From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:27:52 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep1143821@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1992Sep1.171757.26427@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep1095349@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# >   # What about the holes makes them other than holes?  Are they a special
# >   # shape that only a rabbi's drill could make?  Are they lined with
# >   # rare materials?

# >	   This is part of the point.  There is something special about them,
# >   including (but definitely not limited to) the fact that they are a
# >   rather common occurence in certain neighborhoods.
 
# That is not a special characteristic.  Graffiti is a rather common
# occurence in certain neighborhoods, but they do not constitute proof
# or even evidence of ownership.

	Your graffiti point is not a valid analogy.  That you would think
so makes it easier for me to understand why you still keep on making
yourself look silly.

	If the graffiti was always the same, if there was a requirement to
have it, if the element of fear and gangs that exists with respect to
the grafiti (or rather, the abscence of it) in the neighborhoods with
the mezuzah, then you would be on your way (but still not there) to
having an analogy.

	At any rate, that aspect is not the only thing special about them.

# >   # Not that I know of.  I did not say that the holes are
# >   # not valid evidence, I merely said that they were not proof of
# >   # ownership.  This for two reasons:  They can be faked, and they are not
# >   # easily removed in case of legal transfer of ownership.

# >	   They cannot easily be faked (you make yourself look silly
# >   everytime you try to claim otherwise).  You might have a valid point of
# >   transfer of ownership but only under three conditions.  Proof of
# >   transfer of ownership from those living there at the time the holes
# >   were made, proof that those who lived there at the time the holes were
# >   made were not the owners (and have no rights of receivership), or
# >   proof that those living there at the time the holes were made somehow
# >   lost their rights (or gave them up) legitimately.  None of these
# >   conditions apply.
 
# I guess I don't understand why you think that a hole cannot be made
# and claimed that it is an older mezuza hole.

	A simple hole can be faked.  Not these holes, and not in the
numbers and location (residences).

# You admit that none of
# them have been tested for actual age, as far as you know.  Do you
# claim that a mezuza hole can be made to mount a mezuza, but not just
# to make a hole?

	Who would make a mezuza hole just to make a hole?  And in those
numbers in those locations?

# As far as you string of conditions, they simply amount to requiring
# legal proof of ownership of the property, and really have nothing to
# do with mezuza holes at all.

	No, they amount to showing why the mezuza holes cannot be used as
proof.  However, these conditions (not one of them) exists.
Therefore, unless you can show these holes to be fake (and ever time
you try to you make yourself look silly.  Don't you wonder why the
Arabs never try to?), you have no bases here.

# Further, if proof of ownership is
# available, then the mezuza holes would carry no legal weight, being as
# they are easily faked, at least to an accuracy which would fool the
# average observer.

	Good point (it is one of my conditions) but for the wrong reason.
It would show the mezuza holes to be irelevent, even if they are not
fake.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc