HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcoadh@kowari.co.rmit.oz.AU (Alexander Doktorovich)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Has Chabad gone crazy?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 12:41:41 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: kowari.co.rmit.oz.au

Hi,
  I know this is a bit off the track and my question may sound silly, but I
  ask in all seriousness: Does Israel (or even USA) have a contingency plan in
  case the messiah does come? (Are governments of the world expected to
  relinquish their rule? It seems to me that unless it is absolutely 
  clear to everyone concerned, the messiah himself will be the creator of 
  global havoc and subsequent chaos.)
Alex.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Has Chabad gone crazy?
Organization: NYSERNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:10:15 GMT

dw = dweinste@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein)
dc = dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)

dc: Paganism (including idol worship and child sacrifice) is on an

dw: Do you have *any* evidence to support this claim? I'm sure the FBI would
dw: be surprised to hear it, as they have found no evidence of any such
dw: incidents. 

You see?  They're so secretive that they even have the FBI baffled!
-- 
/|/-\/-\          currently in NY until the Jewish Agency tells me
 |__/__/_/        I can go back to Jerusalem (early Feb, probably)
 |warren@         
/ nysernet.org
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Jews For Germans
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 22:42:30 GMT

In article <LILLY.93Jan20220152@prost.nhmfl.fsu.edu> lilly@nhmfl.fsu.edu (Leonhard Lilly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.171103.3144@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan16.054621.228@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan15.174306.3579@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>>>>In article <46275@unlisys.in-berlin.de> stingray@unlisys.in-berlin.de (Christian Lampl) writes:
>>>>>green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>[lots of stuff deleted]
>>Who gives a damn? My point was that SS membership was *voluntary*.
>
>As far as I know, this is not generally true. 

Actually, it *was* more or less voluntary; moreover, those who did not 
want to take part in the mass killings were not forced to continue.

But that's not the point.  The point is that the SS didn't advertise itself
as a criminal organization, nor was there any other way for recruits to
know that they would later be asked to do evil things.  The Nazis knew 
that most Germans would not want to hear of atrocities, and therefore
did not publicize them.

I mean, the US Army didn't advertise the opportunity to take part in a
Wounded Knee or My Lai, either.

Roger

Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:26196 alt.rush-limbaugh:15260
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Gore in decisions, RL promises was Re: Religious breakdown of Clinton Cabinet
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:30:57 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker) writes:
=simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov) writes:
=
=> >Clinton has said he will include Gore in many decisions, and it is
=> "promised"? 
=
=> Can somebody check if it is in the Rush Limbaugh list of Clinton's
=> promises?

=Why in the world would anyone pay attention to what Rush Limbaugh claims 
=Clinton said?  He has absolutely no concept of truthfulness or reality, 
=and his idea of an argument is to totally ignore the points made by his 
=opponent and to make fun of his opponent's looks, accent, and whatever 
=else he can find in place of rational discourse.

Simon:
Pete Bowden posted both parts up on the network recently, so I'll just
post the one that you asked for.

******************************************************************
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Promises, Promises! 
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

 8  "If I become president, we will keep a glatt kosher
     kitchen in the White House." -- New York City,          _
     April 1, 1992                                          |_|

15  "I am going to send Al Gore to Capitol Hill to take the
     lead in passing our program in the first 100 days of the
     new administration." -- Little Rock, Ark.,              _
     July 10, 1992                                          |_|
*****************************************************************
Okay, I posted an extra one that I'd thought you'd find amusing.

Todd:
Rush Limbaugh doesn't have to "claim" Mr. Clinton said any of these
things. He most certainly did say these aforelisted quotes as well as
the other 48 I deleted and the one I cite in my .sig file. That is the
reality; whether this reality is mutually exclusive to your concept of
reality is not for me to debate.

As for ridiculing someone for looks, the way they speak, and totally
ignoring the points salient to any discussion, I am at least relieved
that you aren't like the many trivial posters here who criticize Rush
for being a fat, hateful bigot and completely discredit yourself. And I
would hope your fellow anti-Rush compatriots who post on a.r-l or a.f.rl
will heed the statement you made. (I did remove your statement
ridiculing him for "Read?!?!?!?!?" s.c.j. That could be interpreted as
you characterizing him falsely as uneducated or illiterate. But I won't
dwell on this point to make you seem like at least a partial hypocrite.)

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: MASH@WEIZMANN.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni)
Subject: More Re: Bitachon (Trust)
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:17:50 GMT

I had just posted my response to Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund when I saw

<1993Jan27.080727.227@vms.huji.ac.il> in which
backon@vms.huji.ac.il had posted  his reply to my  previous posting on
the subject:

>In article <199301261258.AA17284@das.wang.com>, MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL
>(Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>> In: <6280@ceylon.gte.com>
>> sg04@gte.com (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund) discusses the subject at length
>>
>>>What is Bitachon (Trust?) in G-d?

I feel that I have no more to add and will skip most of Josh's article
in which he brings the earlier discussion, including my views.

As to Josh's:

>As one who lost 70 (80 ?) close relatives in the Holocaust including a
>grandfather who was gassed  and an aunt and her baby who were burnt alive on a
>pyre at Birkenau, let me quote Deuteronomy (DVARIM) 28:15-69  and 32:15-31.
>Read these passages *first*; then you can comment on "there was no God there
>when He was needed". "EICHAH YIRDOF ECHAD ELEF USHNAYIM YIRDIFU REVAVA".

I have already said that I know that there are Holocaust survivors who
have kept their  faith in God.  I will include  Josh with his personal
loss among the same even if he himself (if I understood him correctly)
was not there.  I have looked now  at the two references he gives, and
as neither the "Tokheha", nor "Ha'azinu" are new to me, I have nothing
to add.   I still say that God was not there when he was needed.   Was
he?

True in  the Torah terrible  matters are foretold, so what? For  me, a
person who does not believe anymore,  this only shows that the authors
of the Torah had  said so.  As far as I know, in the Bible Belt of USA
there are  to this day  preachers who specialize in  threatening their
listeners with hell etc. if they do not behave.

So God has "told"  us before that he is ready  to have babies murdered
if we do not behave.  For me such a God is irrelevant, but I have said
all  this already. Josh, in  spite  of what  his family  went through,
keeps on believing, I do not understand how  he can, but I  cannot and
wish not deny that he does, and does so sincerely.

I do not think that Josh  has added anything to the discussion besides
confirming that  even after the  Holocaust there are believers.   I am
not one of them.

>Josh

 Michael Shimshoni
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Arromdee's statistics
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:56:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan27.011848.17965@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>Why _can't_ it be just luck?
>
>After all, there had to be _some_ religion which survived.  They can't _all_
>go away.

Assuming that the survival of Judaism is just luck, then the argument that
they can't _all_ go away depends on the survival probability as a function of
time elapsed.  I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about it.  Possibly one
could assume a model (e.g. probability of disappearance per unit time is a 
constant, which I think is probably an oversimplification), measure the 
observed average religion lifetime, find the time constant, and then calculate
the probability of Judaism's surviving.  Of course, that doesn't really address
the issue either, since what you really want to know is what is the probability
that *no* religion will survive (say) 2600 years (to pick a number).  After
all, if it's just luck, then why can't they _all_ go away?

>(Besides, if it wasn't luck, the same argument would imply that Christianity
>and Islam have deeper meanings than Judaism.)

Actually, not at all, since neither is as old as Judaism, and your argument
above implies that you think that the probability of a religion's survival
is a monotonically decreasing function of its age.

					Richard Schultz
From: etzhadat@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Hydro Man)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Niddah and Pregnancy
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:29:41 GMT
Organization: Institute Chaotique for Galactic Sewage Treatment
Distribution: world
Reply-To: etzhadat@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Hydro Man)
NNTP-Posting-Host: sleepy.cc.utexas.edu
Originator: etzhadat@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu

There have been a number of articles of late on scj which claim to show that
Orthodox Judaism is "sexist" in the light of Western Culture. Some of these
arguments, e.g. agunah, are legitimate and creative solutions are required
in addition to the ones already being implemented.

However, I would like to give the following refutation to the argument that
the current laws of niddah are meant (primarily) to keep women pregnant.

While I'd certainly admit that Jewish law "strongly encourages" couples
to have children, I'd like to point out:

1. If the claim is that the intent of Jewish law is to keep women pregnant
why is it that the obligation to have children is only on men and not on women?

2. If the law is meant to be detrimental to women, why does the Talmud say
that the current stringency was instituted by women, namely those who took
it on themselves. In fact, the law from the Torah gives wider latitude for
use of the rhythm method.

3. a. There is also an unstated assumption in this argument which claims that
in societies where the rhythm method is an option it's use would be
prevalent and women would be freer. This claim is clearly specious because
its use in Third World countries, which often even have access to modern
birth control techniques!, is minimal, and these countries in general do not
have good records in their treatment of women.
b. (Comment on how high birth rates are bad for the Earth) In fact, their
birth rates by far put a larger burden on the world than does the Orthodox
Jewish community. Yet, of course, they are not condemned because right now
it is chic to identify with the Third World. Also, I wonder, why there is
no condemnation of the Palestinians, who are supposed to have a much larger
birth rate than Israeli Jews (S-:p).

4. In light of  modern birth control techniques and referring back to reason
(1)* some would argue that this puts all the *responsibility* (of family
planning) on the wife. But one could also argue that this also puts all the
*power* with the wife. Of course some communities prohibit the general
use of contraceptives by women, but this is not true of e.g. Modern Orthodox. 
Further, I think, not having children is no longer grounds for a
divorce in Jewish law.

*Jewish law prohibits men from using contraceptives until they have fulfilled
their obligation (one boy and one girl) to have children.

Shabbat Shalom

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Paul Kornreich			    |News: etzhadat@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu	    |
|RLM 15.308			    |Professional: pkorn@astro.as.utexas.edu|
|Astronomy Department	 	    |Phone: 512 471-3453		    |
|The University of Texas at Austin  |					    |
|Austin, TX  78712		    |					    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: steel@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Nick Steel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Mabat News on Schola - Why Gone?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 09:18:06 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.ai.mit.edu

In article <5023@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>In article <1k0uriINNde2@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@gypsum.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>>
>>SCOLA's major funding comes from an Arab News Agency (See the credits in SCOLA
>>for the exact name).  This is why the reading of the KORAN is broadcast from 
>>Mecca *every night* on SCOLA.  
>>
>>Does it surprise anyone that the first budget problem, and Israeli news is the
>>first to go?  Why not put the funds from the reading of the KORAN to the 
>>broadcasting of International news (as is the function of SCOLA)?
>
>As one who receives SCOLA, I have to say that I am very offended by this
>very biased remark.

Hah ...!  Anisa you shouldn't be offended by this remark, you 
should be offended that they actually broadcast KURAN, and have
no respect for it and its people.  Besides, they only broadcast
certain Ayat from the Quran.  Nothing about Jihad, Beni Israel,
or Ibrahim, that's just like an attempt to alter the Quran.

Did you know that the Israeli stations also broadcast Quran
in the exact style above?

jle

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal)
Subject: Re: Davidic Lineage
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:56:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.040121.28126@nysernet.org>, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:
> In <1993Jan25.220636.6510@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal) writes:
> 
> >Interestingly, in "The Jews of Muslim Spain" there is
> >some discussion about the roots of various communities
> >of Jews in Spain, and in connection with this it is
> >stated that the Abrabanel (Abravanel) family tradition
> >was that it was Davidic, descended from Judaean
> >nobles who were brought to Spain at the time of the destruction
> >of the Second Temple.
> 
> But ought we to accept the Abrabanel (or any other, including that of
> various suggested candidates, past, present, or future) family's
> tradition of its Davidic descent without additional evidence?  And
> even if we do accept the family's claim, an individual today would
> have to prove descent from that family - family names can be changed.
> 

Absolutely.  I have said the same about rabbinic traditions that say
that X was descended from Y who SAID he was a Davidic descendant.
Before I pack my bags, I want to see a complete family tree, with
substantiating evidence.  But then I'm a geneology fan, not
necessarily in line with all religious traditions.

Has anyone got information about the quality of the Lubavitcher
Rebbe's Davidic Claim?

		Seth Rosenthal

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own not my employers'.
From: a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: The term "anti-Semitism" (was: Re: Martin Luther King Quotes)
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:18:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: pdxgate.6738
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1jmleaINN3uh@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@silver.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>In article <kglavgx@Unify.Com> jhf@dbrus.Unify.Com (Jeff Fields) writes:
>
>> Also not all Semites are Jews. Anti-Semitism was a term invented in the
>> Zionist movement of the 19th century.
>
>This is false.  Please prove this statement, or post a retraction.
>

Not my post, but...

Which statement?  I will only confirm the first one, and give you
a pointer to the time where you can find the reference to the first
use with the meaning 'hostility toward or descrimination against Jews'.

A SEMITE is 'any member of a group of peoples of southwestern Asia, chiefly
represented by ARABS and JEWS, but also including Babylonian, Assyrian,
Aramaens, Cannanite, and Phoenican'.  More specifically, any group of
people from southwestern Asia whose dialects are derivatives of HEBREW,
ARAMIC, ARABIC, or ETHIOPIC are Semites.

As for the time frame, the phrases meaning was altered to it's current
interpretation in 1881.  A dilligent investigator can easily find out
where.  The first usage predates the 'Official beginning of Zionism'
which is dated 1896.  Although the Zionist movement existed prior to
this date, the 'Official' beginning of the organized movement is
dated many years later, when the term 'Zionist' was coined. The
'anti-Semitic' phrase as applied exclusively to Jews did grow out
of that movement.  This is a well known historical fact!

I might be off by 1 or 2 years as I am doing this from memory,
but a Webster's collegiate should, at the minimum, be able to
confirm the dates, although it may lack the other info you are
ignorant of.

You may appologize to the previous poster for doubting his facts,
and to the net for lying by calling the truth a falsity, and
for asking someone to retract their statement of fact due to your
uneducated and biased belief that the statement was not true,
without anything to back up your belief...

-Chris
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:22:20 CST
From: Pankaj Saxena <U09416@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.german
Subject: Re: Detest Germans?
 <1993Jan17.192129.27257@compu.com> <93022.014410U09416@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <HF.93Jan22135512@whyaduck.tk.telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de>

In article <HF.93Jan22135512@whyaduck.tk.telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
hf@tk.telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Harald Fuchs) says:
>
>In article <93022.014410U09416@uicvm.uic.edu>, Pankaj Saxena
><U09416@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>> In article <1993Jan17.192129.27257@compu.com>, fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from
>> home) says:
>
>>>The British weren't particularly pleased with the new kid on the
>>>block who was beating them up commercially the world over and who
>>>was moving to also attempt to colonize the third world barbarians to
>>>get raw supplies from them cheaply.
>
>> Your tone here isn't much different from the Nazis...
>
>That's right, but see below.
>
>> so no wonder you
>> sympathize with them.
>
>I didn't notice that up to now. Perhaps _you_ didn't notice that Fred
>talks about WW1 and the time before, not about WW2. He talks about the
>age of imperialism, when _every_ European power, including Britain,
>said "The people in the 3rd world are inferior, but if we teach them
>to do it our way, maybe they can get some civilization. So let's grab
>as many territories as we can." Of course it was only an official
>excuse for exploitation, suppression and sometimes genocide, but many
>people in Europe were comfortable with that.
>The fact that Fred uses this terminology to describe the situation
>doesn't make him agree with it.
>--
>
>Harald Fuchs <hf@tk.telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de>

There is nothing in what he wrote that indicates that he was quoting someone
else or expressing any opinion other than his own. How would it sound if I
happened to mention in one of my postings that "Germans are bastards", but
without the quotation marks. Later, when someone objected, I could always say
that I was talking about the period just after the war, and surely that must
have been a popular sentiment at the time. Just because I used the terminology
doesn't mean that I agree with it.

If you don't mean something, don't say it. And if you have to, let people know
that it's really not your opinion, that you in fact disagree with it, but in
the interests of historical accuracy you feel you have to mention it.

If you cannot make this effort, your actions don't support your claim that
you aren't racist. A racist should be prepared to take some of his own
medicine.

U09416@UICVM.UIC.EDU
From: ct976@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (H. Daniel Hirsch)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Davidic Lineage
Date: 27 Jan 1993 06:45:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I have a neighbor, a sephardic Rabbi, who can trace himself to
a certain author.  The author of the sefer - in the introduction
- traces his own lineage to David.  That sound like Davidic
lineage to me.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.german
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Detest Germans?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:29:55 GMT

In article <93022.014410U09416@uicvm.uic.edu> Pankaj Saxena <U09416@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan17.192129.27257@compu.com>, fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from
>home) says:

>>The British weren't particularly pleased with the new kid on the block who was
>>beating them up commercially the world over and who was moving to also attempt
>>to colonize the third world barbarians to get raw supplies from them cheaply.

>Your tone here isn't much different from the Nazis, so no wonder you sympathize
>with them. 

Pankaj, this is less than impressive.

Fred does not sympathize with the Nazis.

Nor is his tone like that of the Nazis.

If you'd bother to look over his ENTIRE posting, you'd see that it was
a description of interests FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EACH COLONIAL POWER.

Not from Fred's point of view.  

>"Third world barbarians," indeed! If you find it so easy to condemn
>entire nations and races, you'd have been a prime candidate for manning the
>concentration camps.

Go back and read it again.  Then look up "point of view" in the dictionary.

>The point that several people have tried to make in this thread is that much of
>what the Nazis were able to get away with was because the general public didn't
>really think there was anything wrong about the idea of condemning a race as
>inferior. 

Who's claimed that?  

>You typify that philosophy.

And look up "irony" when you're done.

>The British didn't just use the third world countries as a source of raw
>materials. They were a huge captive market for the goods that their factories
>were churning out. For instance, they sold more textiles to India than to any
>European country.

Also true.  Relevance?

>The Germans were hardly a commercial threat to the British at the time of the
>second world war. The market for cuckoo clocks wasn't that big.

NOW who's being bigoted, or at least uninformed?  

a) We were talking about the causes of the FIRST world war, at which time
Germany was indeed expanding colonially, and was seeking foreign markets,
and was a major industrial power.

b) Germany was a major industrial power before the second world war, too.
Ever hear of Krupp?  Thyssen?  Hoechst?  Bayer?  BASF?  German steel,
dyes, chemicals, heavy and light and fine machinery, etc. were all
over the world markets.  

Roger

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish