Well Marina all I will say to you is what I said to Aniko
Both of your minds are in the gutter!
Shame on YOU!

In article >,
 says...
>
>At 06:09 PM 10/8/96 -0400, Eva Balogh wrote:
><snip>
>>        Eva Balogh was not trained as a psychiatrist but a historian. She
>>is not supposed to empathize but to analyze.

<snip>..
>As for the issue of empathy, I can only smile if Eva Balogh thinks that one
>can be trained in it.

Empathy is an essential part of analyzing the motives, behaviour,
experience, etc, of another human being; It is nonsense to pretend
that empathy and analysis can be mutually exclusive of each other
when speaking of understanding people (although it happens all the
time...)

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy ** Commodore=64...ICPUG ** NW London CC

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:
SNIP>>>>>>
> And have no fun at all?

I guess your polluted mind has never heard of CLEAN FUN?????
Peter>

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, aheringer wrote:

SNIP>
> Unfortunately, you are wrong about this, Peter.  According to Roman
> Catholic dogma, you ought to let the mother die in order to save the
> baby.
>
> Agnes
> <<<Well  goodie for me since I do not adhere to dogma!

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, George Szaszvari wrote:
SnIP>>>>
> I have never ceased to be amazed at how Geza retained his sanity
> after such horrible mutilations...even the Spanish Inquisition
> forbade attacking the eyes and genitalia of their victims...
>
<<< Pehaps this ought to teach us about how degenerate some people and
systems have become.. Need I say more????
Peter

At 03:20 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>Mark:
>1- Abortion used to be illegal once.
>2- No the mother's life is NOT more important than the baby's.
>3- If the REAL choice is between the mother or baby dying the answer
>would be obvious.

        Etc. etc. etc. It has always amazed me that most of the spokesmen
for the pro-life cause are MEN. Exactly those men who normally leave their
wives and children behind; those who don't pay child support; and those who
find it easy to father a child but rarely take care of them. The poor woman
is left holding the bag. I would like to see these brave men who speak about
the mother's life being more or less important than the baby's get pregnant,
carry that baby for nine months and then give birth. That would be the day!

        Eva Balogh

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>I could not agree more! What's more I dare to state, that the
>media developed a huge mass of media-idiotic behavior in the
>United States, who would believe everything if the media
>repeats for them sufficiently long.

This from a man who, about a week ago, was babbling about how he saw on
t.v. that public schools are teaching children how to commit suicide.

 My examples:
>
>1. the hysterical attitude toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq
>   just before the Gulf War
>   (just for the record: I consider Saddam a stupid dictator,
>   who represents the Middle Ages in the 20th century; but he
>   does not qualify to be Mr. Evil Incarnated...

Invading a peaceful neighbor and threatening to use chemical and
biological agents on other neighbors is what's known as a sufficient
provocation for war, not hysteria. The only hysteria involved was the
hysteria to end the ground phase of the war in 100 hours. This
indefensible marketing gimmick left your role model still in charge in
Baghdad.

>
>2. the public acceptance of the Waco flames by the American
>   people (in which flames many children were burnt to death)
>   as an appropriate solution "to save children from the
>   abuses of David Koresh"
>   (just for the record: I consider David Koresh a stupid
>   sectarian who distorted the teachings of the Christianity,
>   and represented the spiritual darkness of the Middle Ages
>   in the 20th century; but "saving" children from alleged
>   abuses by actually BURNING THEM is completely unacceptable
>   for me).


You'll need to take that up with Koresh and his adult minions, if you can
reach them through a trance medium or a Ouija board. They set the fires
that killed those children.

>
>> Religion may well be about God and Love, but churches appear to be more
>> about power and control.
>Not in the United States!! No church is in monopolistic
>position here so that they could grab political power and
>control. It is a very healthy situation and prevents any
>church from being involved in high level political decisions.

Yes, it is a very healthy situation. That may explain why Ralph Reed, Pat
Robertson and the Christian Coalition are trying to reverse it. Once Bob
Dole's political career has been interred with the corpse of moderate
Republicanism here in a few weeks, they'll control the Republican Party.
We shall see then how likely it is that they'll refrain from "being
involved in high level political decisions." And, Zoltan? Any group of
people who advocate impeaching the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who
struck down Colorado's anti-homosexual law won't ever qualify as moderate
in the United States.
>
>On the other hand, this guarantee may make the COALITION of
>churches politically more adequate as the separation of state
>and church is not in danger.

Too clumsy to qualify as sophistry. The goal of the Christian Coalition
and its fellow travelers is to overturn separation of church and state.
Why do you think they want to carry out the aforementioned purge of U.S.
Supreme Court justices? Why are they so intent on amending the U.S.
Constitution to force their views on the rest of us?

>
>> I believe that's the main reason Jesus was executed.
>I like your note! It shows me teological interest in a more
>detailed discussion of the role of Jesus Christ in the
>salvation process. If you really mean that, and you want
>this discussion, reaffirm me, please. (You know, some guys
>just would choose lobotomy rather than endure this kind of
>discussion on the list... :-(  )
>
>> Closing word of advice, be always careful believing what people with
>> titles -- like Rev., President, Senator, etc. -- claim to be true.
>Another pearl of your thinking. Congratulations!
>I completely agree with you.
>
>> P.S.  I don't know where Zoltan gets these public school horror
stories.
>I repeat: It was recorded on a video and shown on the tv,
>that a liberal looking, probably radical feminist woman in
>leather jacket, tight pants (and a lot of make-up) explained
>10-12 years old school girls how to perform oral sex. The
>lady looked definitely aroused by her own explanation.

Wow, what a complete citation! You would make a great homicide detective
with your keen eye for detail.

>
>Father Kennedy added one single sentence as comment: "The
>parents of the girls did not know anything about what kind of
>education is given to their daughters."
>
>I you call this a horror story, I'm fine with it. But it
>would be very hard to prove that it's not a real one!
>
>                                                     Sz. Zoli

Your skills as a logician rival your skills as a Biblical exegist and
philosophe. You are a regular renaissance man, Zoltan.
Sam Stowe


"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx

In article >,  writes:

>Back bone is what had and is what you are missing.
>On the long run the first quality what of a group is what is called
>loyalty what seems far from you. (i.e. it took 300 years to broke with
>Austria)


Loyalty?! Loyalty?! Albert, Horthy and his saner followers spent much of
the war trying to minimize its harmful impacts on Hungary while sticking
with the Nazis long enough to snaffle up the Fe'lvidek, the De'lvidek and
most of Erdely. They did not cover themselves with glory in the process.
It's the geopolitical equivalent of standing in the shower while the house
is burning down around you, worrying about whether you'll be able to
salvage most of the furniture, not whether you'll be able to survive the
flames and the smoke. The Hungarian right's inability to recognize the
trouble the country was in from 1936 onwards -- not to mention its almost
pathological desire to leap from the frying pan into the fire -- is only
rivalled by your post above in demonstrating how disconnected the
Hungarian right-wing became from political and moral reality during the
course of the 1920s and 1930s.
>
>Albert Ablu

When did the court grant your petition for a new surname?
Sam Stowe



"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx

Stowewrite wrote:
>
> In article >,  writes:
>
>........................ Horthy and his saner followers spent much of
> the war trying to minimize its harmful impacts on Hungary while sticking
> with the Nazis long enough to snaffle up the Fe'lvidek, the De'lvidek and
> most of Erdely. .....






I do not know much about the history of central Europe after 1918.
I know what I was taught on Romania and what I read from your postings
in this and other groups. One thing is clear, no one had an idea of
how the II WW will end.

To give an example, recently was a series of postings on the Romanian
group about why King Mihai of Romania was the first non Soviet to recei
ved the Victory medal, from Stalin. One could just imagine what that
means when after him the only other foreigners to receive it was
Eisenhower and Montgomery.  After reading this, I have understood the
bias of the historiography, including all those historical
documentaries TV is bombarding us with.


Albert Albu

>In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>>1. the hysterical attitude toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq
>>   just before the Gulf War
>>   (just for the record: I consider Saddam a stupid dictator,
>>   who represents the Middle Ages in the 20th century; but he
>>   does not qualify to be Mr. Evil Incarnated...

Regardless of the cynical reasons (on all sides) for the Gulf War,
Saddam Hussein comes pretty close to being Evil Incarnate, along
with the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler. Saddam's secret
police have a habit of delivering bags of chopped up meat to the
front doors of Iraqi citizens, the chopped up meat being the relative
who was picked up by the secret police, or apparently disappeared
without trace, a while before...this is just one of their favourite
terror tactics to remind the populace what happens to enemies of
the state, deserters, or anyone who happens to be in the wrong place
at the wrong time...what goes on in between the time of arrest and
death I leave to your imagination...I met some educated Iraqi refugees
in Budapest a couple of years, or so, ago, and all this stuff, and more,
was corroborated by them.

BTW Saddam is far from *stupid*, in the sense that he fully well
understands the game that is being played between himself and the
western military-industrial complex that deliberately keeps him in
power in Baghdad...especially since the demise of the Evil Empire of
the USSR. When Norman Schwarzkopf made a public criticism of the
decision not to take Baghdad when the Allies could have just walked
in and installed a friendly and sane government of Iraqi exiles, he
was told to shut up...and did.

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy ** Commodore=64...ICPUG ** NW London CC

>At 03:20 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>>Mark:
>>1- Abortion used to be illegal once.
>>2- No the mother's life is NOT more important than the baby's.
>>3- If the REAL choice is between the mother or baby dying the answer
>>would be obvious.
>
>        Etc. etc. etc. It has always amazed me that most of the spokesmen
>for the pro-life cause are MEN. Exactly those men who normally leave their
>wives and children behind; those who don't pay child support; and those who
>find it easy to father a child but rarely take care of them. The poor woman
>is left holding the bag. I would like to see these brave men who speak about
>the mother's life being more or less important than the baby's get pregnant,
>carry that baby for nine months and then give birth. That would be the day!
>
>        Eva Balogh

Is Peter Soltesz "exactly one of those men" who do these things? Has he,
ergo, as normal for  such men, left his wife and children behind?  Or is it
that men in general leave wives and children, pay no support, and rarely
take care of their children? - If you mean the former, you are doing
Soltesz an injustice; if the latter, your ad genus argument includes me,
and I should resent it.


Louis Elteto

At 09:16 AM 10/12/96 -0400, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, aheringer wrote:
>
>SNIP>
>> Unfortunately, you are wrong about this, Peter.  According to Roman
>> Catholic dogma, you ought to let the mother die in order to save the
>> baby.
>>
>> Agnes

>> <<<Well  goodie for me since I do not adhere to dogma!

Oh, this is really funny, Peter!  Occasionally, I too use humour in my posts
but from the above it's clear that you're a master at it.  Thanks for the
good laugh.

Joe Szalai

>Louis Elteto:
>>
>> Actually, the American government, local, state, and federal, does
>> subsidize churches through the taxation system, by providing exemptions
>> for the churches themselves, and a reduction in taxes for those who
>> contribute to churches.
>>
>Louis, you still don't get it!! The point is, that in the US
>you support the church OF YOUR CHOICE, you support the
>tv-preacher OF YOUR CHOICE and the crusader OF YOUR CHOICE.
>It is the real freedom, not the 'free choice' to kill an
>almost-baby or not.
>                                                    Sz. Zoli

Right, I don't get it. I have no idea what killing babies has to do with
the taxation system that I was talking about, and I'm not particularly
interested in arguing with you about it. - You can donate to any church of
your choice in most of the world, even in Hungary. The government Hungary,
as that of many other states, gives churches a direct subsidy. Here the
government allows you to deduct from your taxes the amount you donate to
the church or tv-preacher of your preference. In doing that, you are paying
less taxes to the government than you would otherwise; therefore a portion
of the money you would have owed the government is indirectly used to
subsidize your church, or your favorite tv-preacher.  That also means that
those who do not contribute to any church pay a somewhat higher taxes, to
make up for what you don't pay. In the end the effect is very similar to
the Hungarian system, only you don't see it that way. - Actually, tax
deductions for donations to charitable organizations are also a feature of
the Hungarian tax system now, even though direct subsidies continue. -
Incidentally: you can also donate to the tax-exempt, charitable, not for
profit abortion clinic OF YOUR CHOICE, which is thus also subsidized, just
as your favorite tv-preacher is. It behooves you to understand what it is
the praises of which you sing.

Louis Elteto

Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>

>  It has always amazed me that most of the spokesmen
> for the pro-life cause are MEN. Exactly those men who normally leave their
> wives and children behind; those who don't pay child support; and those who
> find it easy to father a child but rarely take care of them. The poor woman
> is left holding the bag. I would like to see these brave men who speak about
> the mother's life being more or less important than the baby's get pregnant,
> carry that baby for nine months and then give birth. That would be the day!

> Eva Balogh



...............................................................................
..........................


The bottom line is as Eva wrote: " The poor women is left holding the bag"

We talking about females. Their lives, experiences which only a female
is capable going through or understanding.  Yet, there is a bunch of 'brave'
men who
coerce women at a sensitive time by psychological manipulation, or by other
means to risk their lives and mental health being, not to mention their and the
unwanted child's survival in the face of harsh economic realities.

I wish that these "crusaders for life" would use their organizational talents,
abundant time and "love for the living" and start worrying about the legions of
unwanted children roaming the streets of many cities such as
Rio de Janeiro, etc.

These kids are already here in every sense of the world ! There is no academic
argument after a full meal, in a plush conference room, whether or not they are
fully cognizant and helping them to stay alive is against this or that decree
written by men.

It would be interesting to see how men would react in a reversed scenario,
where women
would be the main crusaders promoting that men should not have
a prostate operation and the appropriate funds for research.

Abortion should not be the tool for birth control. However, any decision
affecting
the mother should me made by the mother if she is capable of
or by other women free of dogma and full of genuine love for the living.



                            Mark O.F.

>>At 03:20 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>>>Mark:
>>>1- Abortion used to be illegal once.
>>>2- No the mother's life is NOT more important than the baby's.
>>>3- If the REAL choice is between the mother or baby dying the answer
>>>would be obvious.
>>
>>        Etc. etc. etc. It has always amazed me that most of the spokesmen
>>for the pro-life cause are MEN. Exactly those men who normally leave their
>>wives and children behind; those who don't pay child support; and those who
>>find it easy to father a child but rarely take care of them. The poor woman
>>is left holding the bag. I would like to see these brave men who speak about
>>the mother's life being more or less important than the baby's get pregnant,
>>carry that baby for nine months and then give birth. That would be the day!
>>
>>        Eva Balogh
>
>Is Peter Soltesz "exactly one of those men" who do these things? Has he,
>ergo, as normal for  such men, left his wife and children behind?  Or is it
>that men in general leave wives and children, pay no support, and rarely
>take care of their children? - If you mean the former, you are doing
>Soltesz an injustice; if the latter, your ad genus argument includes me,
>and I should resent it.
>
>
>Louis Elteto
>
>Sorry Eva,but you have touched a nerve.Even I am divorced I never neglegted
to pay "child support" on top of it as a lot of fathers I bought some
clothes,skiing vacations etc.etc.I lieve the question of abortion to the
women,let the have some say,we have enoguh power already.
Andy K.

>At 09:16 AM 10/12/96 -0400, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, aheringer wrote:
>>
>>SNIP>
>>> Unfortunately, you are wrong about this, Peter.  According to Roman
>>> Catholic dogma, you ought to let the mother die in order to save the
>>> baby.
>>>
>>> Agnes
>
>>> <<<Well  goodie for me since I do not adhere to dogma!
>
>Oh, this is really funny, Peter!  Occasionally, I too use humour in my posts
>but from the above it's clear that you're a master at it.  Thanks for the
>good laugh.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>^^^^ Go as you please Peter,and preach to us how to live.Have kleen fun
too,like going to church or preaching to others.
Good luck Budy.
Andy K.

>On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:
>SNIP>>>>>>
>> And have no fun at all?
>
>I guess your polluted mind has never heard of CLEAN FUN?????
>Peter>
>
>Peter:I realy do not expect such derogative sentences from a Christian person.
 Choose your anger.
Andy.

In article >,
 says...
>
><snip>
>>I learned about Stalinism from books.  How did she learn?  Was she a
Gulag

Joe, you didn't have to be in the gulag to know what stalinism was, if
you were brought up in those years.  It seems to me that Eva and I are
about the same age.  I agree with both of you that marxism was an ideal
in which many believed, until any intelligent person who lived in those
times realized what the reality of a marxist society became.  Also,
please never forget that the 1956 revolution was actually started by
those writers and intellectuals in the Iroszovetseg who were once true
believers.  I will never forget how excitedly we awaited the new issue of
the Irodalmi Ujsag in the summer of 56.  I mentioned it once, and I
mention it again: all those who only read about those times and are able
to read Hungarian, get your hands on Aczel-Merai Tisztito Vihar.  There
was also a nice little book of Paloczy-Horvath: Az elveszett Nemzedek.

Regards, Agnes

At 09:58 AM 10/12/96 -0700, Louis Elteto  wrote:
>>At 03:20 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:

>Is Peter Soltesz "exactly one of those men" who do these things? Has he,
>ergo, as normal for  such men, left his wife and children behind?  Or is it
>that men in general leave wives and children, pay no support, and rarely
>take care of their children? - If you mean the former, you are doing
>Soltesz an injustice; if the latter, your ad genus argument includes me,
>and I should resent it.

This argument can only be ad genus, since only men can leave their wives and
children, etc. Therefore, I suggest that only those should resent it (or
rather feel ashamed) who did those things.

Gabor D. Farkas

At 08:56 AM 10/12/96 -0400, Sam wrote wrote, commenting on Albert Albu's post:
>In article >,  writes:
>
>>Back bone is what had and is what you are missing.
>>On the long run the first quality what of a group is what is called
>>loyalty what seems far from you. (i.e. it took 300 years to broke with
>>Austria)
>
>
>Loyalty?! Loyalty?!

        --added Sam. Since I posted my original answer to Albert's words on
"loyalty" and "backbone," I have spent a little more time thinking about
this whole business of "loyalty," especially because this is not the first
mention of this wonderful Hungarian trait.

        Let's assume that I get to know a man who seems to me, at first at
least, kind, generous, and loyal. In brief, a good friend. I like him so
much that we even start a small business together which flourishes. And
then, it turns out that the man I assumed to be honest, generous, kind, and
loyal, is the Devil himself. Do I need to remain loyal to that man? Surely,
not. In fact, if I do remain loyal to a dishonest man about whom I just
learned that he was also a murderer I myself get tainted by the association.
The Hungarian government's so-called loyalty to Hitler was that kind.

        Eva Balogh

At 09:26 AM 10/12/96 -0500, Albert Albuwrote:

>I do not know much about the history of central Europe after 1918.
>I know what I was taught on Romania and what I read from your postings
>in this and other groups.

        It is time then to learn something about it. There are several very
good books in English and in Hungarian on the subject.

>One thing is clear, no one had an idea of
>how the II WW will end.

        Well, that's not quite true. In 1942 some people might have thought
that Germany may win the war, but by the end of 1943 it was becoming quite
clear that the Allies will be victorious.

>To give an example, recently was a series of postings on the Romanian
>group about why King Mihai of Romania was the first non Soviet to recei
>ved the Victory medal, from Stalin. One could just imagine what that
>means when after him the only other foreigners to receive it was
>Eisenhower and Montgomery.  After reading this, I have understood the
>bias of the historiography, including all those historical
>documentaries TV is bombarding us with.

        What does this mean? What do you want to say? What is wrong with TV
documentaries?

        Eva Balogh

Hi There!

Been wondering where you're to (that's newfouneese - for you non Maritimers).

>>I am of the opinion that a hiatus might not be enough at this point.
>>Perhaps combining it with a couple of sessions with Dr. Elders might help to
>>ease his ailments?
>
>Hi there,  - what a mahveles idea! Do you really think though that a couple
>of sessions will do it? I mean, I think he needs some remedial work.
>Marina
I'ma feared your diagnosis couldn't be any more accurate  - what was I
thinking suggesting only a couple...
Aniko

>

Eve Balogh At 11:35 AM 12/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 03:20 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>>Mark:
>
>        Etc. etc. etc. It has always amazed me that most of the spokesmen
>for the pro-life cause are MEN. Exactly those men who normally leave their
>wives and children behind; those who don't pay child support; and those who
>find it easy to father a child but rarely take care of them. The poor woman
>is left holding the bag. I would like to see these brave men who speak about
>the mother's life being more or less important than the baby's get pregnant,
>carry that baby for nine months and then give birth. That would be the day!

Eva; recently, at a dinner party, a surgeon friend claimed that passing
kidney stones for a man, could likely be the closest sensation to that of
giving birth.  And that, he could not figure out how the women were able to
accomplish this, when the men need to be severely drugged in order to endure
the pain.  Of course, a concencus was never reached but it was a funny, if
not revealing conversation - and, one initiated by a man.  Off the topic,
but though you'd enjoy.  Now ...

Some other aspects pro-life groups seem to neglect to recognize, is that
clinically performed abortions are actually saving lives.  It has been
fairly well documented, that countless deaths have been caused by attempts
at self aborting.   (The means, horrifying)  Some pro-life groups, a couple
of years ago succeeded at closing down a clinic here which Dr.
Morgantaller(sp) opened, by resorting to some significantly violent methods.
It was clear that they had zero regard for the life of the persons seeking
the proceedure.  One day, the headlines read, that a woman going into the
clinic was shouted at with obsceneties and eventually physically attacked to
prevent entry.  In the end, the police escorted her in and out of the
clinic.  To this day, I have not been able to rationalize the thinking
process of these "non-violent" protestors, nor their beligerantly displayed
anger for that matter.  As it was also later discovered, the woman was
having an abortion, after discovering that she got pregnant while being raped.

In a posting, Peter preaches of adoption as an option.  He is right, in that
many people welcome the opportunity of being able to adopt.  Right down to
the point, when it is discovered that the baby they have adopted has some
genetic disorders, or serious medical problems.  This situation,
unfortunately occurs more often that we care to admit.  Of the many people I
know in this situation, there is only one family, who regardless of the
problems discovered after the fact, ended up keeping the baby.  The baby
today is 25, with the mind of 12 year old - with the kindest heart and
purest of souls.  His personality is an inspiration to all that meet him.
He is seriously dyslectic, and suffers a most rare form of muscular
dystrophy, which attacks his facial muscles first.  It is now doubtful, that
he will see his 30th birthday. He is one of the lucky ones even with all
that.  His new parents were able to educate him in private schools, and
offer him advantages to better enjoy his life.  The other baby they adopted,
spent his first two years in the hospital, with a serious blood disease.
Since he received numerous blood transfusions, they are now fearing Aids.
After having put him on steroids until he was about four, no other
difficulties propped up.  And he, is a genious.  The other cases I know of,
once irregularities were discovered, have sent their babies  "back to be
traded in" for more perfect models.  In some cases the trade ins were
several.   Sad, but reality is, that once these babies are diagnosed with a
real problem, it becomes next to impossible to locate adoptive parents for
them.  As such they are reduced to a life within an institution.  And I
highly doubt, that my friends' son would have developed to be the kind soul
he is, in an institution.  So, even adoption has it's disadvantages
On the flip side, I also have a good friend, who opted to put her baby up
for adoption when she herself was a teenager.  She has sufferred amazing
trauma - always wondering about that baby.  Until one day, the "baby" showed
up on her doorsteps. They since enjoy a combined family of sort, and now, my
friend is a grandmother.  But the daughter's husband despises my friend and
tells her so each chance he gets - for having given up her baby for adoption
way back when.  So her trauma continues even now.

Then of course, pro-lifers neglect also to give consideration to cases,
(even though they claim to) where conception occurred through rape; incest;
child abuse; etc etc etc.  None of which would remotely qualify for
consenting to a roll in the hay as they say.  Regardless of conception, in
any form of unwanted pregnancy, I can only imagine, the emotional anxiety
these women must go through prior to reaching a decision - and the trauma
after the fact - their available options each carry consequences that I for
one, would not like to have to live with.  And I am convinced that the last
thing they need at such a time, is anyone enforcing their own ideals onto
them.  Especially those, who have and will continue to demonstrate zero
regard for these womens lives.

I strongly disagree, that abortion should be used as a means of birth
control.  But I strongly agree, that women should have a choice.  I also
agree, that the spokesmen, should be spokeswomen - or at the very least be
well balanced.

Best regards,
Aniko

At 09:09 PM 10/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi There!
>
>Been wondering where you're to (that's newfouneese - for you non Maritimers).
>
>>>I am of the opinion that a hiatus might not be enough at this point.
>>>Perhaps combining it with a couple of sessions with Dr. Elders might help to
>>>ease his ailments?
>>
>>Hi there,  - what a mahveles idea! Do you really think though that a couple
>>of sessions will do it? I mean, I think he needs some remedial work.
>>Marina
>I'ma feared your diagnosis couldn't be any more accurate  - what was I
>thinking suggesting only a couple...
>Aniko
>
>>
>
>
I hate to butt in on this private exchange, even if it takes place on a
public forum, but I find it's Hungarian content or relevance somewhat
underwhelming.

Charlie Vamossy

In a message dated 96-10-12 21:57:15 EDT,  (Charles
Mikecz Vamossy) writes:

<< At 09:09 PM 10/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
 >Hi There!
 >
 >Been wondering where you're to (that's newfouneese - for you non
Maritimers).
 >
 >>>I am of the opinion that a hiatus might not be enough at this point.
 >>>Perhaps combining it with a couple of sessions with Dr. Elders might help
to
 >>>ease his ailments?
 >>
 >>>Hi there,  - what a mahveles idea! Do you really think though that a
couple
 >>>of sessions will do it? I mean, I think he needs some remedial work.
 >>>Marina
 >>I'ma feared your diagnosis couldn't be any more accurate  - what was I
 >>thinking suggesting only a couple...
 >>Aniko
 >

>I hate to butt in on this private exchange, even if it takes place on a
 >public forum, but I find it's Hungarian content or relevance somewhat
 >underwhelming.
 > Charlie Vamossy
 >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
---------------------
Dear Charlie,
Since the part you are referring to is just the tail end of an ongoing
"eszmecsere" initiated by one Peter Soltesz, you could not see
the "Hungarian content or relevance" and I sympathize with you being
"underwhelmed". But, do believe me, at one time this had a "Hungarian
content". After delicate deliberations many a group member deliberately
tried to help a delirious Hungarian out of his delirium. All we got in
return was a deluge of more "demagoguery". The man is beyon help,
so we were thinking about referring his case to the good Doctor.
Regards,
Marina

Sam,

you are a fantastic creature. You was able to write:

>Loyalty?! Loyalty?! Albert, Horthy and his saner followers spent much of
>the war trying to minimize its harmful impacts on Hungary while sticking
>with the Nazis long enough to snaffle up the Fe'lvidek, the De'lvidek and
>most of Erdely. They did not cover themselves with glory in the process.
>It's the geopolitical equivalent of standing in the shower while the house
>is burning down around you, worrying about whether you'll be able to
>salvage most of the furniture, not whether you'll be able to survive the
>flames and the smoke.

which I completly agree (BTW felvide'k not fe'lvidek), but on the last week:

>were even tempted to make your first claim. I am granting the possibility
>that there is some objective, normative definition of "deportation" that
>makes what happened prior to the German occupation in March, 1944, unequal
>to or incomparable to what occurred after that date. The only difference I
>can see is that the Nazis were more thorough and efficient than the
>homegrown Hungarian effort.

Do you have different opinions for odd and even weeks of the year?

J.Zs

P.S: An advice, don't worry about my English. 'Olyan amilyen', it
does not effect the content of my writings. This way you could have
skipped the 60% of your previous post to me and save time for me
and yourself.