HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: afarkas@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Andrew Farkas)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Haftorah Reading May 21, 1994
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:20:34 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Dec14.235541.12738@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>Our synagogue has set the date of the next adult Bat Mitzvahs
>on May 21, 1994.  Does anyone know what the haftorah reading will
>be that day?

Saturday 21 May 1994 appears to fall out on 11 Sivan 5754, which makes
for a rather popular parsha here at Princeton, Old Nasso, the Haftorah
for which should be Shoftim 13:2-25.
-- 
Andrew Farkas
AFarkas@phoenix.princeton.edu (Internet) AFarkas@pucc (Bitnet)
From: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: SCJ HAS BEEN DECONTAMINATED!
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:05:36 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mark Ira Kaufman (bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
:     But I happen
:     to think that proselytizers are a pain in the ass.  I have no
:     patience with them, and i do not feel there is any reason why
:     I should put up with them.  
Jesus would agree with you completely.
Infact, He would agree with most of what S.C.J. has said against missionaries.
Before you flame me, this is not a missionarizing post. As far as I'm
concerned, helping Jews to make aliyah (through fund-raising for UIA) is
a lot more obedient to Jesus.

Happy Hanukah

James Tauber
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Andy the Canadian twat
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:44:06 GMT

In article <92354.0430232893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.225342.1@vxdesy.desy.de>, godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de says:
>>
>>In article <92353.1139082893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Andy
>><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec18.014951.1@vxdesy.desy.de>, godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de says:
>>
>>> Good god Lawrence, everyone has problems with you, and you seem to have
>>> problems with this entire nation of ours:)  Thanks for putting in your
>>> two cents worth though.
>>
>>My pleasure, but not everyone has problems with me.
>>
>>Laurence
>>
> 
> Just half the nations on earth and 90% of the people on this system:)

Let's see now - Germans, Canadians and 2 or 3 Thais - is that half the nations
on earth?  1,2,....3 - there are 6 nations in Andy's world.  90% of the Germans
who read soc.culture.german and a handful of soc.culture.canada readers - is
that 90% of the people on this system?  If so I should stop wasting my time
reading other's postings, as I have better things to do with my time than
read the outpourings of a bunch of racist barbarian Krauts and the collective
wisdom of the inhabitants of the world's most boring and mediocre country
(Canada).

Laurence
From: tsudik@pollux.usc.edu (Gene Tsudik)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Rosenbergs
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:11:09 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

Folks,


I recently finished reading the "Book of Daniel" by Doctorow. For those 
of you that aren't familiar with it, the book is a fiction novel based 
loosely on the Ethel & Julius Rosenberg affair.

The (eventually) executed couple of the novel have two children whose 
life, both at pre- and post-adolescence, forms the leitmotif of the novel.
The main theme, as can be expected, is the traumatizing effect of the 
entire ordeal on the young children. 

I liked the book and would recommend it to anyone, however, the book is not
the purpose of this posting. Reading this book prompted me to consider the 
actual Rosenberg affair. It seems that its outcome polarized the American Jews 
(and to, some extent, non-Jews.) The issue of the unfortunate couple's
guilt or innocence has been probably debated ad nauseum in the thirty-odd
years.

The Rosenbergs were accused of spying for the "evil empire", USSR. 
Selling (or just passing) nuclear secrets, to be more specific.

Within the last two-three years the Russian govt (which is considered, by 
most, to be the political heir to the Soviet empire) flooded the West with a
slew of revelations about the past. Things like the downing of KAL jet,
the Polish officers' massacre in Katyn,  the truth about the Cuban missile 
crisis, etc., etc.

This got me curious about the Rosenbergs. Has there been any 
"revelation" on the subject from the Russian govt? If not, should there be?

Cheers,

Gene

-----------------------
screw all disclaimers...


-- 
----------------------
Gene Tsudik, Member FDIC
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: Murray Kahl <kahl@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Subject: Arens, No Defense?
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <Murray Kahl <kahl@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:03:39 GMT

Arens, I recently placed a post here in which I defined you as a liar. Your declared friend posted a message from you in which you accused me of supporting the Kach party. Since, to my knowledge, I have never met any member opf Kach, I find your accusation bordering on slander.
Defend yourself and prove your accusation, deny you made it, or apologize for a lie. I will not allow you to forget this as I resent your debating tactics, and feel the sidewalk is a step higher than the elevation you now rest upon..

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Is Failure to Support Pollard Anti-Semitic?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:59:49 GMT


Bill Coleman continues to evade the substantive issues, refusing to
address a single issue with reference to the Pollard discussion in
my last message.

Instead, he attempts, in a typical propagandist move, to shift the
discussion to whether I called him an anti-semite or not.

By his own account, the first several of my posts did not, though
he'd like to make it seem so. Instead they speak of anti-semitic
arguments. It was only after several posts, in which he refused
to consider that he was making anti-semitic arguments, that his
own personal motives were called into question. He is correct in
one thing--after several exchanges in which I characterized his
ARGUMENTS as anti-semitic, and he continued to exacerbate such
content, I did conclude that he personally was acting in bad
faith.

Since his latest post still refuses to confront the substance of this
issue, but throws more dust in the air, I must regrettably conclude
that he is, on the basis of his posts and in my opinion, anti-semitic.

Note that Bill has consistently refused to acknowledge the legitimacy
of the concern for equal protection under the laws, instead preferring
to rely on the old libel of "dual loyalty". That's the issue in a
nutshell, and that he has been told this by many of us and still
brazens out his anti-semitic position means he is no longer worth
listening to. He is now in my kill file, along with Mutlu's various
incarnations (interesting that they both use the same tactic of
ignoring it when they are caught in logical error and racist
propaganda, and persist in slurs and red herrings).

Yes, he heard me correctly. Anyone who raises a charge of dual loyalty
when the issue is equal justice under the law, is a racist.

The issue isn't my calling his positions and behavior anti-semitic;
the issue is his charge of dual loyalty against those who object when
Pollard clearly got a disproportionate sentence and the Feds reneged
on their plea bargain agreement. Since these objections have only to
do with Americans' rights under the Constitution, to link them with
Israel or Jewishness is pure slime.

Now Bill has totally discredited himself and his pose of being
the aggrieved party is revealed to be totally bogus since he's
avoided at least five challenges on the level of substance
in the previous paragraph. He made an anti-semitic charge
(dual loyalty), can't defend it, won't back down, and is throwing
dust in the air as fast as he can.

David







Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Kahane's philosophy
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:31:50 GMT

In article <3066@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:

# dm = makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
 
# dm: However what he is quoted in Chadashot L.A. is about contemplating
# dm: premeditated murder.  Now clearly one who contemplates murder does not
# dm: not become a murderer unless action replaces thought.  But to ask
# dm: "what's so bad about contemplating murder?"?
 
# wb: Again, given the context, what is so bad, other than your using
# wb: the same dishonest tactic?

# I'm afraid that I must not understand what you actually mean, as I
# can't figure out how I have misrepresented you, or what relevant part
# of the context I deleted.  Perhaps you might try to answer the
# following questions: "To what does the pronoun 'that' in your question
# (quoted below, as #1) refer?"  I sincerely understood it to refer to Binyamin
# Kahane's statement #2.

# 1: What is so bad about that, considering the situation with respect
# 1: to his father and his emotions?

# 2: "As far as I'm concerned, kill any Arab who stands in our way, in the
# 2: most humane manner possible, causing the least suffering."

	You are correct.

# Now I also *understand* why he feels this way, there are many wrongs
# that I *understand*.  I would not, however ask, "what's so bad about
# that?" unless I wanted to suggest that 'that' is not, in fact, a
# wrong, or at least not seriously so.

# I do realize that you object to actually *comitting* premeditated
# murder.  But is that not what B. Kahane is proposing?  While it
# may not be a prosecutable offense, isn't it wrong to suggest to
# people that they commit crimes?

	There is nothing wrong with that given his emotional state.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 07:28:35 GMT

In article <23097@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:

# In article <1992Dec18.185837.8548@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# > In article <1gt2k7INNjkm@mizar.usc.edu> srose@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Rose) writes:

# > # Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians is wrong, for at least three
# > # reasons.
# > # 1. It is illegal (according to Israeli, as well as international
# > # law).

# >  Since the Israeli Supreme court allowed it, you are an idiot if
# > you think it is illegal according to Israeli law.
 
# Mr. Makowsky, we all know you are the mother of all idiots -- but do you
# *have* to demonstrate it again and again?  For your information, the
# Israeli Supreme Court allowed the deportation to take place without
# ruling on its legality.  It set a date about a month from now for
# arguments on that issue.

	Well maybe I am the "mother of all idiots", although I doubt it.
And maybe I demonstrate it again and again, although I doubt it.
However, in this case it is you Mr. Arens who is stringing himself up
with the idiot rope.o

	If it was illegal, the Supreme court would have stoped it.  I
fact, a temporary injunction was granted (and than revoked or expired)
for just that reason.o

	The fact that individuals may have their cases heard to determine
whether the actions should apply to them is different from whether
conducting the mass deportation was illegal or not.  The nly way they
could have a case (and the effect of releasing you from idiot status)
is if all cases were overturned.  And even than it would not prove
your point.

# > As to international
# > law, it is only illegal if you assume the FALSE interpretation of the
# > fourth geneva concention that all deportations are illegal.

# Article 49 of the 1949 (Fourth) Geneva Convention on the Protection
# of War Victims states, among other things:

#   Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of
#   protected persons [i.e., inhabitants of occupied territory -- YA]
#   from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or
#   to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited
#   regardless of motive.

# I can see how easily this can be FALSELY interpreted.  Good to know that
# you have the CORRECT interpretation in your pocket.

	As I have written here before, William Safire (among others) has
shown that the evolution of that convention, including its official
interpretations, prove your interpretation (whether or not it matches
the wording is irrelevent) incorrect.  Your interpretation does provide
for good ad-hominem straw man arguments though.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:23476 soc.culture.arabic:5782
From: blais@ut-emx.uucp (Donald Blais)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque
Keywords: religious tolerance, respect, common decency
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:00:55 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <1gl3e5INNcha@mizar.usc.edu> srose@mizar.usc.edu (Steve Rose) writes:
>
>I have recently come upon a letter on the Internet which supports dismantling
>the dome-of-the-rock.  To my mind, the specifics of the letter are less
>important than the fact that there are some Israelis and other Jews who
>would support such an action.
>
>I am one Jew who does not.  In fact, I will fight such an action as best I
>can.

It is not commonly recognized among non-Muslims that "al-qubbat
al-Sakhrah" (Dome of the Rock) and the "al-masjid al-aqSa" (al-Aqsa
Mosque) are two separate structures.  The Dome of the Rock was built
between 685 and 691 AD by caliph `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.  The
al-Aqsa Mosque was begun in 710 AD.  About the Dome of the Rock...
 
Encyclopaedia Britannica, (Macropaedia), 15th edition
Islamic Peoples, Arts of

    [...] the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, is a unique building.
    Completed in 691, this masterwork of Islamic architecture is the
    earliest major Islamic monument.  Its octogonal plan, use of a
    high dome, and building techniques are hardly original, although
    its decoration is unique.  Its purpose, however, is what is most
    remarkable about the building.  Since the middle of the 8th
    century, the Dome of the Rock has become the focal center of the
    most mystical event in the life of the Prophet: his ascension into
    heaven from the rock around which the building was erected.
    According to an inscription preserved since the erection of the
    dome, however, it would seem that the building did not originally
    commemorate the Prophet's ascension but rather the Christology of
    Islam and its relationship to Judaism.  It seems preferable,
    therefore, to interpret the Dome of the Rock as a victory monument
    of the new faith's ideological and religious claim on a holy city
    and on all the religious tradtions attached to it.

In Jewish tradition, the rock is the site at which Abraham prepared to
sacrifice his son Isaac, and the mount is the site of Solomon's Temple.

Is there any reason why this geographic navel of monotheistic belief
should not be a shrine to welcome pilgrims of all faiths.
-- 
Donald E. Blais             Internet: blais@utexas.edu
Computation Center          Bitnet:   blais@utxvms
University of Texas         UUCP:     uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!blais
Austin, TX 78712            Phone:    +1 512-471-6387 +1 512-471-3241 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: An open letter to David Skoll
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:02:09 GMT

In <92352.1816172893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy
<2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>As mr weiner has now publicly posted the same pseudonym I sent to your
>postmaster I will assume you either asked Weiner to post what you thought
>was my name or forwarded my correspondence to him. In either case, it shows
>you have no honour and are completly contemptable as I have made it quite
>clear why record security makes it vital I not reveal my full name in
>conjunction with my student number. You sir are contemptible scum.

I had no e-mail contact whatsoever with Mr. Wiener prior to his
posting of "Andy's" pseudonym.  I called directory assistance in
Kingston, and there is no "A. Bratu" listed, so either Andy has
no phone or an unlisted number, or he used a false name when accusing
me in front of my postmaster.  It's bad enough that he should make
untrue accusations, but what is worse is that he does so
annonymously.

>At least your pretentions of being a supporter of etiquitte and proprierty
>has been exposed as a lie, if only to the two of us. You should feel very
>ashamed of your behaviour.

Again, I had no contact with Mr. Wiener prior to his posting, and I'd ask
him to verify that for me.  I am copying this letter to Andy's postmaster,
who is hooper@qucdn.queensu.ca.  As far as I'm concerned, Andy's remarks
on this forum are actionable, and I expect an immediate retraction.  I'd
urge other readers of scj who are tired of Andy's behaviour to let
Mr. Hooper at Queens University know.

--
David F. Skoll
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Here we go again
Keywords: annoying messianics and missionaries
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:11:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


In response to Sam Saal's annoyance when new missionaries show up
here to convert us, perhaps a terse, inoffensive but firm reply
can be constructed that will make them go away quietly.

Something along the lines of "Thanks for the offer of your god,
but I already have one with whom I'm completely satisfied."

Reminds me of a bumper sticker addressed to the "God is dead" crowd:

"My God is alive and well; sorry to hear about yours."
From: aliki@nova1.stanford.edu (Alexandra Schmidt)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Urgent Appeal-Jerusalem Rabbi Mistakenly Arrested!
Date: 20 Dec 1992 17:26:33 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: nova1.stanford.edu

In article <34448@sales.GBA.NYU.EDU> dmoore@sales.GBA.NYU.EDU (Daniel B Moore) writes:
>
>A well respected Rabbi from Jerusalem has 
>been arrested along with his brother recently 
>in California. Because the charges are 
>ridiculous, many important figures are helping 
>to gain their release, such as Senator Arlen 
>Specter of Pennsylvania, the Simon Wiesenthal 
>Center, Alan Dershowitz, Lincoln Square 
>Synagogue, the Lubavicher Rebbe and Rabbi 
>Shlomo Riskin. Due to a series of mistakes, 
>such as the Israeli Consulate writing that the 
>Rabbi's brother has a criminal record, their bail 
>has been set at an unattainable $750,000 each. 
>As a result they have been in jail for the past 
>two weeks. At this point their hope is through 
>legal means. Each needs $60,000 in lawyer's 
>fees by this Monday (December 21). Although 
>this Rabbi has five children and not much money, 
>an urgent appeal has gone out by people who 
>know him, such as myself, and has so far raised 
>$80-90,000. If you have the ability to contribute 
>to this Rabbi who has dedicated his life to the 
>mitzva of helping Jews in need, call me for more
>information-(212) 260-3978. The money that 
>you pledge will be layed out in advance of its 
>receipt because it needs to be wired this Monday. 
>Tizku l'mitzvot!
> 
>--Douglas B. Moore 
>New York, New York 
>
>

I assume you are referring to the Wasserman case and the Feld brothers. . .
I know only what I read in the newspapers locally, but it definitely does not 
reflect the state of affairs you cite above.  I would urge readers of the 
above to invest some time in finding out more about the case before 
contributing money to this cause.  

			. . .Alexandra
From: jie9328@zeus.tamu.edu (JOEL ISAAC EHRLICH)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Entertaining suggestions for responses to "Merry Christmas"
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:40 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I always answer with "Merry Christmas."  Those who know that I am Jewish don't
wish me "MC", or are uneccesarily apologetic if they slip and do.  "MC" is a
wish of goodwill, and if someone forgets or doesn't know that I'm Jewish, I 
can't hold them responsible for a "innapropriate" greeting.  And anyhow, 
just because Xmas isn't my holiday, there is no reason why I shouldn't wish
that Xtians enjoy theirs.  I think any other rejoinders or smart remarks are
inappropriate.

Happy Chanukah!

	- Joel

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: Shabbat question
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:46:54 GMT

Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
> goldberg@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) says:
> >Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

> >>Why are bicyles not allowed, after all they are operated under your own
> >>power and if anything you expend less energy or "work" then you would
> >>walking.
> >  Bicycle riding is definitely allowed in your appartment, but on a road,
> >certain unpaved, but possibly even if paved, your wheels would plough the
> >ground. No ploughing on Shabbath.

> Seriously? Well, how bout hang gliding then?:)(wouldn't you also be
> "ploughing" with your feet by walking (kicking up mud etc) how bout
> wheelchairs?

Yes.  Hang gliding is also permitted in your apartment.

-Don Gertler
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Jewish STEREOTYPES - the last time
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:15:43 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: mk568652@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Mitchell Kotler)

In article <Dec17.221329.62773@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, mk568652@longs (Mitchell Kotler) writes:
>I was deeply enraged at the fact that NO ONE, not one person,
>supported my views against Jews mocking themselves.  What is wrong
>with you people!

We have big noses and we're cheap to a fault.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Late 4 Dec Mincha
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:19:45 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)

In article <9212101540.AA25604@cyclone.sbi.com>, gertler@cyclone (Don Gertler) writes:
>This is actually a complex issue.  If the town has already accepted
>Shabbat (i.e., the only shul has, or all of them, if more than one
>exist), many would say that you have now missed mincha, even if you
>still have time.  If you are already in shul, and the shul itself
>has already been mekabel Shabbat, you may have an even harder time
>finding a psak to still daven mincha.

Harder?  Not that hard.  The saying of a late mincha is not a melacha
or otherwise prohibited on Shabbos.  The usual middle blessings are
left out on Shabbos to not delay the congregation.  If a congregation
agrees to the delay, what's the problem?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)