In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:

>Sam, you like to think our American culture is very similar to that of
our
>mostly West European ancestry.  Is it not argueable, then, that our
mid-20th
>century leaders were/are no different in their attitudes and behaviors
than
>their British and French relations?  When we know, how much the U.S. has
>influenced Latin America, and how much Africa and Asia have been
influenced
>by the machinations of French, British, Dutch, etc., why should we
believe
>that East Central Europe would be somehow spared what the great powers or
>really the great leaders within them were so willing to do to anyone else
>they considered weak--or able to be weakened?  Do you really think what
the
>U.S. did in Guatemala and Chile was without precedent elsewhere?

Where is your evidence that anything of that subtle a nature has taken
place in Hungary? The only interventionism in Hungary during this century
has been through direct military occupation, by the Romanians for a few
months in 1919 and by the Russians for close to 50 years. You fabricate an
argument that seeks to limit or absolve Hungary for the role it played in
creating its own historical tragedy during this century. Hungary was not
some Third World colonial entrepot in 1914. It was, in many ways, the
stronger of the two major nations in the Habsburg entity. Hungarians
entered World War I as willing combatants, just like the Austrians, the
Germans, the Russians, the British, the French and the Italians. When it
entered the Second World War in June, 1941, Hungary did so as a willing
ally of the Nazi German state. Your belief in Hungary as a victim of
Western perfidy may play real well in right wing circles there. But it's
the same cheap avoidance of responsibility common to alcoholics and
wife-beaters. Hungary and Hungarians deserve a lot better.
Sam Stowe

In article >, SorG Farkas
> writes:

>As far as I know, no one disputes the Romanians' claims of being the
>descendants of the Romans (as a matter of fact the Romanian language is
very
>close to Latin and the territory was occupied by the Romans). What is
being
>disputed by some is the Dac descendence.
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>

Yup, you're right. Good thing I didn't question the Romanians' claims to
be descendents of the Romans. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with
Spanish, Italian, French or Portuguese can easily see for themselves that
Romanian is descended from Latin.
Sam Stowe

>
>

> > Does someone in this group from a state or nation that does have this
> combination > and would like to tell us how it can be done?  Some positive
> > information/experience, please?  No guessing or "I thinking."
> >

Anyway, this reasoning "We haven't got one yet that works"
wouldn't have allowed anything new in human history.
(Those loonies with their flying machines... have you
seen the thousands of well documented failures before
they got it right?)
Eva Durant

>
> And you think the elites of the pre-1988 East Europe were any less greedy
> and rapacious?  Think Joe, what does both these items--your "Nation article"
> and the pre-1988 facts say about the likelihood of  _human_ nature--and its
> inevitable tendency to keep forming rapacious greedy elites regardless of
> many attempted changes in the political and social structures?
>

But in capitalism you have to be greedy to be a business
success, you have to make the profits bigger - making
exactly the same year after year is not good enough.
So it is not "human nature". The elites in pre-88 had
a difficult time to hide their loot, even the not
really so luxurious holiday-places were hidden from
public knowledge.  Imagine how difficult it would
be in a genuinly democratic/open society.

(In my opinion, it was more connections and corruption
that helped loads of the leaders of the old system to
become the new captains of capitalism, I don't think
many had a chance to have accounts in swiss banks
before the very last years. But I could be wrong...)

Eva Durant

Does anybody know of a Hungarian Newspaper -- written in English -- that is
available in Canada?  Please send me mail or post any info that you might have.
Many thanks!

I need the detailed expences of a
software-development please, with
the name of the programme and the company.
I have some Hungarian info, I wouldn't mind
more, but also from the US, etc.
It's nothing evil, honest, just a schoolproject.
Thanks for any help. (I need it by thursday.)

Dear Sam and group;

At 04:43 PM 2/27/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In article >, SorG Farkas
> writes:
>
>>As far as I know, no one disputes the Romanians' claims of being the
>>descendants of the Romans (as a matter of fact the Romanian language is
>very
>>close to Latin and the territory was occupied by the Romans). What is
>being
>>disputed by some is the Dac descendence.
>>
>>Gabor D. Farkas
>>
>>
>
>Yup, you're right. Good thing I didn't question the Romanians' claims to
>be descendents of the Romans. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with
>Spanish, Italian, French or Portuguese can easily see for themselves that
>Romanian is descended from Latin.
>Sam Stowe
>

Agreed.  So is Albanian, and we know that people _never_ moved around in the
Balkans, or the rest of Eurasia, at any time in the last 200, 1000 or more
years, right?  ;-)

Say, does this mean ancient Magyar is actually Celtic? ;-)

(Maybe I'd better go check to see what it was my favorite local meat market
just recently put into the new hotter BBQ sauce recipe for the beef jerky I
just enjoyed...)

Cecilia

San Jose, CA, USA (well if you've seen the crazy weather we've been having
here--remember this is supposed to be out of the snow belt, you'd understand
the measures to try to "combat" it...)

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, Stowewrite wrote:

>.....You  [Celia Becker] fabricate an
> argument that seeks to limit or absolve Hungary for the role it played in
> creating its own historical tragedy during this century. Hungary was not
> some Third World colonial entrepot in 1914. It was, in many ways, the
> stronger of the two major nations in the Habsburg entity. Hungarians
> entered World War I as willing combatants, just like the Austrians, the
> Germans, the Russians, the British, the French and the Italians. When it
> entered the Second World War in June, 1941, Hungary did so as a willing
> ally of the Nazi German state. Your belief in Hungary as a victim of
> Western perfidy may play real well in right wing circles there. But it's
> the same cheap avoidance of responsibility common to alcoholics and
> wife-beaters. Hungary and Hungarians deserve a lot better.
> Sam Stowe
>


All the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe nurse the resentment that
no one in the world understands them, or stands with them.  They are
alone in their struggle against [the Muslims, the Germans, the
Jews...fill in the blank] from whom they valiantly saved the West in the
past, but the West will not be grateful for it.  They are the victims of
great international plots engineered by [the French, the British, the
Germans, the Jews...].  That the French, the British, and the Germans did
indeed meddle everywhere from the Napoleonic era to the present is true.
But the illusion far surpasses those truths.  Paranoids often have real
enemies.

There are however, counter-forces in Hungary...many people who freely
admit the Hungarian errors in siding so often with the Germans, who allow
that the subject nationalities of the Hungarian wing of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire had real grieveances.  Many of my students at
KLTE were heartily ashamed of Hungarian history, and wanted somehow to
escape from it!  I thought this was gross over-reaction...but a lot
better than the anti-Semitic irredentist rants I heard from some faculty
friends.

The country as a whole seemed really quite sane, and eager to get on with
at last joining the West, and recovering the position in the world they
almost had secured in 1900.

RWA.

Dear Sam:

I hardly think that Jacques Coquillat, the vice-consul of France to the U.S.
at the San Francisco office during 1990 would like to be called "right wing"
and a "fabricator of statements about things that didn't happen."

At 04:45 PM 2/27/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In article >, Tony and Celia
>Becker > writes:
>
>>Sam, you like to think our American culture is very similar to that of
>our
>>mostly West European ancestry.  Is it not argueable, then, that our
>mid-20th
>>century leaders were/are no different in their attitudes and behaviors
>than
>>their British and French relations?  When we know, how much the U.S. has
>>influenced Latin America, and how much Africa and Asia have been
>influenced
>>by the machinations of French, British, Dutch, etc., why should we
>believe
>>that East Central Europe would be somehow spared what the great powers or
>>really the great leaders within them were so willing to do to anyone else
>>they considered weak--or able to be weakened?  Do you really think what
>the
>>U.S. did in Guatemala and Chile was without precedent elsewhere?
>
>Where is your evidence that anything of that subtle a nature has taken
>place in Hungary?

French _government_ documents, confirmed, both verbally and in writing, by
French government officials--documents found in 1988; confirmation received
in 1990, when I first questioned what was a second hand report, and a minor
cryptic newspaper article in the local (that is San Jose-Silicon Valley
metropolitan) newspaper.  If I can confirm this, no doubt you could
too--should you even wish to try and risk upsetting your own comfortable
prejudices.  I've posted the detail on this before, and I'm getting tired of
repeating myself.  If you can't be bothered to accept what the Mitterand
government itself well publicized in continental Europe in 1988-9, that's
your problem, not mine, or for the rest of this group.

 The only interventionism in Hungary during this century
>has been through direct military occupation, by the Romanians for a few
>months in 1919 and by the Russians for close to 50 years. You fabricate an
>argument that seeks to limit or absolve Hungary for the role it played in
>creating its own historical tragedy during this century. Hungary was not
>some Third World colonial entrepot in 1914. It was, in many ways, the
>stronger of the two major nations in the Habsburg entity. Hungarians
>entered World War I as willing combatants, just like the Austrians, the
>Germans, the Russians, the British, the French and the Italians. When it
>entered the Second World War in June, 1941, Hungary did so as a willing
>ally of the Nazi German state. Your belief in Hungary as a victim of
>Western perfidy may play real well in right wing circles there. But it's
>the same cheap avoidance of responsibility common to alcoholics and
>wife-beaters. Hungary and Hungarians deserve a lot better.

They sure do, and it doesn't look like they're getting it from this posting
to which I am replying.

Sam, just what college do you teach graduate students at anyway?  You have
several times expressed the idea your own beliefs and pronouncements ought
to be accepted as fact because you "teach graduate students at a college."

There are thousands of teachers at hundreds of colleges; both colleges and
teachers having differing viewpoints, and of differing quality--all
subjective in determination of that quality.  No one individual has all
truth and knowledge and for every opinion stated on this or any other group,
one can find a professorial opinion somewhere else that either partly or
completely disagrees, or suggests additions or modifications.  All one needs
to do is remove the blinders he or she self imposes--if he or she is willing
to do so.  Sam, I've posted books, references, etc. on this subject that are
considered credible by professors at several universities out here--and the
professors do _not_ include either Mr. Shockley or Ms. Davis.  Now if you
don't choose to believe that, that's fine for you. You have the right to
disbelieve or ignore anything you darned well choose to disbelieve or
ignore.  However, don't set yourself up at the one and only, complete,
immutable truth for everyone else.  You're not God, Sam.

I'm not perfect either, nor are all my beliefs, and I sure hope I have the
sense to reconsider or change them when enough new, valid information comes
to my attention and that I continue to be willing to consider new
information that might not agree with my own knowledge of older or other
sources.  I'm perfectly willing to fund--and have done so--neutral research,
and forums to get at the truth of debatable subjects and issues. Though I
might have a fairly good opinion of myself, I'm still willing to discuss and
treat fairly reasonable, respectful opinions that differ from my own.

However, I'm not willing yet to state that almost _any_ body of current
knowledge on any subject is the last word and the immutable truth and there
is nothing else to discover.  I'd appreciate it if you'd at least respect
this view and consider that others might feel the same way, and skip the
character assasinations, and insults when you disagree with a statement.  It
would be much more productive to discuss academic, political (whatever)
sources of information, and how much and how recently they themselves have
worked with/involved primary materials--and how widespread, and consider all
possibilities and not just either deny or off-handedly dismiss the very
existence of books, vice-consuls, other valid materials which might not
agree with your own previously accepted ones.

You know your postings remind me, sometimes--not always, of an teacher that
Stanford University employed for quite sometime, despite some rather
interesting views he _long_ had--and which he had stated long before he was
"eased out."  I don't think it's an interpretive comparison you would really
wish any reader, including myself to feel. Perhaps you have heard of him:
William Shockley?  He was very good at some things, and studies, but not so
great at others--yet he insisted on "teaching/preaching" all views on the
various subjects, equally.  Teaching at a college (remembering also that
colleges--and departments within them--themselves have varying reputations
and rankings), I learned a long time ago, is no guarantee of the quality of
what is being taught.  Angela Davis is still a teacher in the UC system, at
Santa Cruz--was recently even made a departmental head.  Then there was the
philosophy professor for awhile at one of my own colleges who thought he was
the soul-twin of Ringo Starr, etc., etc.

Then there were the anthropology professors who spent 20 years trying to
ignore William McNeish.  Then ask Michael Coe about the famous still ongoing
debate with his own brother William Coe about the origins of the Mayas--and
remember both are highly esteemed university professors and researchers.

Sam, I can't speak for the others, only for myself, but to me, you're not
representing the academic disciplines and traditions of what I would expect
of a truly fine university very well, with postings like this latest one.  I
know you can do better than this.  I've seen some wonderful postings of
yours.  Would you please exercise a bit more consistency in that direction?
Thank you for your consideration of this.

Sincerely,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA





>Sam Stowe
>
>
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Eva;

At 10:11 AM 2/28/96 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> > Does someone in this group from a state or nation that does have this
>> combination > and would like to tell us how it can be done?  Some positive
>> > information/experience, please?  No guessing or "I thinking."
>> >
>
>Anyway, this reasoning "We haven't got one yet that works"
>wouldn't have allowed anything new in human history.
>(Those loonies with their flying machines... have you
>seen the thousands of well documented failures before
>they got it right?)
>Eva Durant
>
I have several such spectacular failures/museum pieces, etc. still in
storage at my husband's company.  Is there anyone on the net who would like
an entire GE Calma system?  Hint: it will take something considerably larger
than a one-ton pick-up truck to haul it away...  I also once tried to glide
off a roof in the days before hang-gliders (11 years old at the time...)
However, this doesn't really reply to your posting, and I admit this.

I'm asking to learn either of a success, or what the problems have been if
this combination doesn't yet exist.  Personally, I believe universal health
care that is also reasonable in cost can exist, but it hasn't been
adequately researched to consider all the major bugs.  In fact, I've been
working with a major Congressional candidate for some time now on this very
issue, and regardless of whether or not he makes it in November, we do
indeed intend to put a proposal into the next Congress through the
connections he's been carefully building.  I've been working on this,
actually trying to both "get it right" and get enough support from those who
can make it happen for over 20 years now.  I was once one of the McGovern
research and policy making team as early as 1972 and this was one of the big
issues then.

Unfortunately, the comments that question my sense, interest, etc. don't
exactly give me any solid information that a Congressional committee--or
leader--would find particularly helpful in examining or solving this
problem.  Now if someone wants to take my questions seriously, as they were
meant, I'd greatly appreciate it.  Otherwise, I guess I'll have to find some
other group on the internet that might have a little more real knowledge or
experience and be willing to discuss the issue more rationally.

I'm looking for information--not personal insults.

And yes, the Wright brothers et al were each firsts--but often they at least
had something in nature--like birds--also part of the "animal kingdom" to
consider for some possible emulation.  The bee, by mere theory and
mathematical analyses wasn't supposed to be able to fly, but scientific
observation consistently proves it does anyway.  The future, is indeed based
on the present and the past--but it's a sum of all measureable and
observable  (assuming we have all the means of observation we really need)
parts--good and bad.  Now, is there anyone out there who wants to help
provide some _real parts_?


Sincerely,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
3273B Rocky Water Lane
San Jose, CA, USA
tel.& fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: 

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Eva;

Thank you.  This reply I enjoy.  It's not meant as an insult (either way).
It seems to be good fun and some real thought.

At 10:49 AM 2/28/96 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>> And you think the elites of the pre-1988 East Europe were any less greedy
>> and rapacious?  Think Joe, what does both these items--your "Nation article"
>> and the pre-1988 facts say about the likelihood of  _human_ nature--and its
>> inevitable tendency to keep forming rapacious greedy elites regardless of
>> many attempted changes in the political and social structures?
>>
>
>But in capitalism you have to be greedy to be a business
>success, you have to make the profits bigger - making
>exactly the same year after year is not good enough.

Try substituting military hardware, overall steel production, just to have a
nation be the same as some other.  Then remember people were deciding that
their nations should compete in this manner.  Some of these people claimed
not to be capitalists, yet did compete.  How much military hardware is too
much, how much steel of poor quality?  Why keep producing all this?  Isn't
there greed in power and influence among nations as well?  Sorry, but I
don't think greed is limited to just money.  It's not been my observation,
or what I've seen/read in a number of history and anthropology books, but
that is just a personal opinion.  I haven't read every history and
anthropology book in the world, or experienced every country, or can
remember in detail all previous incarnations.  However, _if_ that I am
familiar with has any validity as a respectable "random sample," then the
view is at least worth considering for discussion.

>So it is not "human nature". The elites in pre-88 had
>a difficult time to hide their loot, even the not
>really so luxurious holiday-places were hidden from
>public knowledge.  Imagine how difficult it would
>be in a genuinly democratic/open society.

Agreed. It _is_ easier for a controlling elite to hide things in a closed,
secretive, controlled society than in an open society.  Yet, some of these
closed societies in which a considerable amount of private wealth has been
hidden, do claim/have claimed to be non-capitalist.  True it can be argued
that said hypocritical elites were finally upended (more or less), but how
was it when there was such a deliberate effort to get away from "greedy
capitalism" by so many in the first place, that so many individuals in power
in the new system--who were supposed to be the examples for others to
follow--ended up behaving in so much the same way as the elites that
preceded them?  What do you believe they overlooked in changing the human
society?
>
>(In my opinion, it was more connections and corruption
>that helped loads of the leaders of the old system to
>become the new captains of capitalism, I don't think
>many had a chance to have accounts in swiss banks
>before the very last years. But I could be wrong...)

Well, last I heard from a few persons who were in some position to know
these things, Diem only had a fraction of all those Swiss bank accounts, and
the Colombian drug cartels still hold less than 10%...  The remainder of the
Romanovs pretty well wiped theirs out years ago in trying to maintain a high
life style in hopes of going back to eventually rule in Russia (they were
slow to give up...  Actually, I was rather surprised to find a few, and a
tiny still fanatic core of supporters around them with some strange ideas
that still haven't given up.  Fascinating people to whom to occasionally
listen or watch, but I think I prefer to keep them at a distance greater
than a leap and an arm length to a collar or throat...)  Anyhow, yes there
are quite a few large accounts established pre-1988 by East/East Central
Europeans.  No, I'm not at liberty to name my sources, so it reasonable to
choose to _either_ believe or disbelieve this statement.  Ah, well, maybe in
another 50 or 75 years, our descendants can thresh it out a bit more.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA


(Gee it's so nice to feel my blood pressure going down again, after Sam's
and Joe's, etc. postings just before yours. I think I might finally enjoy a
cup of Dragon's Well tea without indigestion, now.  Thanks again for the
_nice posting._)





N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Eva;


At 01:02 PM 2/28/96 +0100, you wrote:

>I need the detailed expences of a
>software-development please, with
>the name of the programme and the company.
>I have some Hungarian info, I wouldn't mind
>more, but also from the US, etc.
>It's nothing evil, honest, just a schoolproject.
>Thanks for any help. (I need it by thursday.)

>
What kind of software or programs?  We've had experiences with a variety of
such things out here, in several computer languages--not to mention whatever
language a cat was using during one effort...  Yes, I'm absolutely serious,
we had occasional bugs one of our cats turned out to be putting into things.
Most of our program writing is now no longer done at home for just this
reason, even for personal use.  We have a strict agreement that _none_ of
the cats will be allowed into the study when my husband does the GEDCOM
creation and transfer from an old custom program to "Family Tree Maker,"
sometime in the next few weeks.

My husband and another engineer are still having problems developing a test
program for a new IC.  This has been ongoing for about three months now.  It
sort of works, but not as well, or automatically, as intended.  However,
courtesy of the stress, I've been the audience for a detailed accounting of
the process.

Sincerely,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA (the "capitol" of Silicon Valley)







N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Richard;

First of all, thank you very much for a polite and thoughtful response.

At 11:45 AM 2/28/96 -0800, you wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, Stowewrite wrote:
>
>>.....You  [Celia Becker] fabricate an
>> argument that seeks to limit or absolve Hungary for the role it played in
>> creating its own historical tragedy during this century. Hungary was not
>> some Third World colonial entrepot in 1914. It was, in many ways, the
>> stronger of the two major nations in the Habsburg entity. Hungarians
>> entered World War I as willing combatants, just like the Austrians, the
>> Germans, the Russians, the British, the French and the Italians. When it
>> entered the Second World War in June, 1941, Hungary did so as a willing
>> ally of the Nazi German state. Your belief in Hungary as a victim of
>> Western perfidy may play real well in right wing circles there. But it's
>> the same cheap avoidance of responsibility common to alcoholics and
>> wife-beaters. Hungary and Hungarians deserve a lot better.
>> Sam Stowe
>>
>
>
>All the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe nurse the resentment that
>no one in the world understands them, or stands with them.  They are
>alone in their struggle against [the Muslims, the Germans, the
>Jews...fill in the blank] from whom they valiantly saved the West in the
>past, but the West will not be grateful for it.  They are the victims of
>great international plots engineered by [the French, the British, the
>Germans, the Jews...].  That the French, the British, and the Germans did
>indeed meddle everywhere from the Napoleonic era to the present is true.
>But the illusion far surpasses those truths.  Paranoids often have real
>enemies.

True and not everyone who is initially thought as "just paranoid" always
turns out to be just that--there have been many "Cassandras."
>
>There are however, counter-forces in Hungary...many people who freely
>admit the Hungarian errors in siding so often with the Germans, who allow
>that the subject nationalities of the Hungarian wing of the
>Austro-Hungarian Empire had real grieveances.  Many of my students at
>KLTE were heartily ashamed of Hungarian history, and wanted somehow to
>escape from it!  I thought this was gross over-reaction...but a lot
>better than the anti-Semitic irredentist rants I heard from some faculty
>friends.

Again, thank you, thank you, thank you. My own father is very similar to one
of your students.  I was forbidden to learn Hungarian as a child because "we
should forget we ever were those barbaric Hungarians; our history is nothing
to be proud of etc., etc."  My father to this day will tell you he is "just
an American, that's all."  It's been darned difficult to sort out the truth
from among all the extremes and simplifications.  I'm still trying to sort
it all out, because I'd like my peoples to avoid some of the worst attitudes
and behaviors in the future that lead to violence and conflicts, etc..  I
don't think I know that much yet, despite almost 30 years of studies and
questions.

By the way, regardless of who did the initial betrayal of my reform-minded
grandfather and friends, the people who threw the firebombs, and shot the
bullets were more often Hungarians than any other ethnic group, and just
very willing to believe anything they heard from their friends without
examination.  Just as in the U.S. relationships with Latin America, or
Germany with Norway, there have been many types of "quislings" in every
country only too willing to allow themselves to be led by others for many
types of reasons.
>
>The country as a whole seemed really quite sane, and eager to get on with
>at last joining the West, and recovering the position in the world they
>almost had secured in 1900.

Generally agreed.  Thank heaven.  It just would be nice if there wasn't so
much baggage from the past still lying around to be tripped over--such as
minorities in other countries whose leaders still have a 1918 mentality
(that we should all be eradicated as "those barbaric, non-native Huns," or
whatever), or debts of which a small portion actually goes back to 1918 (we
never did get out of debt starting with the war debts, according to at least
2 Hungarian consuls in the last few years--and one international business
professor who's done some studies into this situation).  Now, the question
is, what in blazes do we do with the leftover (and still sometimes
ticking/crying) baggage?  Ignore it?  Throw it away?  Somehow I don't think
we'll get away with either.  I think the baggage is actually more like
alligators in that proverbial swamp to be drained...


However, again thank you very much for the polite and thoughtful posting.
Don't spend too much time thinking about answers to what are largely
unanswerable questions in the last paragraph.  It's more of a headache than
the questions are worth most of the time.  Hungarians are such a tiny
community already we'd be on the "endangered and forget it" list, if they
had such a thing for humans, anyway.  We probably won't exist as an entity
in another generation or so, so none of the concerns discussed in this group
or the Hungarian Lobby matter.  Whatever isn't done by any real or unreal
enemies will be done by our own and our good friends.  Right Sam, Joe, etc.?

Sincerely,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA





>
>RWA.
>
>
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Friends,

       Just in case you have missed this very important news.  I
    don't see how your life can go on without this knowledge. So
    you may consider me your rescuer :-))).

                                             Amos

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hungarian News Administrator >
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 06:38:13 -0600 (CST)
To: 
Subject:  HIRMONDO 7.024, 96/02/23

Adam es Eva is roman volt (MH)

Adam es Eva Romaniaban elt, tehat roman volt, es osi roman nyelvet
beszelt - tobbek kozt ezt igyekszik bebizonyitani az a tizkotetes munka,
amely rovidesen kaphato lesz a romaniai uzletekben.

A szerzok, Tudor Diaconu es dr.  Ilie Stanciu folfedezeseiket teljesen
tudomanyos alapon, szamitogepes matematikai modellezes utjan tettek.
Harmincesztendos kutatomunkajuk soran azt is kideritettek, hogy Romania
volt az egyetemes civilizacio bolcsoje, innen ered az egyiptomi, indiai,
babiloni, perzsa, kinai, gorog kultura, muveszet, tudomany, filozofia
orvostudomany, csillagaszat, teologia, kezmuvesseg, urbanizacio es
allamisag.  Hasonlokeppen az Adam es Eva altal beszelt nyelv, vagyis "az
adami Romania allamnyelve" kepezi az alapjat a Biblia es az indiai vedak
nyelvenek, amelyet roman papok dolgoztak ki.  A szerzok magyarazata
szerint mindez arra vezetheto vissza, hogy Romania foldjen evezredek ota
titokzatos eroforras sugaroz ki jotekony energiat.

At 11:16 AM 2/28/96 -0800,Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker - 
wrote:

>>
>>Yup, you're right. Good thing I didn't question the Romanians' claims to
>>be descendents of the Romans. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with
>>Spanish, Italian, French or Portuguese can easily see for themselves that
>>Romanian is descended from Latin.
>>Sam Stowe

What??? I do speak Romanian and used to speak Latin but what does this topic
have to do with Spanish, etc.?


>Agreed.  So is Albanian, and we know that people _never_ moved around in the
>Balkans, or the rest of Eurasia, at any time in the last 200, 1000 or more
>years, right?  ;-)

No, Albanian is not. And who said anything about movement or lack thereof? I
didn't.

>Say, does this mean ancient Magyar is actually Celtic? ;-)

No...:))))))))))) (although I am not a linguist).

Gabor D. Farkas

I stand corrected, indeed the working poor do not have health insurance. I
do not remember the numbers, but during the Hillary-plan debate it occured
to me that it would be much less expensive than the proposed plan to
increase taxation by the amount required to insure the working poor and just
give them the money to buy their own insurance.
I am and always will be opposed to government managed health insurance. It
never worked in Eastern Europe, it is on the brink of bankruptcy everywhere,
neither the doctors, nor the patients like it.
I agree with Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker about the lack of sufficient work in the
computerized patient record. A lot of work is being done in the field, and
based on what I know about the subject  I expect that within the next decade
things will change drastically.
Last time I was in the hospital, the plastic bracelet they attached to me
wrist had my name and a bar code on it. Since no one scanned it (while I was
awake) I assume they only use it in the morgue. It's a good start (or end?:-).

Gabor D. Farkas

> Felado :  [United States]
>
> Have you ever read Dr. Badiny's et al's book?  Also have you ever visited
> the little old church at Tihany where one of the first kings is buried?
I'm sorry Cecila but Pe1ter Hidas is on much more firmer ground about this
one than you are. Badiny, Bobula, etc. are certifiable cranks, and have
been so certified by a large variety of Sumerologists. Read Ge1za Komoro1czy's
"Sumer e1s magyar" (published in the "Gyorsulo1 Ido3" series of Magveto3
Publishing in 1975) to see why.

> >>"Thus we succeeded in proving that the Sumerian language did not die out bu
t
> >>in fact, did survive in the scattered Hungarian language remains in the
> >>Latin Chronicles Literature of the 10-12th centuries A.D."
> >
> >No Hungarian document survived from these centuries. Hungarian language
> >remains of the following centuries are Hungarian language fregments and not
> >Sumerian. Their grammatical structure is Finno-Ugric and so is their
> >vocabulary.
>
> Sorry, but Dr. Badiny refers to several, the introduction to at least one
> set of German translations of the Matthias Corvinus chronicles also refer to
> some of the items going back to the first Arpad kings, ( I found this set at
> the U of MN rare books archives), and the church at Tihany shows tourists a
> piece of about 12th century literature.
Dr. Badiny has it wrong. The description of the situation given by Pe1ter
Hidas (namely that only fragments survive from the period, and these are
thoroughly Finno-Ugric, is quite correct, however much we might disagree
about the prehistory of the language. Note also that this period is
separated by millenia from the latest Sumerian material.

> Just because you, personally, Peter, have not acquainted yourself with
> either the latest, work, or recent proceedings from the foremost
> international society of researchers into a given subject doesn't mean that
> the information or concepts are wrong.
I think you have it backwards. The foremost experts on this subject are
now dismissing, and have always dismissed, the Sumer-Magyar connection as
absolute nonsense.

> I am quite sure this question will continue for at least another 10-15
> years--judging from what I've seen regarding other issues in the field of
> history and anthropology--and that there will always be an element that
> refuses to accept whatever finally becomes an established scientific
> consensus, just as we still have the existence of a "flat earth society."
Sure it will continue. Flat Eearth at least has the merit that to the
naive observer it really appears to be so. The Sumer-Hungarian connection
does not even have this kind of appeal. Nevertheless, I expect these people
to persist, much as flatearthers persist.

> I just hope the discussion is going better at the universities among real
> Sumerian researchers--and not just those who like to try to interpret their
> work--or worse, just summaries of their work--than in this discussion group.
Your hopes are misplaced. Among real Sumerian researchers this work is
discussed as little as Flat Earth is duscussed among real astronomers.

Andra1s Kornai

S.Stowe wrote:

>place in Hungary? The only interventionism in Hungary during this century
>has been through direct military occupation, by the Romanians for a few
>months in 1919 and by the Russians for close to 50 years. You fabricate an

And a German occupation from March 1944 to April 1945.

>argument that seeks to limit or absolve Hungary for the role it played in
>creating its own historical tragedy during this century. Hungary was not
>some Third World colonial entrepot in 1914. It was, in many ways, the
>stronger of the two major nations in the Habsburg entity. Hungarians
>entered World War I as willing combatants, just like the Austrians, the
>Germans, the Russians, the British, the French and the Italians.

What do you want to tell with this? We should have foreseen the outcome
of WWI? But some way you are right, everybody is responsible for his/her
decission. However I cannot really imagine any real possibility not to
enter that war, only theoretical ones. During the recent history of Hungary
there were much greater mistakes of the Hungarian politicians than this one.

>entered the Second World War in June, 1941, Hungary did so as a willing
>ally of the Nazi German state. Your belief in Hungary as a victim of
>Western perfidy may play real well in right wing circles there.

That was a mistake I agree, but did not count to much. What were our options?
Later on we would have either entered the war on the German side or had been
occupied by them, and afterward by the Russians anyway. The 'only' things we
could have achieved by some balancing, delaying the German occupation and
saving lifes (I am not so sure about the later). Maybe we would have gained som
e
territory from Rumania (but not from Serbia or Slovakia) and we would have a
little bit better reputation. But what did the good reputation help on the
Poles, they are in the same shit as we hungarians. And this saving lifes and
gaining some territory would have required so much diplomatic skill that it
was far beyond the capabilities of the hungarian aristocracy at that time (of
course with some exception like Grof Teleki). And I am not so sure that most
of the western piliticians could have done it, too.

>But it's the same cheap avoidance of responsibility common to alcoholics and
>wife-beaters. Hungary and Hungarians deserve a lot better.

True, complaining always and blaming somebody else does not help, and is not
 fair.
But compering this with the avoidance of responsibility of alcoholics ?!?

Janos