Test

Test

 () wrote:


>No most miert emlitem ezt megint?  Hat azert, mivel ismet idoszerunek
>ereztem a mostani, HUNGARY listaba "disszidalt" regebbi FORUM-irok
>FORUMot gyalazo cikkei miatt.  Mivel ezen irok tobbnyire a SZALON
>torzsgardaja is, talan nem engedem tul messze a fantaziamat, ha azt
>feltetelezem, hogy Hollosi fenti, csak a FORUMot sujto megszoritasat
>ok is sugalltak, vagy helyeseltek.  Ezert aztan eleg humoros, ahogy
>vedeni igyekeznek a HUNGARYn folyo, FORUMot besarozo tevekenyseguket
>meg olyan, szelsosegesnek egyaltalan nem mondhato FORUMozok enyhe
>tiltakozasa elleneben is, mint Bathory Gyorgy es Zimanyi Magda.

>Mit gondoltok?

>Pannon J.

	The owner of Hungary is not Jozsi Hollosi, but Hugh Agnew. Hungary is
not a HIX publication. Therefore, the above example (Forum versus
Szalon as opposed to Forum versus Hungary) is simply not applicable to
the case.

	Eva Balogh

She follows *not* a double standard on the "Hungary" list.
That infamous list has no standard - the goal is to defame
and badmouth Hungarians in any way she and her likenesses can.

Pathological liar and her accomplices would tell a shocked
world that there was NO "freedomfight" in Hungary in 1956,
although looking at http://www.siliconvalley.com/nemzet.html
it is obvious that the "men of the year" of 1956 by Time
Magazine (and the civilized world) know better. She can not
debate the umpteen academic proofs, by me, and by so many others
who prove her not only wrong but outright lying (the University
Revolutionary Committee that she pretends to had been part
of, *started* its manifesto in Oct. 56 by the words "szabadsagharc"
(freedomfight)! Yet, she ignores proofs and instead bombards
the list' owner with demands to censor, to haunt out the one
with undeniable proofs for "freedomfight" in the Hungarian
Revolution of 1956.

Once I am censored out from the list, which according to her
lies is *not* moderated, she starts not only her shameful
"damage control" (pretending she did not say: "in Hungarian we
never call 1956 'szabadsagharc'"), but hiding in the dark shadow
of censorship, when her opponent is forbidden to submit proofs of
her constant stream of lies to the list, she brazenly accuses
me, by name, not only with falsehoods that are a few million times
stronger that I ever uttered about Eva Balogh, but in addition she
publicly confuses me with an assortment of people -- only to
prove to readers that she is hearing voices in the advanced stages
of her pathological condition.

Sure, she is backed by liberal idiots who would be the "judge"
if we call 1956 "szabadsagharc" (in Hungarian: freedomfight).
For the spineless, it does not matter at all, that the "judge"
of whether we call in Hungarian language 1956 "szabadsagharc"
has stated himself that he
(a) has never set foot in Hungary
(b) DOES NOT KNOW THE HUNGARIAN LANGUAGE AT ALL!

Sure, she is *boasting* to have been telling on several of her
opponents; demanding censorship of "Hungary", crying for censorship
on "Forum", writing for censorship of "Radio Petofi, Budapest",
demanding censorship of not only me, but as a collective punishment
banning EVERY AND ALL USERS of an Internet domain for instance from
reaching "Hungarian Lobby". As if Maria Langi or Reverend Jeno Katona
(and so many others) would not be separate individuals with absolutely
no responsibility for whatever I say - their only "sin" being that
they use the same Internet domain!

You guessed it -- she would not hide (typical; she was boasting
about it!) that she was indocrtinated by communism so bad that
even after escaping in 1956 (for what?! who knows?!) she devoted
herself to a new round of studying Marxims once in the Free World!
Spineless marxists defend one-another; she does all the lip service
to the regime under Gyula Horn, who fought *against* freedomfighters
in 1956 as confessed member of the armed gang of murderers;
"munkasorseg" (workers' militia).

And now, with all her filth exposed in one list after the other, she
claims "no double standard" -- Eva Balogh is no longer pathological...

she is pathetic.

In article >,
 > wrote:

Look Andras this is becoming very juvenile. YOu have a
disagreement, andI would risk to say that she was wrong
whether freedom-fight is the appropriate word to use in
connection with 56. She obviously does not mean to deny
the revolution, she insist that a different term is
appropriate. For the umpteenth time you are bringing this up
asserting that thsi makes her a patholigcal liar, and that
she doesnt's speak Hungarian. 

You may be right that she is wrong, but your assertion only
shows  how childish you are. 

Just consider the issue at hand, and  think about how it
warrants your reaction. WHat Balog Eva says is a question of
word usage that does not imply anything derogatory about the
revolution. This is just a non-issue, and if you keep
bringing it up on every forum repeatedly it just shows how
childish you are, and how you cannot be taken seriously.

Istvan

In article >,  (Peter
Szaszvari) wrote:

> In article >,  wrote:
> 
> > Ez olyan gyalazat,
> >mintha valaki nem olvasna az scm-et es ugy jelentene ki hogy
> >"Szaszvari Peter egy mocskos magyarsag- es egyhazgyulolo
> >gazember", hogy azt nem tudna boseges dokumentumokkal ala-
> >tamasztani.
> >
> 
> 
> Koszonom, kezdek mindent erteni :)


en is gyulolom a macskos magyarsagot! en is! van egy masfele magyarsag
amit szeretek, de a mocskosat en is gyulolom!

(olyan jo erzes mikor az ember kezd mindent megerteni... koszi pellionisz ur!)

hja... mielott elfelejtem... van itt egy haz, nem messze, valaki
rozsaszinre festette... allati ronda. mit mondjak... haaat... oke,
elismerem. en is gazember vagyok. mert... gyulolom. hogyafeneegyemeg.

udv
ef

-- 
NWHQ
http://www.knosso.com/NWHQ/

In article >, 
(Istvan Szucs) wrote:

> I agree, but I cannot imagine how the text in the
> excerpts could be justified by anything in the story.

i have not read the excerpts; i have not read the story. *but* (it seems to me)

1. a literary work should be considered in its entirety... always.

2. a literary work should be considered on the basis of its literary merit
and *not* its subject-matter.

( now #2 is difficult, i admit, even for myself. seeing as some
subject-matters do indeed impact adversely on my ahm... emotional
well-being. and still i will maintain: that the content of a literary work
is its language, and not its subject-matter. dunno... celine comes to
mind.)

ef

-- 
NWHQ
http://www.knosso.com/NWHQ/

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

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Peter Szaszvari wrote:
> Fantasztikus! Ugy latszik ez az idiota M Egorov aki a mult heten 
> provokalni kezdett is Pellionisz.

 Inkabb ugy tunik, hogy tobbeket utanoz...
- --
 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

iQBVAwUBMc2JCsQ/4s87M5ohAQF2AAIAipMVT3jWN+Uh0OhYLp+FbkZWLh45RwhV
r1vRgLzz/qpnezdcGSTSnCtF8mbGf4zTql/EqwW+mtAno6rkemht9Q==
=oqni
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----