HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Genesis
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:17:09 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


                -=> Quoting Ken Mann to All <=-
 KM> From: mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Mann)
 KM> Date: 11 Sep 92 18:12:36 GMT
 KM> Organization: IBM
 KM> Message-ID: <19920911.111256.929@almaden.ibm.com>
 KM> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
 KM>
 KM> In Article 3285 of alt.messianic I wrote:
 >I would like to know what the MJ position is on interpreting Genesis,
 >specifically the Creation account.
 >Was it six 24-hour days, or millions of years?
 >Was Noah's flood worldwide r just figurative?
 >Does the UMJC has an "official" position?
 KM> 
 KM> So far, Tom Albrecht has been the only one to respond!
 KM> 
 KM> Is there a particular reason why any fellow MJs are avoiding this
 KM> question? 

No.  Just waiting for each other to answer I suppose.  {Keyboard
burnout ? :-)  I'm not sure there is an "official" position.  Probally
most would say six 24hour days, (though some would say that was a
re-creation); and a world-wide flood.

... 012Boast not against the branches....be not high-minded, but fear:210  
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Disputations...
Date: 6 Sep 1992 08:07:53 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu



In article <1992Sep1.005433.1@vax1.umkc.edu>
tbeaudoin@vax1.umkc.edu writes:

>  Can someone recommend a reference for a collection of medieval
> disputations, such as Rob has mentioned above?  Perhaps some of us
> here might find them a useful historical backdrop for some of the very
> discussions we're having on this newsgroup. Thanks!

Well, Hyam Maccoby (you guessed it) published a book on this
subject called _Judaism on Trial_, ca. '82.  His discusses
several medieval disputations.

Rob
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What's in a Name?
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:13:58 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <9209101625.AA29074@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
>
>Bill Carlson writes:
>
>>     *Why?  "Churches" is an English translit. of a Greek term.
>>     We are not Greek.
>
>So what?  "Churches" may be derived from Greek,
>but it's a valid English word as well.

Bill is grasping at straws to make a bad point.  "Church" is not derived
from Greek, at least not directly (the exact derivation in my dictionary is
not clear).  The word "church" is used in some English versions of the NT
to denote the Greek word "ekklesia," which means "assembly".

For example, the apostle Matthew records Jesus' words:

  You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my "ekklesia", and the
  gates of hades will not prevail against it.  (Matt. 16:18)

The Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent of assembly is probably "qahal" (cf. Ex.
12:6)  So if Bill wanted to be even more accurate, he would refer to his
whatever as a Messianic Qahal.

There is only one instance in the NT where the Greek word for "synagogue"
is used to refer to an assembly of believers in Messiah.  The multitude of
other instances it refers to unbelieving Jews, sometimes rather
unflatteringly (cf. Rev. 2:9).  Christian assemblies of Jews and Gentiles
are almost exclusively referred to by the term "ekklesia."

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Words Like Arrows
Date: 9 Sep 1992 08:36:24 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

>> Replace with "If you contend that his existence was that of
>> the messiah as understood as a *Jewish* concept, then Jesus would
>> have to be fully human, not the man-god Christianity portrays."

> A funny thing...  I didn't see anything unclear in your comment.

I didn't intend to cast doubt on whether or not Jesus existed, only 
the manner of his existence.  Some thought I was doing the former.


>  You agree 
> that the Messiah is a wholly Jewish concept, and then you agree that Yeshua
> was a Jew. No reference that Yeshua would have been the Messiah. Then you
> "make you statement more clear" by implying that ACCORDING TO THE TENETS
> OF JUDAISM Yeshua is not the Messiah. Need I say more ?

Yes, because I have no idea what your point is.

Mine was that the statements "<Ploni> was a man" and "<Ploni> was God" are
mutually exclusive, irrespective of choice <Ploni>, according to Judaism.

Other religions believe differently.

Rob
From: Devorah.Ginat@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Devorah Ginat)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: General
Date: 12 Sep 92 04:17:01 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

Dear Bill--
  
Hoo, boy.  I see what you mean, sort of.  You know, this is not really 
what I thought this BBS would be like.  Perhaps I'm on the wrong net.  
  
I did read some messages, and....
Have you heard the saying, "Two Jews, three opinions"?  I think that 
perhaps the latter number is an understatement.
  
'later,
Devorah

--  
Devorah Ginat - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Devorah.Ginat@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: What's in a Name?
Date: 10 Sep 1992 11:26:01 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


[It is logical for different types of]
RAL> Catholics to be under "Churches - Roman Catholic,"
RAL> "Churches-Anglican" and for you to be under "Churches-Messianic."

Bill Carlson writes:


>     *Why?  "Churches" is an English translit. of a Greek term.
>     We are not Greek.


So what?  "Churches" may be derived from Greek,
but it's a valid English word as well.


>  For similar, (and more), reasons, we do not go by the
>     term "Christian", but either M'shacheeym-Y'hudim, or else Y'hudim-
>     Natzratim.  Why? - Simple, were Jewish, not Greek!


What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Kindly explain how, despite not being Greek, you ("Messianic Jews
[sic]") nevertheless list yourselves under "Synagogues - Messianic?"

"Synagogues" is also a transliteration from Greek.


- Rob

-- 
--
Robert A. Levene     Internet: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
  "/  //  / /"         Bitnet:   RXL1@APLVM
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:34:01 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


     -=> Quoting Laura Johanna Manninen to Robert A. Levene <=-
 LJM> From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
 LJM> Date: 12 Sep 92 17:47:16 GMT
 LJM> Organization: University of Turku
 LJM> Message-ID: <LJMORLY.92Sep12184716@polaris.utu.fi>
 LJM> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
 
 RL>     Moses' level of prophecy was unique, of greater quality
 RL>     than those who preceded and followed him
 >
 LJM> Are there different "levels" of prophesy ? Moshe was a servant of
 LJM> God like many others.
 
You might want to bring up these to Robert, (those who "followed",
including of course Messiah).  I would to Robert direct, but it is too
hard to address a article to him, if I don't have the origional post
with this off-line reader:

     [Neve Shalom]: The King Messiah shall be exalted above Abraham, be
     high above Moses. [Neve Shalom]
     "In fact the Messiah is such a prophet as it is stated in the
     Midrash on the verse, "Behold  My servant shall prosper...Moses by
     the miracles which he wrought drew but a single nation to the
     worship of G-d, but the Messiah will draw all nations to the
     worship of G-d."  R.Levi ben Gershom.
     Our Rabbis expound this in a Midrash of the King Messiah saying,
     He shall be higher than Abraham, exalted above Moses, and loftier
     than the ministering angels. -R.Sa'adyah Ibn Danan {Midrash
     Tanchuma}
     As it is said of the former redeemer, and Moses took his wife, and
     his sons, and set them on an ass (Exodus 4:20), so it is said of
     the latter Redeemer {Messiah} "poor and riding on an ass" -Midrash
     Kohelet (fol.63:2)   [Num.24:8; Hos.11:1]   {Aboth 1:15}

While Moshe was 'a Deliverer'; Y'shua is both our Deliverer and our
Salvation.

... 012 Messianic Jews: Those want Mashaich now - AGAIN! 210  
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby book
Date: 6 Sep 1992 11:30:19 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


>> My suggestion is to call themselves "Messianics," list
>> themselves under "Churches - Messianic" and to cease and
>> desist from calling their practices Judaism.

ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi writes:

> Then what is the difference between MJ'ism and RJ'ism ?

"MJism" accepts the faith tenets of Christianity.
"RJism" retains those of Judaism.

>> > Do you believe that God is one ? 
>> Yes.

>> > Or is it just a question of "religions"
>> Yes.

> These two answers contradict one another. In one religion, God describes
> himself in a certain way (or that's what the believers in that religion
> believe); in another in a different way. Yet, there is only one God, and 
> he can't contradict himself. 

The different religions are based on contradictory understandings of
what they believe G-d said.

...
> Thus, which one is the correct (notice: the correct one is not a religion;
> the uncorrect one is), Messianic Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism ?

Neither could be called "a religion."  Judaism, which you call
"Rabbinic Judaism" is the correct form of the Jewish religion,
unlike Karaism, Frankism, etc.  "Messianic Judaism" is a
form of the Christian religion, based upon shared faith tenets,
which Harvey Smith was kind enough to post for us.  It doesn't
make sense for me to decide if it's "correct" or not, since
I don't accept Christianity's faith tenets in the first place.

R
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: My Heritage
Date: 13 Sep 1992 16:33:58 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

BC: Bill Carlson

RAL> The mitzvah is "bris-millah." (bris and brit are the same word)
RAL> I've never heard of a mitzvah of "brit."  Source, please?

BC>     Logic.  He completed the Commandment of the Covenant -(circumcise)

Bill correctly notes that the commandment is "circumcise" not
"be circumcised."  The doctor in the hospital doesn't fulfill this.

> RAL> This was before Sinai.
>     So nu?  You are saying that from Avraham to Moshe, they were in
>     violation of the Mitzvah of the Covenant that was given them
>     directly by HaShem?! 

No.

>    That is why I asked you for verifiable
>     halachah -(if it exists); - as the procedures followed by the
>     first one (Avram) who was given the Brit-Millah, up through
>     Moshe, would seen to be the most authorative -(when considering
>     that both Tanakh and Mishnah is silent on the issue beyond the
>     examples in the Torah :-)

Volumes have been written on this, but if you want a few examples,
see the braisa brought down in the gemara in Kiddushin chaf-tes.


>  ...   Right now, I contend, that although not in the proper way -
>     before HaShem he HAS fulfilled the Torah Mitzvah -he's Jewish,
>     and he's circumcised!

Listen closely.  The commandment is "circumcise" not "be circumcised."

[...]
>     accepted, then I conclude that it was the act of the circumcision
>     itself that was accepted 

Right.

> RAL> (4) _does_ need "hatafas dam bris" (drawing the drop of blood
> RAL> for the sake of the commandment of bris milah)
>     No.  Please show me in halachah that this is required on any but
>     a proselyte to Judaism.

Open up a Shulchan Aruch, look up "Hilchos Milah."  See
Reish-Samech-Beis, "Zman Milah."  Check out the Turey Zahav on
the left, and the accompanying discussions.

>     as to the reason they circumcised their child?  Even if it was
>     a lingering desire to circumcise their children because they
>     themselves were Jews, even though by a doctor, and without the
>     baruchot, would this not be the intention of the heart - and so
>     recognised by HaShem -(perhaps being even a more noble desire
>     than Zipporah's?)  If you disagree - halachah please.

A gentile doctor is not himself bound by the laws of "bris milah"
and therefore cannot act on behalf of the baby's Jewish parent.

A Jewish doctor *could* be appointed to circumcise the child,
but I doubt this was the case when the mother didn't even know she was
Jewish.

R




-- 
--
Robert A. Levene     Internet: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
  "/  //  / /"         Bitnet:   RXL1@APLVM
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby book
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:21:15 GMT
Organization: University of Turku

In article <9209060845.AA05327@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.92Aug27131414@polaris.utu.fi>
> >> It seems like "religious confusion" is the bread and butter of folks
> >> like Harvey Smith who post statements such as "we believe that
> >> Biblical Judaism is in fact New Covenant, which is called Christianity"
> >
> > Then how would you say it ? (I mean the citation.)

> My suggestion is to call themselves "Messianics," list
> themselves under "Churches - Messianic" and to cease and
> desist from calling their practices Judaism.

Then what is the difference between MJ'ism and RJ'ism ?

> > Do you believe that 
> > God is one ? 

> Yes.

> > Or is it just a question of "religions"

> Yes.

These two answers contradict one another. In one religion, God describes
himself in a certain way (or that's what the believers in that religion
believe); in another in a different way. Yet, there is only one God, and 
he can't contradict himself. 

> > i.e. that all of them
> > a re correct ways to serve Hashem ?

> No.

Thus, which one is the correct (notice: the correct one is not a religion;
the uncorrect one is), Messianic Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism ?

> R

- Laura
--
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans 
of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from ancient, from the days of eternity." - Micha 5:1

"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing 
love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.    - Yeshaya 54:10

met b'chet, CHAI B'Y'SHUA !
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Words Like Arrows
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:55:06 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


          -=> Quoting Malachi Robertson to All <=-
 MR> From: Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
 MR> Date: 7 Sep 92 04:14:28 GMT
 MR> Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
 MR> Message-ID: <1992Sep7.041428.6060@samba.oit.unc.edu>
 MR> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
 MR> 
 MR> Question:  If we take Matthew 15:24 where Jesus says, "I was sent
 MR> to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to them alone"
 MR> literally and without context, then does it not conflict with
 MR> other verses in New Testment that point to Jesus as being sent to
 MR> the lost sheep of world? In speaking of such verses there are some
 MR> from the very same gospel: Matthew 28:18-20: ... Also, how do we
 MR> deal with the verses in Matthew where Jesus deals with the Roman
 MR> centurion?
                             -BC> Reply <BC-
    While, (at times), He 'helped certain Goyim'; He was not SENT to
    them.  Matt. 28:18-20 is after Yeshua's resurrection; and is a
    commission to His Talmidim, and was carried out directly by them
    rather than Himself.

... 012 Think not that I am come to annul the Torah or the Prophets: 210  
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Rob's Law
Date: 9 Sep 1992 12:25:16 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Tom's corrections noted.  Replace the following:

>> The Romans destroyed the Temple and sent the Jews into exile.  Soon
>> after, Paul formed a popular religion based on
>> the messianic aspirations attributed to Jesus, whom the Romans and their
>> quisling Sadducee regime had considered dangerously subversive.

with

 Paul formed a popular religion based on the messianic aspirations
 attributed to Jesus, whom the Romans and their quisling Sadducee
 regime had considered dangerously subversive.  The Romans destroyed
 the Temple and sent the Jews into exile.


R
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: (old) Question For Rob Levene
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:49:08

In article <9209131751.AA12854@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> RAL> You have never proved that rejection of Jesus was the cause rather
> RAL> than effect of the principles of Judaism.

> Bil Carlson wrote:
> >    I think you are reading more into what I said than I did.  I do not
> >    conclude that the "starting" principles of Judaism were to reject
> >    Y'shua.  That would be silly, as the starting premises of Judiasm
> >    are the Tanakh, and earlier Rabbinic lit. that goes back before
> >    even Y'shua's time {Hillel and Shammai}.

> Good.  Would Bruce and Laura care to second Bill's statement?

How many times you want it explained ? It all boils down to the basic
question, whether Yeshua is the Messiah or not. If he is, Messianic 
Judaism is the authentic form of Judaism and if he isn't, Rabbinic 
Judaism is. I'll see whether I've got time to reply to those kilometers 
long replies of yours, but just in case someone misunderstood when I 
said I retract of calling modern RJism 'Judaism', I just ment that IMHO
it has no right to claim to represent the only true Judaism. BTW remember
my mother tongue is Finnish, not English, which may cause some misunder-
standings as well.

- Laura 

--
Loving the truth is loving God.
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Words Like Arrows
Date: 9 Sep 1992 16:45:38 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <LJMORLY.92Sep9184512@polaris.utu.fi> Laura Manninen writes:

[...]

>         You agree 
> that the Messiah is a wholly Jewish concept, and then you agree that Yeshua
> was a Jew.  No reference that Yeshua would have been the Messiah.  Then you
> "make you statement more clear" by implying that ACCORDING TO THE TENETS
> OF JUDAISM Yeshua is not the Messiah. Need I say more ?
[...]
> I left out one line: (according to the tenets of Judaism (RJ) Yeshua is
> not the Messiah), OTHERWISE HE IS.

Might we have a language barrier, or just a logic barrier?

"According to Ministan society, <behavior> is considered rude."
     **  does not imply **
"Everywhere outside Ministan society, <behavior> is considered acceptable."



> The point is that I don't understand why you needed to add that correction
> in the first place, unless you believe Yeshua really is the Messiah.

<sigh> Because the original sentence could be misconstrued to imply
       that I doubted Jesus' existence (which I accept), rather than
       his being a man-god messiah (which I reject).


> BTW I'll reply to that long one of yours later. And I'm still 
> waiting for a reply to that long one of mine, or didn't you get it ?

I have no idea which one you're talking about; send it to me via e-mail.


>> Other religions believe differently.
>
> Religions are just human attempts to reach God, whereas the true relation-
> ship with God is no religion. C'mon join us !

How do you define religion?

I propose: "a common identity based upon shared faith tenets
concerning the supernatural."

R
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: My Heritage
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:24:06 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


        -=> Quoting Theodore M. Alper to Bill Carlson <=-
 TMA> From: alper@sushi.psych.nwu.edu (Theodore M. Alper)
 TMA> Date: 8 Sep 92 15:59:23 GMT
 TMA> Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston IL
 TMA> Message-ID: <1992Sep8.155923.22651@news.acns.nwu.edu>
 TMA> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
 TMA> In article <139971.2AAC547E@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
 TMA> Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
 BC>  Nope.  Though you didn't have exactly a Brit-Millah according to
 BC> Torah, (since it was a medical circumcision), you still are
 BC> circumcised and a Jew.  This "re-circumcision" business, applies
 BC> only to proselytes/converts to Judaism, from the Gentiles, who
 BC> are already circumcised, and would include shedding a single drop
 BC> of blood.  That is not necessary for a natural born circumcised
 BC> Jew anyway, so you don't have to worry about it.
 TMA> Is this accurate? Could you cite your source for this? 
 TMA> (Note, I'm too ignorant of halacha to be certain you're mistaken,
 TMA> but I am curious to know how MJs come to decisions on this sort
 TMA> of thing.)
     The only Commandment/Mitzvah in Torah is that every male child of
     the Jews are to be circumcised.  But you will notice that in
     Exodus 4:24-26, as late as Moshe, the L-RD sought to kill him.
     So his wife, Zipporah, cut off the foreskin of her son and cast
     it at Moshe's feet, and it stopped the threat of death.  This
     wasn't a Brit-Millah -(as per Halachah), neither was it done by
     the father, but a simply circumcision preformed by the mother.
     Yet, it satisfied the requirements; even though Moshe had put
     off the circumcision in the first place - (though it almost
     cost him his life).  Please see more in my reply to Robert
     Levene.

... 012 Think not that I am come to annul the Torah or the Prophets: 210  

--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Words Like Arrows
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:14:28 GMT
Distribution: alt.messianic
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Question:  If we take Matthew 15:24 where Jesus says, "I was sent to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to them alone" literally and
without context, then does it not conflict with other verses in the New
Testment that point to Jesus as being sent to the lost sheep of the world?
In speaking of such verses there are some from the very same gospel:
Matthew 28:18-20: "Full authority in heaven and on earth has been
committed to me.  Go forth therefore and make all nations my disciples;
baptize men everywhere in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And be
assured, I am with you always, to the end of time."  Also, how do we deal
with the verses in Matthew where Jesus deals with the Roman centurion?  

A seeker of truth,
"Malachi Robertson" better known as Ian Robertson Brown

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80