HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:36:20 GMT
	<1992Dec18.185837.8548@ennews.eas.asu.edu> <23097@venera.isi.edu>
	<1992Dec20.072835.24581@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu's message of 20 Dec 92 07:28:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.072835.24581@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>
> 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

I don't expect you to believe me, but don't you read newspapers or
listen to the radio?  The Israeli Supreme Court has not yet given a
final ruling on the legality of the deportations.

I don't have any high hopes that they'll rescind them, but the fact is
that only an idiot can argue that the deportations are legal "because
the court allowed them", since the court has NOT ruled on their legality
yet.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
arens@isi.edu
From: eva@Apocalypse.CAD.UCLA.EDU (Eva)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Ascii Chanukah symbols?
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:49:41 GMT
Organization: U.C.L.A. Computer Aided Design Laboratory

Does anyone have any ascii pictures of a dreidle or a chanukia?
(If you send one of latkes I might be tempted to put sour cream on it and
 take a bite out of the screen)

Post or e-mail as you see fit

Thanks and Happy Chanukah, 
Eva Fried
eva@apocalypse.cad.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: use the tunes
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:14:39 GMT

Someone posted a comment about using nonJewish music for Jewish themes.
This goes the other way, I think.

(I don't know who wrote it)

  "Have a Jewish Christmas"
  (Tune: Jingle Bells)

  The lights are being strung, The streets are full of cheer,
  The stockings have been hung, Christmas Time is here.
  Its joyous revelry and spirit capture you;
  "At Christmas Time it's hard to be a good religious Jew." ("Oy")

  (Chorus:)
  Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle night and day.
  It's "Yo-ho-ho" and mistletoe and Santa's on his way.
  Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, If Santa Claus is true,
  his joy is fun for everyone, but what's a Jew to do?

  He goes to synagogue, it doesn't matter which,
  He's Jewish and he's very proud, "I'd rather fight than switch."
  When Christmas Time is here, he wishes it would pass,
  "Last Sunday morning I got up and almost went to mass!" ("Oy")

  (repeat Chorus and end.)
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:26:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.185546.19983@starbase.trincoll.edu>
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

>I can think of only one plausible defense for the menorah: people
>have a consitutional right to be vulgar--especially in Beverly Hills--
>and as such I'm ready to support it.

What about Chanukah, or Judaism in general, do you hate so much as to
consider "vulgar."
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni)
Subject: Twatology (was Andy the Canadian twat)
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:16:55 GMT

In: <102586@netnews.upenn.edu>
weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) wrote:
 Subject: Re: Andy the Canadian twat

>In article <1992Dec18.044635.18892@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, ecl@cbnewsj (Evelyn C.
>>As a woman reader of s.c.j, I find the use of the word "twat" in this
>>context (and indeed, in any context) offensive, and would ask that
>>posters refrain from using it.
>
>It's also atrocious grammar.  The masculine is twit.

As I  cannot even claim  E.S.L. (English  Second Language) for  me but
rather the E.F.L. (F standing for  Fourth), I should not stick my head
out and argue with a grammarian like Matthew.  But if "twit" refers to
a person  having certain characteristics,  would not "twat", in  it is
past form of "twit", refer to a person who in the past was a twit, but
has since reformed?

>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

  Hag Sameah,

  Michael Shimshoni
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: simon@school.enet.dec.com ("Curioser and Curioser...")
Subject: Re: American Jews and Lubavitch
Reply-To: simon@school.enet.dec.com ("Curioser and Curioser...")
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:08:12 GMT


In article <1992Dec23.171712.5102@starbase.trincoll.edu>,
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

>Now Habadniks are not communists, but their logic regarding
>Jewish-Gentile relations is the same.  Let the nation's
>governors indeed declare that this is a Christian nation,
>let the public schools once again require that Jewish
>children participate in Christmas and Easter celebrations,
>let the Pat Robertsons and Pat Buchanans (and their friends
>on the Supreme Court) beat back whatever gains have been
>made over the years toward separation of church and state;
>then America's Jews will realize that their well-being
>consists in withdrawing from the general society into..a
>European-style ghetto with its own schools, etc.  Intermar-
>riage would vanish and most Jews would become baalei teshu-
>va. One sure winner in such a scenario would of course be
>Habad since it has already acquired considerable experience
>in handling new arrivals (the fact that I admire and respect
>this aspect of Habad's work is irrelevant).
>
>That, as I see it, is the logic behind the whole thing.

Being an atheist myself, and having a background of a Russian Jew
who moved to the USA eleven years ago, and being privileged to
have a Chabad rabbi (in Framingham, MA) as a friend for the last 
seven years, I can only say that the above is a nice conspiracy 
theory. 



--
Leo Simon			simon@school.enet.dec.com

Who is not liberal when young, does not have a heart.
Who is not conservative when old, does not have a brain.

				-- Attributed to many
Date: Thursday, 31 December 1992 16:48:29 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Distribution: world

In <9212302233.AA05392@cyclone.sbi.com>, gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)  wrote:
# In Judaism, a Jew may or may not believe in G-d and the Torah.  That
# person is still just as much a Jew as Rebbe Ploni Almoni Shlita.  On
# the other hand, professing atheism and rejecting the Torah *may*
# [hypothetical alert!!!] legitimately render a Gentile, who has every
# right to such a belief, unacceptable for entrance into the Jewish
# people.  Once a convert, however, that person -- now a Jew -- remains
# a Jew, even if he/she loses the belief.  A convert is no less a Jew
# than a native Jew.  But the person may not become a Jew in the first
# place without the belief.
# 
# Now, assuming this is a legitimate [Oops!  I used the "L" word]
# approach, while understandably not to your liking, can we at least
# require the same belief of the person responsible for supervising
# and educating the convert?  Try to ignore the OCR labels.  As I
# stated, O may have difficulty with *itself* on this issue.  But
# is this inherently evil?  Again, we're not requiring it of every
# Jew just to be called a Jew, merely of the prospective convert
# into our people, as well as the person guiding the new Jew-to-be.

  OK, admitting for the sake of argument that a precondition for
  conversion is that the individual accept the direct divine
  origin of Torah (not the way I learned it, BTW; only that one
  must accept the binding nature of the obligation -- but let
  that pass for now).  It seems that you are arguing that since
  the Conservative movement doesn't catechize its rabbis on the
  question that we may assume the converse, that is, all
  Conservative converts are converted by rabbis who do NOT accept
  Torah leMoshe miSinai.  Even more, you seem to extend this to
  the assumption that the convert him/herself doesn't accept TlMmS.

  The logic here is obviously faulty.  I personally know at least
  two Conservative rabbis who most profoundly believe TlMmS, and
  I know at least one Reform convert who does.  In the latter case
  I also know that the rabbi in question does NOT accept TlMmS, so
  your logic falls down here in two separate ways.  Beyond that,
  you have yourself admitted that the Orthodox don't catechize
  their rabbis all that strictly, so it's REALLY hard to see that
  anyone can seriously claim that ALL O-conversions are kosher and
  ALL C-conversions aren't.

  Which isn't to say that there isn't a safek.  Knowing some of
  the C rabbis that I do, *I* couldn't wouldn't accept the blanket
  statement that all C-conversions are kosher.  Let's leave it at
  the level of reasonable doubt and I might go along.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. the Jews
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:12:31
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Dec22.132648.18487@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <6626@pdxgate.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu's message of 29 Dec 92 20:21:32 GMT

In article <6626@pdxgate.UUCP> a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes:

   saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:

   >The algorithm is standard and transparent:
   >1: "join us. We're Jews, too." (cajole and convince)
   >If that fails....
   >2: "_you_ aren't real Jews." (condemn)

   Actually, the algorithm I have seen from these people is more like:

[deleted]

The problem is that all too many of these "messianic Jews" know full
well that they are Christians and deliberately pretend otherwise (see
the recent posting of the Jews for Jesus internal document).  Also, it's
remarkable how quickly most of them (messianics) start talking about
Jesus and lose interest in anything else.  In other words, there is
reason to believe that a lot of this is fraud, and most of us have
little interest in that.

As you might have noticed, this is one of the VERY few issues that
essentially everyone here who does not believe in Jesus in some form or
another agrees on.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: L'Chaim 247
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:05:47 GMT

>   Every war ever waged was basically for power/money, except for one. The
>war which the Greeks waged against the Jews over 2,000 years ago was waged
>for oil. Olive oil to be exact.
>   It wasn't Jewish money the Greeks were after. Had they been after our
>wealth, they would have emptied the Holy Temple. The furnishings of the
>Holy Temple today would be valued in the tens of billions of dollars. But
>the Greeks didn't strip the Holy Temple clean. They defiled it. They
>offered pigs as sacrifices on the altar. They erected statues of their
>gods and goddesses on the Temple grounds. And they opened the little
>bottles of pure olive oil that were used daily to kindle the
>seven-branched menora. 

Nonsense.

If I steal your car, does it show that I didn't do so for material reasons
just because after I took it I decided to drive it instead of sell it to
someone else?

Of course not.  If I steal your car and I drive it, I don't have to pay
a few thousand dollars to buy one and drive _it_ instead.

That's what the Greeks did above.  They took over the Temple and used it
as a pagan temple.  Had they built their own pagan temple, it would have cost
them lots of money; by stealing the Temple and using it for such purposes,
they avoided paying exactly that amount.

>   Weren't those Greeks dumb to leave the wealth but despoil the oil?

They _didn't_ leave the wealth.  They took it for themselves and used it.
Just because they didn't physically cut pieces of gold out of the walls
doesn't mean they didn't take it.

If I throw you out of your house and decide to live in it instead, does
that mean I didn't take your house because I didn't knock it down and use
the materials elsewhere?

>   But oil is significant for another reason, a reason which gives us
>additional insight into oil's message in our lives in general and the
>Chanuka miracle in particular. 
>   Oil, like wine, symbolizes the secrets of Torah, the mystical aspects
>of  Judaism. These formerly hidden concepts are becoming more revealed as

A reason which makes me doubtful.  The Greeks did not know that oil has this
symbolism when they decided to choose oil to defile.  If the symbolism is
anything other than coincidence, who chose it?  Is it supposed to be a miracle
that the Greeks picked the one substance that would have a nice symbolism?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. the Jews
Followup-To: alt.messianic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 23:40:01 GMT

In article <RLK.92Dec29171231@underprize.think.com>
rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

> well that they are Christians and deliberately pretend otherwise (see
> the recent posting of the Jews for Jesus internal document).  

It wasn't an internal document, they published it.  They're quite open
about their goals and methods, if one knows where to look.  See also
Moishe Rosen's book _Jews for Jesus_ (ca. 1974) where he spells it all
out.  R' Dov Fisch's _Jews for Nothing_ (1984) quotes some
particularly interesting passages.

Other groups are more adept at hiding their Christianity, and
therefore present a greater missionary threat.  The latest
trend is for them to claim that "Biblical Judaism = Biblical
Christianity" yet they cowardly refuse to enumerate which groups
(apart from themselves) deserve this title and which do not.

Rob






--
Robert A. Levene     Internet: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
  "/  //  / /"         Bitnet:   RXL1@APLVM
From: aliki@nova1.stanford.edu (Alexandra Schmidt)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: A self-confessed silly thread: Jewish Rock/Pop Stars
Date: 23 Dec 1992 23:51:42 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: nova1.stanford.edu

Admittedly, many are best described as 'of Mosaic descent' (non-affiliated,
but born to Jewish mothers).  Any additions?  

Barry Manilow
Barbra Streisand
Neil Diamond
Danny Elfman (drummer, Oingo Boingo)
Adam Horowitz (Beastie Boys)
Adam Yauch (Beastie Boys)
Michael Diamond (Beastie Boys)
Susanna Hoffs (lead singer, Bangles)
Michael Steele (bassist, Bangles)
Bob Dylan
Geddy Lee (lead singer/bassist, Rush)
David Lee Roth
Eric Bloom (Blue Oyster Cult)
Hillel Slovak (original guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers until he OD'ed)

Sorry about the heavy 80's focus--I write whereof I know.
I have this notion that one or several members of Kiss are Jewish, but not
sure. . .

			. . .Alexandra
From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Entertaining suggestions for responses
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:10:15 GMT
	<1gt2r8INN2on@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
	<1992Dec22.042512.19165@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1h7a4sINNb6k@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu's message of 22 Dec 92 14:53:16 GMT

In article <1h7a4sINNb6k@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love) writes:
>
> In article <1992Dec22.042512.19165@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mcil.comm.mot.com writes:
> >What is wrong with "Chanukah Sameach" ?
>
> In English, nothing much. In English, the name of the holiday
> is clearly "Hannukah" so "Hannukah Sameah" translates into the
> "Hinglish" as "Happy Hannukah." But in Hebrew, "Hannukah" is
> a real word meaning "Dedication" as well as being used for the
> holiday. So it sounds like "Happy dedication."

Except that, if I'm not mistaken, chanukah (dedication) is feminine.  So
"happy dedication" would be "chanukah smecha".  The use of the masculine
"sameach" is a clear indication that the reference is, in fact, to the
holiday of dedication (chag hachanuka) which is masculine.

> Since "Hag urim" is a common way to refer to the holiday,
> I'm sticking with Hag urim sameah, at least for now.

And it is indeed a fairly common greeting for the holiday.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
arens@isi.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: Name of Palestinian Deportees (part i)
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: Free Faerie Front
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:53:50 GMT


Will you people *please* take this to talk.politics.mideast?
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"I is not now, nor has I ever been, a Human Bein'!"
                ---Pogo Possum
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Refuting Xian Missionaries (README)
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:26:32 GMT

bg = billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
gf = friedenb@silver.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)

gf: If a Christian missionary solemnly warns you that you will burn
gf: in hell forever unless you accept Jesus, or if they try any other
gf: type of psychological trick, calmly ask them for a logical proof
gf: of their beliefs.  Insist on intellectual reasoning.

bg: This is like asking a Jew why they believe the Tanakh.  Yes, it is based
bg: upon the writtings accepted as scripture by the particular religion, but
bg: whether you accept only the Tanakh or the "Old" and "New" Testaments is
bg: ultimately a matter of faith, which is not subject to logic.

I agree that this would be a reasonable question to ask of a
hypothetical Jewish missionary.  Gedaliah did not suggest asking
annoying questions of random Christians, only of Christian
missionaries.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          "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: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.144532.1583@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

# In article <1992Dec24.132448.29303@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (
# samuel.saal) writes:
 
# >I suspect you misunderstand Chabad's intention and motivation.  If your
# >concept of vulgarity is based on "aping," you miss the most important
# >point in Chabad's public displays of the Menorot/Chanukiot.  If "aping"
# >was the only point, don't you think they'd be interested in putting up
# >Jewish symbols to counter the pink and green of easter, the browns and
# >reds of Thanksgiving, the witches and ghosts of Halloween?  No; they
# >are only interested in Chanukah and Menorot.  Why is that?  I'd say it
# >is because the motivation is _not_ that of equality with other holiday
# >symbols and symbolism.  Instead, it is part of Chanukah in its own rite
# >(and right).  One of the mitzvot of Chanukah is that of "Pirsumei
# >Nissah" (publicizing the miracle), and to that end, large Chanukiot are
# >as good a way as any to publicize it.  There's nothing to ape.
# >Pirsumei nissah has nothing to do with a particular society or strata
# >therein.  It stands on its own and denigrating that as "aping"  shows a
# >lack of comprehension for an important part of the celebration of
# >Chanukah, let alone a lack of respect for those who do understand this
# >mitzvah.
 
# You're entirely correct and the last thing I meant to convey was the
# silly notion that Habad was "aping" Christians.  I was addressing a
# larger question and I see from your perceptive objection that I must
# at the very least go back to the drawing board.  I'm afraid that I
# was trying (this is an informal cafeteria after all) to paint fine
# details with a broad brush.
 
# Briefly for now: the essence of vulgarity (I think) is what I call
# cultural misappropriation.  It's like pin-the-donkey.  It has nothing
# to do with someone's _intentions_ or _motives_.  It has to do entirely
# with style, by which I obviously don't mean hoo-ha or fancy but rather
# coherence and harmony.  That's why I said before that O is virtually
# lacking in vulgarity.  Everything fits.  Every part speaks to every
# part with the same language.  Unfortunately for Lubavitch, that is
# not what happens when it tries to invent from scratch a public festival.
# A public festival that never was (in golus) and which loses in dignity
# from being such an obvious retort to Christmas.

	You do not know what you are talkin about.  We are obligated (the
Shulchan Aruch is at least one source for this) to make Hanuka a
public festival (or to be more precise, to publicize the holiday).
--
	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
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Feld Brothers
Date: 24 Dec 92 20:29:04 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: fy@lucid.com (Frank Yellin)

In article <FY.92Dec24104845@hardwick.lucid.com>, fy@lucid (Frank Yellin) writes:
>>  that the card said "MOSAD MACCABEE" which is the name of the
>>  sports group.

>Palo Alto, because of its proximity to a major university, has a very
>large concentration of native Israelis.  I'm sure the police have an
>accurate translation of the business card.

If they wanted one, then yes, they could easily have one.  Proximity to
information is not often relevant to actually getting it, though, or
acting on it after first handling it incorrectly.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:24482 soc.culture.arabic:6192