. suggested, it is in everybody's interest
>to have a better society. But the problem lies in a determination of what
>is a better society. Probably every one of us has his or her own individual
>ideas as to what would constitute an improvement in our society. So, people
>with very different world views find it virtually impossible to agree on
>just what changes are desirable.
Whoa! Just a minute now, Johanne. You preclude the possibility, or
desirability, of working together, for the common good, as an act of
selfishness. Because resources are limited, and will remain so, it is in
everyones selfish interest to share. How much to share, is also in
everyones selfish interest, to decide. Selfishness is an argument for, not
|+ - ||Re: Political Correctness 90210 (mind)
I guess that was your interpretation of a "fris csardas".
I'm still holding on, pal and you're spinning, not me.
>This is not a good start Jancsi. I did not start off "the whole PC thing".
>Several writers to this newsgroup made snide remarks about this or that
>being politically correct. What I did was to explain my position on
>political correctness. Some people agree with my position and some don't.
>You just don't understand, period.
If you can show me those then, fine. I'll let you have a break, since you like
the last word as much as I do.
>Oh please! Your ability(?) to link a civil request to call people by
That's your first mistake: Mixing politics and social issues.
Letting the government intervene in your social life, because you haven't got
the balls to correct your own stupid mistakes. Forcing a pathetic,
unproductive, polarizing, government policy under the guise of "social
correctness". Where have we heard this before?? McCarthyism all over again.
How are you going to help......... Actually, the question is: Are you willing
to help the bigot, the racist, the anti-Semite, the homophobe, the chauvinist,
the sexist, and any other pathetic soul that is not PC deal with his/her
particular problem?? The answer is a resounding NO!!! Insted, you and the PC
police will do everything to make their lives more miserable than they may be
already. You'll blacklist them, taunt them, and possibly jail them. Really,
productive, Joe. Just as about as productive as any other policy the government
has dabbled in already.
>non-offensive terms to political dictatorships shows that not only do you
>not understand politics, you don't understand human communication either.
You must surely jest. I never even touched on it. All I've touched on was one
extreme vs. another, which are more less the same when you come down to it. I
questioned why should you be molded to a "political policy", rather than know
the difference between right and wrong, yourself??
>Yes. So what's your point? If a white racist calls African Americans,
>'niggers', and that person is told, or asked not to do that, and that racist
>calls the request oppression, what would you do.
> From your rants it would
>appear that you would allow the racist to continue to be a racist for fear
Are you done, yet???
>of being oppressive. The fact that the racist is oppressive is lost on you.
So, I guess Farahkhan calling the Jews, "Devils" is completely OK, in your
book?? You, also, really enjoy using the word 'nigger' liberally, for someone
who's into being "PC". You're a nut!!! In case you didn't know name calling is
protected under the Constitution, believe it or not. So, there's not much you
can do, without coming up with some complex law that can stop that kind of
crap, so of course the racist is going to say it's oppressive, otherwise they
would of come up with a law a long time ago. You can't ban speech from one
group of hate mongers and not ban it from another. Again, Joe, you never look
at both sides. You're spinning, Joe. Spinning.
> You don't have the foggiest idea of what I was formerly known as.
That joke flew over your head, didn't it??
> But this insight into how your brain works is telling.
I thought we were dancing!! How did I get on your couch, Dr. Szalai??
> You seem to think that because women were called girls when they were young,
it will always be OK to call them that.
So start a campaign to ban the Frito Lay commercial, with the supermodels on it
stating, that, "You can eat like one of the guys and still look like one of the
girls." It could actually have some weight, with the proper leadership.
Obviously, the great defender of women, won't lead the charge against potato
chip giant Frito Lay accusing them of blatant chauvinism, disrespect to the
unbeautiful, and disrespect to the horizontally challenged. He'd rather try (?)
and prove that I'm the ultimate chauvinist. You'd be famous Joe!!!! Then you
can do Larry King, Oprah, Sally Jesse Raphael, and Christina (on Telemundo) to
speak to my Hispanic folk as well. Don't forget those of us who helped you
further your career.
With those under your belt you can do infomercials with Fran Tarkenton and plug
your video tape "PC, The Internet, and You!!" a 5 video tape course on how to
indentify and expose chauvinists on the Internet. It all can be yours for 5
easy payments of $99.00. Plus, if you order now, you get not 1, but 2 sets of
Ginsu knives, but that's not all. If mention the name 'Janos Czifra' you get an
autograph copy of every e-mail confrontation between Joe Szalai and Janos
Czifra (normally an astronomical amount of money) absolutely free.
Hmmmmm! Go on Dr. Szalai.
> Also, because parents call their children by affectionate terms, you figure
that it's all right for you >to do the same, even when the person is a mature
adult. No doubt in your world, only you
>mature. The rest of us remain children.
If you whine constantly about me, then yes!! If you're ignorant, then yes!! If
you're one sided, then yes!! If want to try (?) to beat me down with your PC
Baton you hide behind, then yes!!
>Late last year you referred to Eva Balogh, as Evikem. Why? You are not her
>parent and you are younger. Rather than showing affection,
I hardly know Eva Balogh. I'm sure she's nice. I don't neccessarily agree with
everything she says, but you don't see her accusing me of being a chauvinist
now do you. The concept of cyber love hasn't sunk in, yet, with me. It would be
a bit perverse to come out in an e-mail and say, "I love you. I disagree with
you, but I still love you.".
> you were unmasking
Fingerpointing again, Joe?? Oink, oink!!!
You know, you're 100% correct about not calling you "Jozsi". Joska baci's
apparent acute senility caused him to forget my posts about women and sport,
which wasn't in the least bit chauvinist. How dare you put me in the same
pedestal as Sandor Krisztyan (The Hungary List's resident chauvinist
extraordinare.)?? You think he's nuts here?? Get on Moka and you'll see some
Yes!!! I am and I'm proud of it. It would be a great name for cologne, wouldn't
by Guy LaRoche
> Have you ever apologized
> to her?
Now, Joe Szalai comes out and defends all women against one Janos Czifra, after
the fact!!!! If you were SOOOOO concerned about me referencing Eva Balogh as
Evikem, late last year, where were you then??? If she felt extremely offended
by 'Evikem', which she wasn't, she would've asked or demanded an apology, which
I would grant her because she asked me to. It's only fair. The only thing she
did to tell me that she doesn't like the Evikem reference was to do this to
Evikem :Eva (not Evikem) or something to that affect. Did I do it again?? No.
She's obviously, better judge of people than you are. But, Joe Szalai the PC
policeman marked me as the bad guy.
I don't classify myself as chauvinist, PC, non-PC, or anything (If you're going
to label me, then label me as a Radical Centralist in honour of my mentor Paul
Hopkinson- founder of the Radical Centralist Party years ago in High School,
hence the 90210 reference in the subject ). I'm a human being first, which
means I make mistakes as well as you and anybody esle. I don't shove any of my
beliefs down peoples throats, unlike yourself. Now if this "PC" bullshit is
about doing what you've been doing and not contributing to the greater good of
all mankind then I feel sorry for you. As Robert Nesta (Bob Marley) said,
"Judge not, before you judge yourself." and you'll be alright. If you can't
give a rational explanation of why I'm wrong and just banter out that I'm this
or that, then how PC are you?? Your worse than Sandor Krisztyan. At least he
admits he's chauvinist or pig-headed and he'll tell you like it is insted of
all this PC sugar-coating nonsense. PC only covers a certain segment of words,
phrases, or label that are currently bad.
Let's take the phrase: fat person
How do you make it PC as not to offend the person? Horizontally challenged
How about: chauvinist
Is there a PC way of saying chauvinist??
You tag me with the chauvinist label. It's not a nice thing to say or call
someone, especially if you haven't proved that person a chauvinist. I'm
offended, but yet everyone on this list sees that tag you put on me and I'm
stuck with it. It's no different than it was before except for certain words
that were left out in PC 95. It's very hypercritical, when you really look at
it. This is what government for the people and by the people has provided for
us. When's the upgrade coming out , Joe?? There's is a PC 97 coming out, but
the alpha version is code named "Szalai". If you're not into offending anybody
at all then cover all of your bases, not just the ones that you think should be
>Get a life!!
Wake up and smell what you've been shoveling!!!
Your fellow human,
john_czifra @ shi.com