HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@bird.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:49:02 GMT

In <1992Nov16.234229.6724@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) says:
>In article <BD.92Nov11102204@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>The presumption of innocence is integral to this process.  When you say 
>>that I am "setting up for a system that victimizes the victims after 
>>the crime, as well" you are missing the point.  The jury system is
>>designed to maximize the possibility of a just solution, starting
>>with the assumption that the accused is innocent.  It is incumbent
>>on the accuser to prove, beyond a resonalbe doubt, that the accused
>>actually committed the crime.

>And when this is in fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as it was
>in the Kahane case, and the jury decides nevertheless to acquit the
>accused, where has the maximum possibility of a just solution gone to? 

Then it obviously wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

>>Do you suggest that in order to be "fair" to the victim then a black man
>>accused of shooting a white police officer should be tried before a
>>jury of white police officers?  This doesn't seem "fair" to me.

>Obviously.  But when a jury finds something which is entirely out of
>whack with common sense observations and even with detailed analysis,

But they didn't.

>free of the theatrics and manipulations of the courtroom, then the
>"justice" system is missing out on justice by miles.  When this kind
>of verdict becomes commonplace, the system is due for a major overhaul. 

Yes.  Let's execute anyone Jake Livini thinks is guilty.  We can save
lots of money on trials, jails, etc.  It doesn't matter whether 12
people think that someone did something, based on all the evidence.  We
can leave it to Jake Livini, based on things he read in the New York Times.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:40:21 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)

In article <FAIGIN.92Nov18142024@soldan.aero.org>, faigin@aero (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
>Religion (and that's what Judaism is, at the heart of it) is a matter
>of belief.

Yet another typical Reform borrowing from Christianity.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni)
Subject: Hebrew Plural (was Prayer shawls)
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:04:29 GMT

In: <9211150344.AA14346@host0.COLBY.EDU>
jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU (Nice Young Lady(tm)) states:
 Subject: Re: Prayer shawls

>How can the plural of tallis be talitot? It's not a feminine noun, unless it's
>If it is masculine it would be tallisim, according to my Hebrew textbook...

A nice young  lady like JJ should also use  nice new Hebrew textbooks,
not  those with  mistakes in  them.  While  in plural  *most* feminine
nouns  end with  an "ot"  and  male ones  with  "im", this  is not  an
absolute rule.

The father of this lady was an  "av", belonging to the group of "avot"
(NOT  avim), and  she herself  being an  "isha" belongs  to the  group
nashIM.

As the popular (grammatically incorrect)  song of new olim goes: Ivrit
qasha safa ('though not half as  hard as English, just ask any Sabar).

>JJ

 Michael Shimshoni
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:20516 soc.culture.turkish:11769 talk.politics.mideast:22285 talk.politics.soviet:9008 soc.culture.greek:10706 soc.culture.europe:9656 soc.culture.soviet:10086 soc.rights.human:4241 soc.culture.yugoslavia:9587
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.soviet,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Jewish readers who find it inappropriate ...
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:22:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Nov19.152026.20758@urartu.sdpa.org>
dbd@urartu.sdpa.org (David Davidian) writes:

> [JTS] [Jewish readers who find it inappropriate that I compared the genocide
> [JTS] against the Armenians to the Holocaust may flame me by email.]
> 
> The following is directed to those who would "flame" Mr. Schuerzinger:
> 
> Just what is this supposed to mean? What is inappropriate? Why should Mr.
> Schuerzinger be flamed? Is it somehow sacrilegious for "Jewish readers" to 
> compare the prototype of the Nazi Holocaust to the Nazi Holocaust?

OK.  I didn't realize my comment would get those of Armenian extraction
angry.  It's just that words like 'genocide' and 'holocaust' have been
bandied about so often recently that they seem to have lost their
meaning.  I was afraid that Jews, especially those directly affected by
'the Holocaust' (capitalized) would find my use of the word to describe
yet another circumstance where a large percentage of on ethnic group
was murdered by another ethnic group inappropriate.

IN MY OPINION, *some* Jews seem to think that the word 'holocaust'
should be used only to describe what happened to the Jews during Adolf
Hitler's reign, that this was the worst thing that ever happened, and
that nobody else has a right to claim what happened to other ethnic
groups was as bad as what happened in 'the Holocaust' (again
capitalized).  To put it another way, I get the impression there are
people who feel that using the word 'holocaust' (in lowercase) lessens
the meaning of what happened in 'the Holocaust' (yet again
capitalized).  I personally think that it's perfectly acceptable to
call what happened under the Khmer Rouge 'the Cambodian holocaust', and
even to call what happened to the Armenians under the Ottoman Turks
'the Armenian holocaust'.  

Maybe the last paragraph should have read, "Members of ethnic groups
who think that I have lessend the gravity of what happened to their
ancestors may flame me by email."  Is this generic enough to cover
Jews, Armenians, and the rest of the ethnic groups that have suffered
some sort of genocide?

Again, all interested parties may flame me by email.


--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have realized it would be bad vodka when all the label said
was 'Russian Vodka'."
From: jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU (Nice Young Lady(tm))
Subject: Re: Getting pregnant first time (Was Re: Oral sex)
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU (Nice Young Lady(tm))>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:08:10 GMT

esafern@shearson.com (Eric Safern) writes: 
 
>Goldberg) writes:

>>  Not to mention that according to (Yivamot? it was daf yomi in August)
>>   there is no possibility of pregnancy from a woman's first relations
>>   which would mean that one could never get started.
>>   (I wonder why the Amoraim excluded Lot's daughters. Anybody know?)

>There is a Rashi by this Maaseh which states that Lot's daughters
>removed the hymen by hand beforehand, since "one can't get pregnant the
>first time."  (This is from memory.)

>I was not aware this statement originates in the Talmud.

>It is, unfortunately, totally false.  It is completely medically possible
>for this to occur.  It is not all that likely, however...

>If you don't believe me, cross-post to sci.med.


Medically possible but not all that likely?  Why not??  

Actually...do you mean the removing of the hymen beforehand (I assumed)?

I know women nowadays occassionally do this.  (since it relieves SOME of 
the discomfort of the 'first time')

JJ
From: chaim@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Chaim R. Dworkin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Second Hand Judaica wanted
Keywords: menorot, kiddush cups, platters, etc ...
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:34:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1e8p3lINN3ou@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> charla@kerouac.East.Sun.COM () writes:
>
>I'm looking for leads, in the Boston area or possibly by mail,
>for getting Jewish articles that "have a past" for my home.  Since
>my family isn't Jewish, I don't have any "heirlooms" so I want
>to create my own, by adopting articles that have been put up for
>sale.  I'd like to know a little about their history, but that
>isn't absolutely necessary. 
>

Part of the value of an heirloom is in its past and the **personal**
memories it conjures.  My great-grandfather's pocket watch is valuable
because it is an antique and it is gold but it is an heirloom because it
belonged to **my** great-grandfather.  It would be valuable to you but
not the same thing.  Likewise, I have a kippah which was made by a
Rebbitzen from Singapore and she gave it to me while in transit to Israel
when we met on a mountain-top in Nepal.  For me it's an heirloom.  I
have many other items that I have acquired in my lifetime which I
consider "heirlooms" more because of their history then because they are
old. 

What I'm suggesting to you is that in addition to "antiques" you
consider beginning the process of collecting "real" heirlooms, items
which are of value to you because of their past, not in spite of their
past.
  

Be well.

Chaim


Chaim R. Dworkin
chaim@linc.cis.upenn.edu
From: simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Mathematical Proof of G-d?
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:18:09 GMT
Reply-To: simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: Boston University

In article <9211191456.AA22318@cyclone.sbi.com> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
>emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> > friedenb@case-l5 (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>
>> >>It can be proven that : i(Pi)                          
>> >>			  e	= -1      (Where Pi is 3.1415927....)
>> 
>> >Pi is 3.1415926....  Rounding off the "...", you get 3.1415927.
>> 
>> Pi is 3.1415926... not 3.1415926....
>> Only then can you round the "..." instead of  the "...."
>
>Wiener's above statements were properly punctuated.  It seems that
>you're claiming that pi is even more "transcendental" than its class
>implies, namely that pi != pi.

 pi! = pi ?!

Putting on Herman's professional hat:

The only solution for x! = x ( or \Gamma(x) = x, if you wish)
is x = 1, theeeen pi = 1, Q.E.D.
Going back we see, that
 i
e = -1, which combines only 3 fundamental constants


Simon Streltsov,
Boston Univresity

"If you go on the road and come to a fork - Take it!"

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss)
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:08:22 GMT

In article <dfs.722132529@vash> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
>In <1992Nov18.005516.933@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake
>Livni) writes:
>
>>There is no danger in telling the truth (or there shouldn't be in an
>>ideal system) but putting things into a perspective, something so
>>often lost in a world of sound-bites and short attention spans, is
>>terribly important.  Meir Kahane was probably no worse than the Arabs
>>outside Israel whom he opposed or the Arab members of Knesset inside
>>Israel who kept their posts while Kahane was legislated out of
>>existence.
>
>So that makes it OK?  Therefore, by Livni's logic, it is OK for Israel to
>conduct a campaign of terrorism because they would then be "no worse" than
>Hezbollah or the PLO or the PFLP.
>

And the  Hagana and the Irgun also. 

Nabil
From: tichauer@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo Tichauer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: American Antisemitism
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 02:08:49 +0100
Organization: "The Private Site of Manfredo Tichauer"

aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:

> In article <RaNLuB3w165w@valpso.hanse.de> tichauer@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo 
> 
> Nabil wrote:
> Can you find out the percentage of Americans who don't like Arabs?
>  
> >  Why should he? This is s.c.j.
> 
> Nabeel was referring to Arabs as Semites, therefore, he was wondering,
> in that context of American anti-semitism, what the percentage was in
> view of hatred/bias against Arabs.
> 
> But we know, it isn't the same thing solely because the term was
> invented by a German and according to any dictionary is defined
> as "A person who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews"
> (American Heritage) [actually under 'anti-semite'].
> 
> Now, I'm sure this is convenient as a way of not catagorizing Arabs
> as Semitic people or even in viewing the hostilities and prejudices
> against Arabs in this and other countries - especially Germany.  So,
> for the sake of semantics, should we say anti-Arab?
> 
> Anisa
>  

  I think anti-Arab or anti-Muslims (Turcs and Iranians are non Arabs)
  would be the right definition.  Unfortunately we Jews have  "leased"
  exclusively for all times the words anti-Semitism and Holocaust, this
  last word only since a Mr.Greene in Holywood decided to make a film
  of very low quality, that surprisingly for everybody (even for himself!) 
  achieved that most of the TV-viewers set in motion their lacrymal glands.
  Personally I found that film of very bad taste, but at least in Germany
  it was a conversation and discussion topic for a couple of weeks, and
  that was the only positive thing of the film. The word itself, Holocaust,
  was also bad chosen, since it means "burnt offering" and I can asure you
  that my family wasn't offered to any German god: they were butchered just
  because it happened that they were born as Jews.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Manfredo Tichauer M.                       EMAIL : tichauer@valpso.hanse.de
  Opitzstrasse 14                            VOICE :     (++ 49 40)  27.42.27
  2000 Hamburg 60 - GERMANY                  FAX   :     (++ 49 40) 270.53.09
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:26:54 GMT

In <1992Nov15.063905.14605@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

[Makowsky]
># >	What you do not seem to realize is that the "natural" workings
># >of the world are going to lead it to do things that will be worse than
># >whatever will happen if Kach's policies are adopted.

[Skoll]
># How do you know?  Perhaps you'd care to supply proof of this bold
># assertion.

[Makowsky]
>	I guess you are right.  The world is just going to start to fall
>in love with Jews, and this will be shown by how the world treats the
>Jewish state.

If that's the best you can do...

You have not shown that things will be WORSE if Kach's policies are not
adopted.  I showed, fairly persuasively, I think, that not only are
Kach's policies racist, but that their implementation would have
immediate, easily-forseeable and catastrophic consequences for Israel.  What
you should do is somehow show similar consequences if Kach's policies
are not adopted.  You can't do it.

[Makowsky]
># >	That is not the point, although G-d has made certain promises
># >that if X happens he will do Y.  Unless you are willing to call G-d a
># >liar, we can force Y by seeing to it that X occurs.

[Skoll]
># Maybe you should spell out exactly what you think "X" and "Y" are,
># rather than couching this in abstract language.

[Makowsky]
>	Why is this important?  Do you deny my claim?

First of all, it's important because not everyone will agree on a specific
"X" and "Y".  Secondly, such reasoning is extremely dangerous because it
leads to such disgusting statements as the Holocaust was caused by
Jewish non-observance, something stated a while ago by an Israeli Rabbi.
And thirdly, such reasoning leads to the belief that people can force
G-d's hand.  So yes, I deny your claim.

--
                     |         | "Step up and shake the hand
David F. Skoll       | ||||||| |  Of someone you can't stand,
|_ _ _  __   __ _ __ |  \\V//  |  You can tolerate him if you try..."
 / |  | |_|   | |  | |  __|__  |  -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
_____|________________________________________________________________________
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Who built the pyramids
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:15:04 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)

In article <1992Nov16.165211.20122@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi (Gerry Palo) writes:
>As for whether serious scientific scholars have universally rejected
>Velikovsky, I challenge you on this point.

You lose.  Badly.  If you wish to discuss Dr V on USENET, raise the
issue on talk.origins.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Brian E. Foont)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Jonathan Pollard...
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:15:10 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov23.144525.5211@cbfsb.cb.att.com> hbb@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (harlan.b.braude) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.205836.26411@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Brian E. Foont) writes:
>>of Riverdale, New York (Hebrew Institute of Riverdale) by comparing his
>>sentence with that of Walker.  This is COMPLETELY WRONG.  Please let me 
>>explain why.  When Walker took secrets from the United States and sold 
>>them to the Soviet Union no specific American individuals were placed
>>in danger.  (Secondly, and less importantly, most of the stuff that Walker
>>gave the Soviets were codes and potential tactics and operational plans,
>>both of which become outdated every so often.)  Pollard was different.
>I thought that the Walkers (father and son) were convicted of having
>traded US military secrets to the Soviet Union for over 30 years. That
>would have included information pertaining to the Vietnam war.
>
>Is it likely that Americans serving in Vietnam were not in any additional
>danger if not that actual casualties occurred as a result of this intelligence
>having gotten into the hands of the Soviet Union? Is it likely that the
>Soviet military and intelligence leaders were stupid people who would
>couldn't tell that they were buying useless ("outdated") information in
>all that time?
>-- 
>Harlan B. Braude
>hbb@karin.att.com

You are, of course, right.  However, if the rest of my post were to be 
shown you would see that I say this.  What is being refered to above is
that the information that Pollard gave out endanged INDIVIDUALS, i.e. his
"co-workers" in the intelligence industry.

Brian E. Foont
bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

My opinions are my own, but you may share them.
From: ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: nothing to do with jesus of Nazareth
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:48:02 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <2817@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>In <4443@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:
>
>>The slogen:  " Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh "  means:
>
>>    "It is better to expel Jews
>>        than to fight ( the  Arabs  who want Jews  to disappear) . "
>
>Gideon is not entirely incorrect, although, as in many translations,
>the translator's interpretation has been added, at the expense of
>accurately conveying the intent of the person who said it.
>
>Maybe this does have something to do with the original title, after
>all - compare translations of the Tanach.
>--
>/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
> |__/__/_/
> |warren@
>/ nysernet.org                             Jerusalem
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Bosnia-Hercegovina
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:17:54 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center



In article <1992Nov21.191009.23284@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <2NskuB9w165w@infopls.chi.il.us> chetnik@infopls.chi.il.us (Andre Popov) writes:

>>              TRUTH IS THE VICTIM IN BOSNIA
>
>I thought Bosnians were the victim in Bosnia.  You know, "ethnic cleansing"
>and all that.
>

Well, there is no such thing as Bosnians.  Talking about "ethnic cleansing:"

"For the Arabs of the land of Israel there remains only one function:
to flee"

Ben Gurion, quote according to The Nation, -August 31, 1992



>>                     THIS IS NOW
>>                            (1992)
>>   "Genocide is a natural phenomenon, in harmony with the societal
>>and mythologically divine nature. Genocide is not only permitted, it
>>is also recommended, even commanded by the word of the Almighty
>>Yaweh, whenever it is useful for the survival or the restoration of
>>the kingdom of the chosen nation, or for the preservation and the
>>spreading of its one and only correct faith.
>>                      -Current Croatian President Franjo
>>                            Tudjman, from his 1989 book
>>                            "Wastelands of Historical Reality"
>
>Whoops, you blew it.  This is so _obviously_ out of context that one can tell
>just from looking at the quote itself.
>
>When was the last time you heard any believer refer to his own God as "Yahweh"?
>Given the situations where people actually use that word, the above quote is
>most likely a third-person description, without approval, of Biblical events
>such as killing the Canaanites.
>

You are right, quote is out of context.  A.P. did not read whole book.
Tudjman is describing here that Jews themselves were ready to do the 
genocide.  Context is that they should not complain too much ( Tudjman
claims that, not me, no flames, I am just describing what I read ). Also, 
context is that whenever minority is in a way of majority, the solution 
is clear.  Thus, it is a warning to Serbian minority in Croatia. 

>Have we got a Serbian Mutlu here?
>--

We might.  There is a danger to quote something, when you did not read the 
book.  I'd be glad to answer any more questions about Tudjman's book, 
because I took time to read it completely, so I am able to stand behind
what I say about it. 


>"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)


Regards,

Milan N. Stojanovic
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Oral sex
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:35:49 GMT

In <1992Nov16.070100.23237@discus.technion.ac.il> ben@vmsa.technion.ac.il writes:

    Does anyone else thik that this may be one of the best recent reasons
    for going to a moderated group??

Best, perhaps.  Good enough, no.  I've seen the word before and while
the first time I saw it I of course fainted I have since gotten used
to it and can now look at the word without suffering any injury.

Has anyone counted objections to the three times that a particular
four-letter word has been used here recently (I think its etymology
has something to do with filesystem checking ...)?  It was used twice
in the sexual context (aside from this, it was asked if there was
anything wrong with dating/fnording) and once as an insult (fnord you).
I haven't counted.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@         "Warren's slogan is an Anti-semite slogan."
/ nysernet.org 			    Gideon Ehrlich
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish