Csonka Andras wrote:
> 
> Tisztelt Halozati Polgarok!
> 
> 1993 ota adunk ki Okotaj neven egy okologiai-kulturalis folyoiratot,
> negyedevente, felevente, ahogy a penzunk futja. Elokeszuletben levo
> kovetkezo szamunkban az elit temajaval foglalkozunk. Szeretnenk
> megtudni az Internet-vilag velemenyet a kovetkezo kerdesekrol:
> - Ki az elit ma a vilagon?
> - Letezik-e a szo eredeti ertelmeben elit?
> - Letezik-e mar Internet elit?
> 
> Christopher Lasch 1995-ben megjelent The Revolt of the Elites and
> the Betrayal of Democracy˛ cimu konyveben talaltuk az alabbi erdekes
> gondolatokat a temaval kapcsolatban. Varjuk ezzel kapcsolatos
> velemenyuket is:
> - łMa nem annyira a tomegek, mint az elitek lazadasa fenyegeti a
> vilagot.˛
> - łAz elitek uj, globalis szervezetet alkotnak a helyi tarsadalmak
> folott...uraljak az egesz foldgolyot behalozo kommunikacios es
> informacios sztradakat.˛
> - łHatekony eszkozeik birtokaban az elitek minden alol kibujhatnak,
> ami az igenyeiket es expanziojukat korlatozna.˛
> 
> Varjuk velemenyuket!
> 
> A szerkesztoseg    
Kedves Csonka Andras:

  1./ Elit:olyan vezeto/uralkodoreteg, mely szamaranyan felul- joval 
nagyobb mertekben befolyasolja egy tarsadalom soranak alakulasat kb. 
azota volt, miota az emberrevalas elindult. Most is van- azok, akik a 
gazdasagi/politikai/media-hatalmat&ellenorzest birjak es gyakoroljak. 
Kik ezek? nezzen korul - otthon is , a vilagban is.Mindenkeppen vegyes 
tarsasag!
  2./ De nem tudom , hogy mit ert az eredeti ertelmu elit alatt: en a 
fentebbit.
  3./ Az elit ketsegtelenul hatalmanak mertekeben van jelen az 
Interneten: ugy is mint birtokloja, ugy is mint befolyasoloja es 
hasznaloja az Internet nyujtotta technologiai/gazdasagi/media-ellenorzo
lehetosegeknek. Tavaly Mo.-n kb 60.000-re becsultek az Internettel 
kapcsolatban allo/azt valamikeppen hasznalo  magyar polgarok szamat- ez 
az orszag lakossaganak cca 0.6%-at teszi ki. Orvendezzen- On is 
vmikeppen a magyar elit tagja !En mar lenyegesen gyengebb pozicioban 
vagyok, a cca felso 10%-ban vagyok benne  Internet-jelenletemmel itt az 
USA-ban.Ha amerikai magyarkent tartom szamon magam, poziciom javul.
  Lasch urnak van nehany felig kelt/atsult gondolata:
  ad cit.1./: az elit nem lazad, ha oly mertekben ural valamit, mint 
ahogyan szerzoje posztulalja; ellenkezoleg- ellenoriz, manipulal, 
megtart es atalakit ha kell, de nem rombol! miert is tenne, az o 
hatalmat szolgalja!
  ad cit.2./: van az elitnek szupranacionalis jellege, de ebbol valami 
nemzetkozi konspiracios elmeletet nem gyartanek:az "elit" nem egyseges, 
partikularis erdekek es versenges uraljak vilagat.
  ad cit.3/: persze hogy! mindig is igy volt, nincs uj a nap alatt, de 
jonnek az ehes/merges ujak; egyebkent is, az Internet public opinion-ja 
meg demokratikusabb mint ahogy azt az elozo megnyilvanulasi korulmenyek/ 
mediak ezt megengedtek/ lehetove tettek volna.
  Hat ennyi ebbol, hadd lam, masok mit szolnak kerdesehez,
  Udv,           
                                Kovalszki Peter

In article >,  
says...
>
>>You really believe that any part of any country/nation-state that was  
>>annexed after WW1 had anything to do with what the inhabitants wanted? 
>>You only express yourself in terms of Romanian nationalistic interests 
>>and propaganda. 
> 
>Yes.  The border revisions weren't always made because of the local
>population's self-determination.  (If they had been, there would have been
>many more plebicites).  However, the majority of Transylvania's population
>was ethnic Romanian, and wanted unification with Romania.  If it is really
>necessary, I will repost the relevant passage that Macarthy wrote on the
>subject.  If you disagree with me, that is fine, but explaining *why* you
>disagree with me would be more usuful than just asking if I believe what I
>posted. 

So why did territories of near 100% Hungarian speaking/ethnic inhabitants 
go to Yugoslavia and (Czecho-)Slovakia? Austrian and German territories were 
also lost that have not been completely forgotten. Sorry, but anything 
justified on such grounds by any politician in the post WWI carve-up of the 
former Central Powers just didn't have anything to do with demographic 
*fairness*.

>>There isn't any *official* Hungarian claim to Transylvania. A few loud  
>>irredentists, a lot of sympathy for Hungarian speakers and culture in  
>>Transylvania, but not an official agenda. Do you know about some secret  
>>Hungarian government policy to take back Transylvania?? 
> 
>You get an "F" on comprehension.  Reread the paragraph.  Notice the word
>*any*, and see how it modifies the meaning of the sentence.  In case the
>syntax is too hard for you, 

Don't be so damned stupid! Is this little digression supposed impress 
anyone, apart from yourself. Reading the rest of your posting I'm surprised 
that you even managed to SPELL *syntax* correctly. (BTW well done on that!)

>let me state that no, Hungary doesn't have any official territorial claims 
>on Romania.  However, in your own words, it does have "a few loud 
>irredentists", and that makes the Western powers a
>little leary of accepting another Greek-Turkish type of conflict into the
>EU and NATO.

So now you're saying that a few unimportant (and unofficial) loudmouths 
influence western policy makers? Below, you yourself emphasize how unlikely
an Hungarian-Romanian conflict is at this time. Make up your mind! You can't 
have it both ways (another one of those Usenet *heads you win, tails I lose* 
arguments!)

>  If Hungary wants to be admitted into Western institutions, it
>is incumbent upon the moderates (who make up the vast majority of
>Hungarians) to speak up in the face of the irredentists, just as, if
>Romania wants to be admitted into Western institutions, it is incumbent
>upon the moderates (who also make up the vast majority of Romanians) to
>speak up in the face of the anti-Hungarian racists. 

I doubt that many, if any, moderates in either country speak out against
those who would stir up trouble between Hungary and Romania, but your
sentiment is shared here, anyway.

>> You really are  
>>paranoid about Transylvania going back to the Hungarians, aren't you? 
> 
>No.  Hungary would lose a war of conquest, and knows it.  Hungary's
>(legitimate) interests minority rights do not require a war of conquest. 
>Consequently, I can't immagine any reasonable scenario in which Hungary
>would launch one. 

You repeat yourself from a previous posting. This is totally out of context
with what I posted (which you clearly haven't understood.) I DID NOT propose 
that Hungary would invade current Romanian territories as circumstances 
stand now. but only in the event that circumstances changed according to 
surrounding influences (conflicts, alliances, etc) when opportunism 
(something well understood by most Romanians) might make such a conflict 
possible in the future. Purely hypothetical at this stage, even unlikely
looking to some, but I'm pessimistic (of course it is purely a matter of 
opinion.)

>>>Given the mess throughout the Yugoslav shards, the vast majority of the 
>>>populations of neighboring countries have realized that their are limits
>to how far they are willing to go in their own eth ic anymosities.  For 
>>>example, the whole situation in the Trans-Dneister, bad as it remains, 
>>>calmed down noticably as a result of the Bosnian civil war.  

As a result?

>>Golly, you really do need to convince yourself, don't you? I recall in 
>>Britain just before the Yugoslav crisis really took off how everyone was 
>>just saying *aahhh, it'll all blow over in a few weeks...just a bunch of 
>>hotheads; they'll be sorted out soon* 
> 
>As did many people here.  Yet, I knew that it wouldn't blow over soon. 
>(Though I admit that I hadn't expected it to get as bloody as it did.) 
> 
>>.... and what happened? 
> 
>Sorry, but you don't convince me.  Romania and Hungary could have gone to
>blows at any time since 1990, yet they haven't.  

Refer to comments above. 

>Why?  Because it doesn't serve either nation's interests to do so.  

Obviously.

>Also, the fact is that as much
>as the two ethnicities doen't like each other, 

Is this entirely true? Even Premier Kallay confessed affinity and liking
for Romanians, only pointing out that the bone of contention was the *thing*
about Transylvania. I have (had) some good Romanian friends...I like the
people on the whole (arsehole mafiosi for customs officials, though.)

>they don't hate each other
>with a Yugoslav-like intensity; about one third of the postings on the
>Yugoslav newsgroups advocate genocide against the other groups (or at least
>they did during the hot phase of the war).  

At the time I followed and involved myself in those ngs pretty closely, 
so know what was going on there...and if you'd been following them, you
would have known that. My life since the late 60s was somewhat involved 
with the Yugoslav community here in London (via the Mihailovic emigres' 
social club) so I do know just a little bit about it (as well as having 
been an avid researcher into Nazi-Soviet affairs.)

>I haven't seen a single post
>advocating genocide on s.c.r. or s.c.m.  Therefore, I don't see how any
>politician could expect to win support by adovcating that type of a war. 
> 
>As evidence that I am right, let me point out that Iliescu's neo-communists
>have broken their alliance with the small ultra-nationalist,
>anti-Hungarian, parties.  I don't immagine for a minute that the
>neo-communists did so because they saw the evil of their ways, and
>repented.  They did it because the ultra-nationalists had become more of a
>political liability than an asset. 

Of course, but all this is off-topic as far as my answering my posting is 
concerned.

>> What about all 
>>the Allies at the beginning of WWII that were caught napping, smug in
>their 
>>coviction that either war wouldn't happen or their extant defences would 
>>suffice anyway? Hahahahahaha... 
> 
>Why are you so convinced that Romania and Hungary will go to war with each
>other in the near future?  

Re-read my posting. I said that under certain circumstances conflict COULD 
spread from surrounding territories, and with one thing leading to the 
other...I am convinced of one thing: that unrest in former USSR and Asia 
with their (now) disparate conflicts will escalate and snowball with far 
reaching consequences for all nearby...give it five, ten years at the most.

>>>>It only needed a slimeball like Milosevic to make it all possible (all  
>>>>the other cronies and thugs everywhere are just waiting in the wings for
> 
>>>>their own Milosevices to appear....)  
>>>  
>>>No.   
>> 
>>Milosevic, along with his nationalist/mafia cronies, etc, engineered the  
>>whole split. It was Milosevic who created the riot in Belgrade to effect  
>>a state of emergency and mobilise the federal army..etc etc... do some  
>>homework, but don't report back to me. 
> 
>I know far more about the break-up of Yugoslavia than you do. 

Don't be so infantile, of course you don't, as you betrayed in your 
comments. Read my comments above and don't try to be such a smart-arse;
you only make a fool of yourself.

>And, yes,
>Miolosevic's conversion from communist to ultra-nationalist was central, to
>Yugoslavia's disinrigration.  Of course, there was much, much, more
>involved in it.  However, a whole disertation on the subject really doesn't
>have anything to do with s.c.r. or s.c.m. . .  
> 
>>It also requires as Tudjman and an Izebegovich.  Those three men feed 
>>>off of each other, and it is precisely the West's labeling of one a 
>>>monster, while overlooking the atrocities committed by the other  
>>[snip].. 
>> 
>>Yaawwn...I've been over this ground so often during the last few years 
>>that it has become boring to listen to parrots dutifully reciting typical 
>>propaganda. 

[snip] 

>BTW, all of these examples of Croat and Muslim attrocities were reported in
>The New York Times, no doubt one of the central Serbian propaganda organs. 
> 
>> You obviously know nothing about the Yugoslav crisis or simply 
>>choose to follow propaganda that fits your nationalist agenda. A complete 
>>Waste of time.  
> 
>Excuse me, but how does Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina have anything to do
>with"my" nationalist agenda?  

Well, you yourself wrote that there is a natural Serbian-Romanian alliance!
Re-read your own postings (and that will also answer your snipped question.)

Regards,

--
 George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
 *** Interested in s/h chess books? Ask for my list! Global service ***

Igor GAZDIK > wrote:
>
>	sometimes (= mostly) it is really boring to read your lines.

That sure does not keep you reacting to them obnoxiously.

>	the reason is one and only: lack of decency and reasoning
>	ability.

Somehow that sounds funny from you, of all people.

>       the danube has not moved one millimeter from the
>	original bed.   and in the middle of the riverbed runs the
>	border.

You mean only it's water was diverted?  Figures...

>       i think it is hard to expelin this to you, as your
>	great hobby is badmouthing others, using no matter what kind
>	of demagoguery.

Coming from you, I can consider this a compliment, I guess.

>	instead, you send lamebrains to slovakia, to take
>	advantage of a much more liberal system and demonstrate there.
>
Much more liberal systems?  Did you say that with straight face?
I thought Slovakia was pretty much written off even by Western Europe
these days.  But hey, you must know something I dont!

Joe Pannon

Peter Kovalszki  > wrote:

>  ad cit.3/: persze hogy! mindig is igy volt, nincs uj a nap alatt, de 
>jonnek az ehes/merges ujak; egyebkent is, az Internet public opinion-ja 
>meg demokratikusabb mint ahogy azt az elozo megnyilvanulasi korulmenyek/ 
>mediak ezt megengedtek/ lehetove tettek volna.
>  Hat ennyi ebbol, hadd lam, masok mit szolnak kerdesehez,

Ezt egy remek elemzesnek, tartom, Peter.  En csak annyit tennek hozza,
hogy ez az elit nyilvan nem nyugszik bele, hogy az Internet ilyen
"rendhagyoan" kicsuszik az ellenorzese alol, s gondolom a mar ismert
cenzurazasi kiserleteken tul, bizonyos muhelyekben nagyon mennek a
tanacskozasok, hogyan lehetne az Internet eddigi viszonylagos
szabadsagat megszuntetni.  Persze ezt ugy tuntetve fel, mint amit a mi
erdekunkben tennenek.  Ezert aztan azon sem csodalkoznek, ha eppen ok
krealnak azokat a helyzeteket, amik okot szolgaltatnanak a
beavatkozasra. 

Pannon J.

Look at
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/%7Earubin/hungarian.html

Dansih:

"Jeg elsker dig"

Jeg=I
Elsker=Love
Dig=You

Kamran M. Sarwar
http://www.araneum.dk/kamran

Hey, 
everyone should respond at least few times with
'my check is in e-mail'.
This will crash their e-mail.

- Greg -

SB Productions ) wrote:
: Attention Fellow 'Net Users:

: 	Shawn Bass Productions has compiled a business report detailing 
: one of the decade's best business opportunities.  Your chance at making 
: OVER 10,000 PER MONTH is very near!
: 	This detailed, and informative report explains how the program 
: works, and has several pages dedicated to helping you learn how to 
: market your new business.  There are NO START-UP costs, and NO 
: INVESTMENT required... it's completely free, and is one of the only 
: programs we surveyed that was so.
: 	It's simple, read the report and educate yourself, BEFORE you 
: dive into something that you may be uncomfortable with.  This report 
: gives you the knowledge you need to make a hearty decision.

: Order your copy of the Business Report!
: Send $13 (US Funds) to:

: Shawn Bass Productions
: C/O Publications
: 3422 West Hammer Lane, Suite C-284
: Stockton, CA  95219-5493

forward

Someone has asked me to post this. All remarks and
inquieries should go to the orignator of the message. I am
just forwarding it by request.

Istvan


From   Sun May 19 17:41:54 1996
Received: from icg.resnet.upenn.edu  [130.91.192.190]
) by escape.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA03592 for >; S
un, 19 May 1996 17:41:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: 
Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by icg.
resnet.upenn.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id SAA30480 for 
nn.edu>; Sun, 19 May 1996 18:01:33 -0400
Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA16818 for 
snet.upenn.edu; Sun, 19 May 1996 17:55:22 -0400
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 17:55:22 -0400
Message-ID: >
To: 
Subject: Hungarian monumnet to 1956
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.25129.emout16.mail.aol.com.832542919"
Status: OR


--PART.BOUNDARY.0.25129.emout16.mail.aol.com.832542919
Content-ID: >
Content-type: text/plain

HI , 
I am trying to post this for a Hungarian friend, but i am at a loss.
Perhaps you can help me.
Thanks Dulci

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.25129.emout16.mail.aol.com.832542919
Content-ID: >
Content-type: text/plain;
	name="MAGYAR"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Budapest l. keruleteben a Tababban 1996.oktober 23-an tortenelmi emlekmuv=
et
avatunk 1956 szabadsagharcanak es forradalmanak emlekere annak 40.
evfordulojara.
=0D
KOSZONJUK az-ban elo magyarok eddig nyujotott onzetlen anyagi tamogatasat=
,
amelyre alapozva az Alapitvany letre johetett, az  emlekmu elokeszitesene=
k
munkai elkezdodhettek.
KOSZONJUK mindazon hazai tamogatoinknak ugyunket felkarolo onzetlen
segitseget, akik bizalmat eloegezve celunk megvalositasat.
BANKSZAMLANK:
OTP Rt.XX.ker.Fiok
1204 Budapest XX.,
=0D
Forintos szamlaszamunk:
117 20001 20 15 1957
=0D
Deviza szamlaszmunk : B 66559
=0D
Mindazok akik jelentos osszeggel jarulnak hozza celjaink megvalositasahoz=

(ceguk, nevuk) megorokitest nyernek az emlekmu avatasara keszulo
emlekfuzetben,sot a munkalatok soran adando sajtotaajekoztatokon is.

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.25129.emout16.mail.aol.com.832542919--

In talk.bizarre >], Norbert C Tagge (tagge@i
x.netcom.com) spake thusly:
: If this spam has bothered you, please would everybody reply to
:      
: Say, just one thousand from each group that this waste of bandwith is
: posted on.  I think that that should bring down the poster. 

Friendly reminder: make sure that the From: line and the mail path 
actually agree as to who sent it.

What's worse then Jeff Slaton of Las Truchas, New Mexico (AKA "Spam
King"), ssn nnn-nn-nnnn, sending commercial "You too can make thousands of
$$$ reading classified ads at home" messages to most of the listservs in
the world under your name? 

Having about twenty or so cavenewts with a new script they've been aching 
to try mail you 37,000 blank messages.

A 50MB mail spool does not make a mail client happy.

In article >, rolo15
> wrote:

> Communism is a utopia. It does not matter whether some states were 
> skipped or not done just right. It will never work. If the principle is 
> that everybody will be given according to his needs but has to produce 
> according to his abilities, there is no incentive to produce.
> 
> Stalin's way to make peoole to produce was by terror. The moment Stalin 
> disappeared and at least mass murders stopped, decay started. Soviet 
> society was extremely undpoductive and this is why it could not cope with 
> the natural events or keep up with the West.
> 
> Anybody who visited Russia must have seen that the country is most 
> terribly run down. It was totally neglected and no vaue was attached 
> to property of any sort: it did not belong to anybody. The only 
> impressive thing are military trucks. The rest of the coutnry were 
> sacrifyced to the military and to the Communist dogma.

I quess that you are wrong. Communism is a reality. In addition to the
reality of Soviet Union you probably have noticed other realities in North
Corea, China, Cuba etc., etc.

Kalev