HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals should be allowed into the military
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:19:39 GMT
Summary:  Correction

In article <1992Dec28.210814.23145@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.205601.216@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dkhaikin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dmitry Khaikin) writes:
> > In article <lexier.725574259@sfu.ca> lexier@fraser.sfu.ca (Mr. Spock) writes:
> > >     Gays are just like you and me.  Why discriminate against them?
> > 
> > Gays are not just like you and me, ...
> 
> You may say, "Gays are not just like me," but unless you know Mr. Khaikin's
                                                                    ^^^^^^^
Ooops, that should have been "Mr. Spock's."

> sexual orientation, the statement "Gays are not just like you" is risky
> at best.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals should be allowed into the military
Organization: Real/Time Communications
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 02:39:26 GMT

David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) wrote:
: 
: I have not seen a more inflammatory and positional phrase than
: "bigoted and hateful notion that gays should be discriminated against"
: in a long time. What's more, it's grossly inaccurate.  The issue is
: one of appropriateness. Some feel that homosexuals can function well
: and without added friction in the military.  Others do not. The issue
: is not unlike one of whether men and women should sleep in joint open
: barracks (not private rooms) in the military.
: 
: Neither bigotry, hatefulness, nor discrimination are involved. What
: is involved is whether the military can efficiently carry out their
: primary function if people, some of whom are sexually interested in
: others, sleep and live in communal areas and use communal showers and
: toilets with those others.
: 
: David
: 
: -- 
: David Sternlight
: RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
:
"Grossly inaccurate"?  Take out "sexual orientation" and put in
religion, then take out "gay and lesbian" and put in Jewish.  How
would _you_ feel?  Would you still say that it wasn't bigotted?
Would you still say it wasn't motivated by hate?  Would you find the
euphemisms ("efficiency", etc.) as tolerable?  You are saying that it
is not bigoted to base a policy on lies and distorted perceptions.  You
are saying it is not hateful to hurt people because you feel 
uncomfortable around them.  And you are saying it is not discrimination
to deny rights to a group of people.  _VERY_ curious.
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: The Jewish nose myth
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:50:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.064120.28118@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>
EXTDSM@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (MADDISON,David) writes:

>I already posted this on Oct 14, 1992 but the nose thread seems to have come 
>up again in a big way so here is a rehash of what I posted before. This may be
>of help.


Instead of "nose thread," shouldn't that be "nose hair"?
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mgross@halibut.nosc.mil (Michelle K. Gross)
Subject: Hannuka as a minor holiday
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <mgross@halibut.nosc.mil (Michelle K. Gross)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:45:04 GMT


I guess it depends how your define "minor." Malcom X said that if you're
not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. The anti-Hellenists
said whoever is with God, come with us.  Any attempt to call this statement
minor seems to be to undermine the Macabbean struggle against Greek domination
and assimilation. 

I'm sure that other people can add reasons why someone could mistakenly 
consider a holiday celebrating the triumph over external domination as a
minor holiday. But why not just correct things, and celebrate hannukah as
the joyous holiday it is, thanking God each day for that day's miracle, saying
the psalms of Hallel, and lighting the lights of the Menorah at night? (If
there are not enough "don'-do's" associated with hannukah for you, you could
try not cooking for the half-hour that you are enjoying the burning candles.)

Freiliche Hannukah,
to all,
Michelle
mgross@nosc.mil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: The Jewish nose myth
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:48:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.204652.25417@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com
(Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes: >
>saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes: >>
>madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >  >
>saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes: >  >>
>EXTDSM@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (MADDISON,David) writes: >  >>>

>>   >>>I already posted this on Oct 14, 1992 but the nose thread seems to have come 
>>   >>>up again in a big way so here is a rehash of what I posted before. This may be
>>   >>>of help.

>>   >>Instead of "nose thread," shouldn't that be "nose hair"?

>>   >I smell a flamefight coming.  Better keep your nose out of this.

>>>   And how can you be so sure?  Do you have some secret prognosticating
>>>   abilities?  Maybe you read it in Nostril-damus?

>>Sam, you're going schnozz to schnozz with a professional here...

>Oh, go ahead and snout it out.  

This may be the bridge between our views on Judaism.  It's probably the
only one we could both sniff out that we'd agree makes scents.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mark@fenris.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger)
Subject: Re: Name of Palestinian Deportees (part i)
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 23:28:48 GMT

In article <92365.102141LMWHITE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Lois White <LMWHITE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.162904.7304@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, er@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Elie Rosenfeld) says:

>>Belonging to Hamas is enough.  Would you refuse to condemn an American who
>>is a member of the KKK, but claims that he "doesn't agree with everything

>Nice to see that McCarthyism is still alive

To a Hamas member, begin Jewish is enough. And the penalty for being
Jewish when the Hamas comes hunting is death, not temporary deportation.
There have been several instances of Jewish women and children being
butchered in the street for this offense.

Nice to know that antisemitic double standards are still alive.

--Mark
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: The difference between a chasid and a misnagid
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:17:50 GMT

In article <isaac.724902252@etrog> isaac@etrog.se.citri.edu.au (Isaac Balbin) writes:
>I guess this is how Gemora (Lehavdil) got going!
>Joel arguing with David about what I said/meant.
>In actual fact, I used the word Chassidim in respect to Rav Shach, pointedly
>and with purpose, albeit just a trifle loosely.
>Elements of Chassidism have found their way into Misnagdic (non-Chassidic) 
>This concept is intertwined with the idea of subservience of to a Rabbi.
   I just knew that if I stuck my nose in (whoops, wrong thread) I'd
   get hoist on my own petard. Although, other people seemed to
   interpret Isaac's use of the word Chassidim in a small "c" sense,
   which is also different from what Isaac is describing here. So,...
   it seems that I am after all, right (!) --it's fair to assume that
   the other person isn't an idiot and has a reason for what they're
   writing. I, of course, am guilty as charged, since David's original
   reply had a basis which didn't occur to me (chassidut meaning piety.)
   Now, where was that halva discussion?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Jewish STEREOTYPES - the last time
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:56:48 GMT

In <1992Dec18.020153.3193@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

    Sure we are!  We don't wear symbolic gallows around our necks.
    Yeesh, if Jesus had been around during the Holocaust, then
    Christians would wear little gas cannisters instead.

Maddi, I didn't know that you read Yediot Achronot.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          "If there really was a Jewish conspiracy to run the
 |__/__/_/        world, my rabbi would have let me in on it by now.
 |warren@         I contribute enough to the shule."
/ nysernet.org 			    Saul Goodman
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Israel must return the deportees!
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:00:50 GMT

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
: wc4209@writer.yorku.ca (Irene Berkovich) writes:
: : In article <530@owl.ukc.ac.uk> dat@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Turner) writes:
: : >Israel must return the 410 deportees!
: : >
Yeah, why does Israel think it can dump all its garbage on its neighbours?
 :)     								    
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: amir@cc.gatech.edu (amir)
Subject: Tum'a after giving birth
Reply-To: amir@cc.gatech.edu (amir)
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:33:18 GMT

A question was asked why a woman is tme'a ("impure") for two weeks
after giving birth to a girl, and one week after giving birth to a
boy.

It was correctly pointed out that this is a "hok", an unexplained
commandment. 

However, I did hear an interesting thought about this.
In general, tum'a and tahora are hard laws to understand. A dead
person is ta'me, and anyone who touches a dead body becomes ta'me (the
laws are more complicated than that, but this is not the subject I
want to pursue here). The way to become tahor again is by having "mei
hatat" ("purifying" water) sprinkled on the third and fourth day of a
seven-day period (again, there is more to it than that).

The "mei hatat" have in them a mixture of the ashes of a red heifer.
The interesting thing is that while the ashes of the red heifer cause
tahora from the strongest state of tum'a, the people who prepare the
ahses, become TA'ME from the process.

We can observe some interesting points:
     1. death causes the harshest form of tum'a.
     2. there is a sort of "opposite reaction" to creating tahora, it
	makes the person doing it ta'me.

Using the above two points we can extrapolate the following:
     1. birth of a new life causes tahora.
     2. the person creating this tahora (the mother) becomes tme'a.
     3. the more tahora is produced, the more tum'a will the mother
	have.

Thus the difference between the length of tum'a after giving birth to
a baby boy or girl.

-- Ami
					
					-Amihood Amir (amir@cc.gatech.edu)
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: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:19:54 GMT

In article <3108@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:

# I believe that I understand David Makowsky to mean that there is
# nothing wrong with Binyamin Kahane saying
 
#     "As far as I'm concerned, kill any Arab who stands in our way, in the
#     most humane manner possible, causing the least suffering."
 
# in light of his emotions, which are due to his father's murder.
 
# I disagree.  I understand why he feels that way, but I insist that he
# has a responsibility to either control himself or to seek counselling.

	Well, he has controled himself.  As to counseling, perhaps you are
correct.  Perhpas not. But either way, there is nothing wrong with
what he said.
--
	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: norm@helix.nih.gov (Norman Friedman)
Subject: Re: Ascii Chanukah symbols?
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <norm@helix.nih.gov (Norman Friedman)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:02:32 GMT

Are you kidding.  All Litvoks eat sour cream.  It takes a real man to eat a 
latke with sour cream.  Apple sauce is for sissys. Bah Humbug (Is that right for Chanuah.  Anyway why now, except latkes are wonderful anytime.
From: steyn@cs.rochester.edu (Gavin Steyn)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:21:33 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Dec21.211721.24659@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>This country was founded with a belief in God. It's even on the money.

Two points:

1)  If you do want to claim that this country was founded with a belief in
God, you're going to have to face people who will say that this government
was founded with a belief in Christianity.  (In fact, some Midwestern
state governor caused a ruckus a little while back claiming exactly that).

2) Fortuantely, you're both wrong.  Most of the intellectual foudners
of this country (Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, to name a few) were 
basically atheists.  (Unitarians, actually, but back then it was the
only way to be an atheist and still be a major political figure).

>The constitution doesn't prohibit state activities with respect to
>religion, but with respect to "the establishment" i.e. a particular
>religion. Athiests have to comfort themselves with the free speech
>provisions of the Constitution; they are not considered a party at
>interest with equal status on the subject of religion. Putting it
>another way, athiests don't have equal standing as just another
>religion that believes in no religion.

Why not?  I may have seen an expurgated version of the Bill of Rights,
but I really can't recall a section defining atheism as not being a 
religion.

>At least that's the way I think it is until we take "In God We
>Trust" off the money.

And if the money said "In Christ We Trust," would you convert?  Maybe
this is a new direction for Constitutional law.  We could see what the
Constitution says about all sorts of things by looking at our money.
I wonder what that Pyramid tells us about the second amendment.

>Believers in God, unite! You have nothing to lose but your secular
>humanists.

What goes around comes around.  Remember, most of this country has
nothing to lose but their non-Christians.  "Believers in Christ, unite!
You have nothing to lose but your heathens."  Sounds great, doesn't it!
Heck, it's even catchier than your version.

Gavin Steyn
steyn@cs.rochester.edu
"So he's had the lifelong ambition of reversing the polarity of the earth?"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:59:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.162146.26162@starbase.trincoll.edu>
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.134053.19143@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:

>>In an earlier post (that you deleted), you called the public celebration
>>of Chanuka "vulgar."  I'm curious to hear specifics.

>Not at all.  I referred to the public celebration by Habad.  I had in
>mind not the menorah (though the two I've seen are exceedingly ugly)
>but the brouhaha surrounding their lighting, the cars racing around
>blasting (poorly reproduced) "Hanuka" music, the totally phony attempt
>at creating a "joyous" atmosphere.

>Vulgar is a tricky concept and I've been trying to figure it out for
>myself.  One surprising conclusion so far is that O is practically
>free of it, except as noted above.  I think that this is so because
>O is most true to itself, because it thoroughly understands the
>meanings of its symbols and gestures and admits none that it doesn't
>understand.  Not so, alas, C.

>Anyway, and I emphasize that this is how I see it today, I suspect
>that Habad's vulgarity stems precisely from its attempt at acting
>in a world that it doesn't even begin to understand, so that many
>of its gestures and symbols fail of their intentions.

I still don't understand.  Are you calling Chabad vulgar because their
menorot or the loudspeakers don't meet you aesthetic standards?  Are
you calling it vulgar because others don't understand Chabad's
intentions?  Are you calling it vulgar because you don't gain any
joyousness from their attempts to instill it? Or am I completely
missing the point?
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Talmud on determining sex
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-28326]: bourbon
Organization: E.E. Dept., Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:47:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.200136.5644@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>
>A slightly different question:
>
>  I had heard that the reason a woman is "unclean" for two weeks
>after the birth of a girl, but only one week after the birth of a
>boy, is so she can attend the brit.   I don't know if this is a
>"cute" response or a real one.
>
I don't think this is particularly cute, but it certainly isn't real.
(BTW, "unclean" is a poor and unfortunately pejorative translation of
"tameh." "Ritually impure" is better, but not much. Imho, this is one
word best not translated without explanation.)

>But I would ask if the "normal" time is one week but a girl causes
>the time to extend to two weeks, or if it is normally two weeks but
>the birth of a son reduces the time to one week.
>
Normal times is 2 weeks for a girl, 1 for a boy. There is no variation
from the norm depending on the sex. (This whole question falls into
the category of the Red Heifer. Heifer.

>So, can the mother attend the brit in the case of a boy/girl twin?

Yes. Restrictions on an individual who is tameh (male or female) apply
to activities related to the Temple service (and to marital
relations), not to ceremonies such as a brit.


David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
From: bri@panix.com (Brian Shanblatt)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Synagogue MUSIC-Opera davening!
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:37:48 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC


In article <3104@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>
>Oh, I wanted to talk about nusach.  If someone does the nusach
>correctly (as opposed to singing opera), that's fine.  If someone
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"opera" seems to be a very common complaint against professional
chazzanim.

It should be pointed out, however, that good singing i.e. "Correct"
singing is epitomized by "opera" singing.  We all hear about opera
singers who scream and lose their voices after only 10 years of professional
singing - I'm not talking abou that.  "opera" singing is "classical"
singing.  The type singing with the open throat, breath connection,
connected phrases, etc.  This is the type of singing that
produces the most beautiful tone, and more importantly to
the chazzan, helps to insure vocal stamina throughout
a 4,5, or 6 hour yom kippur service.

The professional chazzan, who has trained his voice, and wants
to sing with strength through a long service, WIlL out of necessity
sound a bit like an "opera singer". That doesn't always mean a
great opera singer, but that style will be prevelant in the davening.

remember, much of our nusah is very rangey.  The nusah for rosh hashana
maarive, for example, can span an octave and a third. Even 
good, natural voices can find this tiring without training.
Once the singer learnd to open the throat, and sing connected phrases,
such vocal ranges become much easier, and yes, the result is more 
"operatic"


-- 
bri@panix.com
"How to learn how to sing, Rule #1: There is always tomorrow..."
From: yair@huha.cs.huji.ac.il (Yair Friedman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: God's Hyphen (Re: Mezuzah question)
Keywords: Even if they *do* say Jehovah!
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:58:28 GMT
Reply-To: yair@cs.huji.ac.il
Organization: The Hebrew U. of Jerusalem, Computer Science Dep.
NNTP-Posting-Host: huha.cs.huji.ac.il

In article <1992Dec28.202352.29882@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dkhaikin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dmitry Khaikin) writes:
|> In article <1hmgl3INNis@pita.cs.huji.ac.il> yair@cs.huji.ac.il writes:
|> >I am sorry, but I never understood the respect claim.  If I write
|> >your name as Dmi-try, would I shoow more respect to you?
|> 
|> No, you would not. But here it is a different concept. One should not
|> use the Name in everyday conversation, unless it is teaching another
|> Jew(s). However, one should still try to avoid writing the Name as it
|> is. I personally don't understand what is the big deal for everybody to
|> write A-d-o... and G-d? It is not that much work and at the same time it
|> shows respect. 

You are mixing up two different thing.  The first is the one is not alloed 
to say God's name (from 'lo tisa') since God's name has some holyness in
it even when it is daid in other languages (not in Hebrew).  The other 
is that God's name (and other divrei torah) shouldn't be erased but  be burried
in gniza. Thus in order to prevent cases  where a holy name can be erased,
God's name is replaced.

|> I do agree that one could argue that it is not really
|> breaking anything, but do we have to get as close as we can to the edge
|> after which it is breaking something?

No because it is only applied to Hebrew writing - not latin characters
and on 'real' writing material - not computer files.

|> 
|> >					Yair Friedman.
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> Dima
|> 

-- 
					Yair Friedman.
yair@cs.huji.ac.il
yair%cs@hujivms.BITNET
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gerev
From: OWEN@vms.bgu.ac.il (David Owen)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:54:32 GMT
Organization: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva Israel, BGU
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.13

In <1gff1jINNb9e@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu writes:

> As near as I can tell from five minutes of research, gerev
> meaning "sock" is masculine and derives from the Arabic
> jawrab.
>
> Jack F. Love
>

I made a mistake, GEREV is masculine. It is used as fam. in everyday Hebrew
in Israel, but it is masculine!


Shlomo Zelkine,         E-mail:
3 Eilat St.
Afridar,                owen@bguvms.bgu.ac.il
Ashkelon,
Israel 78443            Shlomo.Zelkine@f4.n401.z2.fidonet.org

07-710286               zelkine@ilnet.net