HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Almah (Isaiah 7:14) part 1
Organization: University of Turku
	<KRULWICH.93Jan20101657@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:18:07

In article <KRULWICH.93Jan20101657@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
> > There uproar is because we have them flanked on the truth.

> This is silly.

> Someone (Mark?) posted a message full of quotes and citations.  Laura
> disregarded them all and said "listen nudnick...."  Who's roaring and ignoring
> the truth here?

I'm not interested in defending myself but the truth, so I'll leave aside
that 'nudnik' discussion. But let's anyway keep facts straight. *I* gave
the quotes for Tanach and Jack posted some earlier scholarly stuff which 
supports (?) your stand. Now, since I'm not any scholar, I can't write pages 
long articles about the usage of some similar words in related languages
(which in fact does neither support nor refute anyone's stand); I can only
try to see the meaning of the word 'almah' from the context where is it 
used. And I also gave you the etymological meanings of 'almah' (hidden)
and 'betulah' (separated). And I really would like to go this discussion
by replying to replies to *my* posts. (Nu, Dov ?) 

I'll reply to some other posts on this, but I've been thinking about the
real meaning of 'almah'... To take all quotes into consideration (also
those emphasized by Dov), seems to me that the exact meaning is something
like 'young virgin'. There are clear implications (S'o'S 6:8, Is 7:14 &
Rashi's comment on it) that the word means 'virgin', and Harvey has given
further information on it, but in those quotes where it doesn't seem to 
make sense to use 'virgin' (BTW does it always with 'bethulah' ?), it's
maybe so that the age is emphasized more than the virginity...

> > we must keep pointing them back to Deut 22, and what the costs were for a
> > Jewish maid not to be a virgin before marriage.....

> Now I'm really confused.  I thought Mary and Joseph were married.  Weren't
> they?  And anyway, what makes you say that the "alma" in 7:14 wasn't married?

Miriam and Yosef were engaged, not married. Yosef was even about to 
forsake Miriam when he saw that she was pregnant, but an angel told 
him not to do that. As to 'almah' in Is 7:14 -- it all depends on
interpretation, and there isn't any proof that the girl would have
been Achaz's or Yeshayah's wife, as many Rabbis explain.

> Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
> krulwich@ils.nwu.edu

- Laura
--
"Who has gone up to heaven and come down ?
 Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands ?
 Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak ?
 Who has established all the ends of the earth ?
 What is his name, and the name of his son ?
 Tell me if you know !"      - Mishlei 30:4
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Getting the facts!
From: andy2@telerama.pgh.pa.us (andy)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:10:15 GMT
Organization: Telerama
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

> There seems to be an argument about the legitimacy of the
> Christian`s claim to Jesus being the Messiah.
 
So what else is new?
 
> Jesus was NOT crucified in A.D. 32,
 
Correct.
 
> or more to the point, he could have been
 
Wrong.
 
> but we don`t know.
 
Wrong again.
 
> To know this, people have taken the fact that Jesus started his
> mission at 30 years old and died after 5 years. The latest
> dating of his birth is taken as 4 B.C. so this gives the
> magical date of 32 A.D.!
 
No wonder they are wrong.

> However, the birth is dated from the death of Herod (4 B.C.)
> and this is accepted because both of the Nativity stories ...
 
I certainly don't accept it.
 
> the Crucifiction itself (for example, the Romans used this
> horrific form of execution solely for terrorists, not peace
> loving religious personages so why was Jesus killed in this
> fashion). (?)
 
His words were seditious.  In fact, His words still challenge 
religious and political authority and that is why most Christian
churches don't teach what He taught.
 
> The main areas of Christian faith are weak enough when
> questioned without the need to go into fine detail.
 
It isn't the faith that is weak, it is the stupid Christians who
don't know what they believe and why they believe it.
 
 
P.S. I  am trying to get a copy of the following book.  Any
suggestions where I can get one?  (Not the whole set.)
 
         TITLE:  Sanctification of the new moon
        AUTHOR:  Maimonides, Moses, 1135-1204.
     PUBLISHED:  New Haven : Yale University Press, 1956.
   DESCRIPTION:  lx, 160 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
        SERIES:  Yale Judaica series ; v. 11
                 The code of Maimonides ; book 3, treatise 8
                 Maimonides, Moses, 1135-1204. Mishneh Torah.
                 English book 3, treatise 8.
         NOTES:  Translation of : rKidush ha-rhodesh.
                 Includes index.
                 Bibliography: p. [151]-152.
 
 
P.P.S.  Flame away !!!!!  My PC is flame resistant.  I filter my
news so I can erase flames automatically based on keywords in the
text.  So flame away!!!!!!!  It is your time you're wasting. 
I'll never see 'em !!!!! 

-- 
--
* andy2@telerama.pgh.pa.us *
From: friedenb@fir.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Bar Kochba And Moshiach
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:47:11 GMT
Reply-To: friedenb@fir.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 35.8.14.25

In article <142035.2B5F54C8@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>, Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
|> To: friedenb@boswell.egr.msu.edu
|> 
|>  GF> Date: 20 Jan 93 02:52:47 GMT
|>  GF> Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
|>  GF> Message-ID: <1jiepvINNosh@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
|>  GF> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
|>  GF> 
|>  GF> It is true that Rabbi Akiva felt that Bar Kochba was the Moshiach.
|>  GF> But you have to understand more than this sentence before jumping 
|>  GF> to a conclusion.
|> 
|>      Well..., Bar-Star took the Rebbe Akiva seriously enough, that he
|>      required his "brethern" to chop off a finger to show alliance!

Thank you for proving my point.  These people were not observant Jews.  
Chopping off a finger is a serious averah.  In order to discourage such a 
thing (including via ma'aris ayin) anyone who serves in the Bais HaMikdosh 
must be physically complete (except foreskin).  If one chops off his finger, 
he is no longer able to serve in the Temple, and he has mutilated the body 
lent to him by HaShem.

Therefore these people were not *really* observant Jews, and if they were so
far away from Judaism that they cut off a finger, then certainly they 
could have followed anyone (including fFrank, Tzvi, Mickey Mouse, etc.)

Give us a mainstream learned Jew who follows the mitzvos and halacha as 
examples to prove your points, instead of a heretics.

|> --  
|> Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
|> UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
|> INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG


Gedaliah Friedenberg
-=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
-=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
-=-Michigan State University


                   
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Rashi's quote (was Re: Almah - Betulah)
Organization: University of Turku
	<LJMORLY.93Jan14105051@polaris.utu.fi>
	<KRULWICH.93Jan19160058@zowie.ils.nwu.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:37:10

In article <KRULWICH.93Jan19160058@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
> > > This does not say that the young woman was a virgin, but that she was
> > > barren.  A virgin is capable of giving birth as soon as she marries.
> > > Rashi (and the others) are saying that the miracle was a young woman who
> > > was ***INCAPABLE OF GIVING BIRTH*** as indeed were Sarah, and Rivkah
> > > (and probably Rachel).  This does not specify that she was a virgin.
> > 
> > Not so. When you look at the original text, you see that it clearly uses
> > the word 'almah' to mean 'virgin' -- ALMAH HAITA. The end of the sentence 
> > gives us the meaning of 'almah'; there's no mention about being barren
> > or anything like that. Check yourself.

> Look, this is getting silly.  Rashi's comment is "eina re'uya li'valed," which
> means "is not capable of giving birth," just like Hillel Markowitz said.

Look yourself... You aren't taking the *whole* sentence as it is. How 
would you translate "veyesh potrin sheze haot shealmah haita ve'eina 
reuyah levaled" ? There is no mention about being barren ! In that case
the word used would mean 'barren'. Rashi is giving different interpre-
tations for the verse, and in this case pointing to the word 'almah'.

> As proof that this means being barren, see Bereshis 16:1, in which Sarah (then
> Sarai) is referred to as "lo yalda lo," she hadn't given birth for him
> (Avraham).  Obviously Sarah was not a virgin, and the Torah is not saying that
> she hadn't had relations with Avraham, rather that she hadn't had a child.

You can freely pick up verses here and there and try to use them as a 
proof of something...

> This is the meaning of "yalda," which is the same as "li'valed," to give
> birth.  (The same use of "yalda" is found in bereshis 30:1).

Actually the infinitive form for 'yalda' is 'laledet', not 'levaled' 
(lamed-vav-lamed-dalet). They obviously mean the same, but I have no
idea of the usage of 'levaled'. Anybody ?

> So we see that Rashi was saying that the alma in Is 7:14 would be incapable of
> giving birth, nothing to do with marital relations.  Nuff said.

So we see that Rashi is using the word 'almah' in it's original meaning,
'virgin'. Nuff said ?

> Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
> krulwich@ils.nwu.edu

- Laura
--
"Who has gone up to heaven and come down ?
 Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands ?
 Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak ?
 Who has established all the ends of the earth ?
 What is his name, and the name of his son ?
 Tell me if you know !"      - Mishlei 30:4
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Bible Prophesy
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:32:40 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0

In a msg on <Jan 23 12:36>, U60829@uicvm.uic.edu of 8:7002/6 writes:
To: Joe Pacalla
 U> @INTL 8:7002/1 8:7002/6
 U> @UFGATE newsin 1.27
 U> From: U60829@uicvm.uic.edu
 U> Date: 21 Jan 93 17:24:35 GMT
 U> Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
 U> Message-ID: <93021.112435U60829@uicvm.uic.edu>
 U> Newsgroups: alt.messianic

 U> Is there any group on the net which deals with Bible Prophesy 
 U> concerning our future either Jewish or Christian, which I 

Not on this net that i know about, but MJCN net handles "World"  prophecies regarding Israel and the world in the light of Biblical prophecy..

Can be accessed via a gate, 1:104/18, 1:100/519, 8:7002/1, 8: 7002/6. 
--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Arrogance and self-righteousness : Christlike ?
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:50:37

In article <hfortuin.5.727453420@stellenbos.csir.co.za> hfortuin@stellenbos.csir.co.za (Henri Fortuin) writes:
> I have been following the postings to this newsgroup for three months now. 
> What appals me (as a Christian) is the arrogance and self-righteousness of 
> contributors who claim to be Christian (i.e. Christ-like).

I'm very sorry if I've been one of those. I try to behave better from 
now on.

> I was under the impression that this newsgroup was to be a discussion forum. 

>               ==    Am I wrong ?  ===

No.

> A discussion implies a talking *with* someone. Instead we have people 
> talking *at* each other. How productive is this ?

You don't seem to be familiar with the Jewish style of conversation... :-)
Especially on a subject like the Messiah, which divides the parties in a 
very profound way. Keep following the discussion; you'll understand better...

[...]

> Let's agree to disagree and mutually help each discover the source of all 
> truth -- God's Word !

Our aim is to present the truth, and those who disagree at any point are 
by no means obligated to say so here. 

> Regards,

> Henri Fortuin
> South Africa

Yours, Laura
--
"Who has gone up to heaven and come down ?
 Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands ?
 Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak ?
 Who has established all the ends of the earth ?
 What is his name, and the name of his son ?
 Tell me if you know !"      - Mishlei 30:4
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Getting the facts!
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:31:46 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <1993Jan21.135656.4771@unix.brighton.ac.uk> gn1@unix.brighton.ac.uk (newport) writes:
>
>P.S.S. And a final note: it was never Blasphemous to heal on the Sabbat, declareyourself the Messiah or give your own interpretation of the Scriptures. The     ONLY thing that was classed as blasphemy was saying the name of God, of which   Jesus was never accussed of!


Very briefly, High Priest tore his robes off.

This is done when Divine Name is uttered (Talmud San 56a).

This was precisely the charge that Jesus died for.  The synoptic writers
wouldnot have mentioned this since their first audience knew about it.

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
From: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Complete verification of Jesus
Date: 25 Jan 1993 13:50:24 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mark C. Carroll (carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu) wrote:
: 
: 1] Jews don't believe in human sacrifice. That's the lesson of the binding
:   of Yitzhak.
: 
There is no indication of that in Torah. The lesson of the binding of Yitzhak
is that Avraham had faith to believe that HaShem would resurrect Yitzhak.

Such faith was enough to be credited to Avraham as righteousness. So the
lesson for us:
	Righteousness can come apart from Torah by faith in a resurrection.

Funny! Didn't Rabbi Paul say exactly the same thing?

While we're on the subject, why does Moshe say `it is said to this day, "In
the mount of the L-RD it *will* be provided."' if the providence is referring
to the ram-substitute provided for Yitzhak?

He who has ears let him hear!

IHMS
James Tauber
jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
From: RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Disproof of "Proof 1" (was ***MoJ: Proof 1: The Amazing Prophecy**
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:39:09 GMT
 <LJMORLY.93Jan23132617@polaris.utu.fi>
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

I am always amazed with the fertile minds of christianity, who are never
deterred no matter how silly their claims may be to prove the scriptural
prophecies (e.g., Daniel 9:25-27) foretelling about Jesus. In order to
prove that the verses in Daniel did really fulfill the role played by
Jesus, Vijay suggested that we count the 69x7=483 years from the 20th
year of Artaxerxes's ruling, i.e., 445 B.C.E, and count the years as
comprising of 360 days; now here is Ruben Gonzales (posted by Laura)
who says no, we should count solar years from 457 B.C.E. and 3.5 years.
Let the messianic christians sort out their problems, as to which version
to accept (and there are quite a few other such theories, each contradicting
other ones), before they sell the "Messiah=Jesus-tablets" to those of us
who are unconvinced as to the truth of such prophesies. Good luck.

---
H. Siddiqui.
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Still Non-existant Talmud Quotes (was Supposed Talmud ...)
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:31:02 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0

To: Robert Levene
 RAL> But what about the "Oxford Scholars" passage, which Harvey Smith
 RAL> said would "once and for all" settle the virgin birth issue?

The Oxford scholars were using Moses Hadarshan's quotes.  I think we went and clarified this already.  But Bill Carlson gave all the references that i was referring to.

HS>> "Truth shall spring out of the earth", R. Yoden, saith he, 
HS>> notes upon this place, that it is not said, Truth sahll be 
HS>> born, but shall spring out; because the generation and the 
HS>> nativity of the Messiah is not to be as other creatures in 
HS>> the world, but shall be begot without carnal copulation; and 
HS>> therefore no one hath mentioned his father, as who must be 
HS>> hid from the knowledge of men til himself shall come and 
HS>> reveal him.  And upon Genesis: "Ye have said (saith the 
HS>> L-rd), we are orphans, bereaved o > ther; such a one shall 
HS>> your redeemer be, whom i shall give you, so upon Zechariah 
HS>> "Behold my servant whose name is the Branch:" and out of 
HS>> Psalm CX "Thou art a priest after the order of Melchi Zedek:" 
HS>> he saith, R. Berachiah delivers the s ame things, and R 
HS>> Simeon Ben Yochai upon Genesis more plainly; viz "That the 
HS>> Spirit, by the impulse of a mighty power, shall come forth of 
HS>> the womb, though shut up, that will become a mighty prince, 
HS>> the King Messiah"
 RAL> -----

Still doing research on the above. Please be patient.. 
--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Were It Not For The Veil . . .
Date: 22 Jan 1993 10:21:32 -0800
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <142034.2B5F54C8@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
>     Second, of course Rabbinic Jews ARE CAPABLE of "seeing and/or
>     understanding the truth"!  Think about it a second..., most/many
>     of the Messianic Jews on here were "Rabbinic" Jews before
>     becoming Messianic :-)

Rabbinic Jews are not capable of seeing the truth, *until* HaShem
removes the veil from their eyes--*until* HaShem calls them and draws
them to Himself--*until* HaShem takes away their heart of stone and
gives them a heart of flesh--*until* HaShem circumcizes their heart--
*until* HaShem breathes spiritual life into those who are spiritually
dead.  After HaShem does this, *then* they see and repent and believe.

Scripture references available upon request.  Or maybe you don't believe
the plain language of HaShem in His word?

-- 
"Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible."    --RC Sproul
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu       ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
From: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Complete verification of Jesus
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:24:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mark C. Carroll (carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu) wrote:
: In article <1k0r70INNj01@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (James Tauber) writes:
: ]Mark C. Carroll (carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu) wrote:
: ]: 
: ]: 1] Jews don't believe in human sacrifice. That's the lesson of the binding
: ]:   of Yitzhak.
: ]: 
: ]There is no indication of that in Torah. The lesson of the binding of Yitzhak
: ]is that Avraham had faith to believe that HaShem would resurrect Yitzhak.
: ]
: 
: There is no indication of THAT in the Torah. For citations of the
: Jewish interpetation, I'd recommend taking a look at the Soncino
: Chumash. (I don't have a copy with me in the Office; I'm relatively
: sure that I'm mentioning the correct publisher for the one my
: synagogue has always used, but I tend to confuse this.)

The Rabbinic interpretation doesn't really interest me. Just read Torah.
HaShem had made a promise to Avraham. HaShem then told Avraham to 
sacrafice the person necessary for the promise to be fulfilled. Avraham
knew that HaShem would fulfill his promise so either he knew HaShem could
resurrect him from the dead or he thought somehow, the promise of a nation
could be fulfilled through a dead son. Surely you're not suggesting the 
latter!?
Notice that Avraham says to his servants: `*We* will return.' Either he
is lying, or is crazy or he believes that HaShem will resurrect him. 

: ]Such faith was enough to be credited to Avraham as righteousness. So the
: ]lesson for us:
: ]	Righteousness can come apart from Torah by faith in a resurrection.
: 
: No Jew would *ever* say that. Tzedakah comes from following Mitzvot,
: and from doing the right thing. Not from blind faith, without action.
: (Can someone help me find the citation, I believe from Rambam, that it
: is better to perform Mitzvot without belief, than to have belief but
: not perform the Mitzvot?)
: 

It is written `Avraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness'
Where are the Mitzvot in that?
And as for `blind faith' - that's your term not mine. Avraham knew the
Living God. Believing He could resurrect his son was not *blind* faith.
You say "No Jew would *ever* say that". It was first suggested to me
by a student of Gamaliel: Rabbi Saul of Tarsus.

: ]While we're on the subject, why does Moshe say `it is said to this day, "In
: ]the mount of the L-RD it *will* be provided."' if the providence is referring
: ]to the ram-substitute provided for Yitzhak?
: 
: Because when the words were said, Abraham had not yet seen the Ram
: that God provided. "It will be provided", and so he looked, and it
: was.
:
If this were the case, Moshe would have written `it is said to this day, "In
the mount of the L-ORD it was provided."

One day, rather than reading rabbinic literature, pray to HaShem that He 
will teach you new things from Torah by His Ruach Elohim.

James Tauber
jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
From: fnixon@utkvx2.utk.edu (Nixon, John Fred)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: A Neutral Prayer (was Re: Disproof of "Proof 2")
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:52:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan27.005404.12705@netcom.com>, solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes...
>....and the Qur'an, and the Baghavad Gita, and the Poetic and Prose
>Eddas. Why give one pagan scripture pride of place over the others?
> 
>Allow me to apologize for that. I was out of line in calling the
>Qur'an pagan; it, unlike the other scriptures above, is solidly
>monotheistic.  It is erroneous, but at least it isn't idolatrous.
> 

Please post a proof that the New Testament is polytheistic, or offer
an apology. I do not think it is in the Jewish tradition to call
CHristians idolators. If it is traditional, then please give me a citation 
for the belief.

fnixon@sol.cs.utc.edu
fnixon@utkvx.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: The Beauty Myth - Is It Real?
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:47:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.211405.14063@midway.uchicago.edu> ddw2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Hello... I was wondering if anyone has read "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf.
>
>Do you agree with her statements and arguments?
>
>OR do you agree with Camille Paglia that everything that Naomi says makes
>	things like sex "Betty Crocker Time" -- all nice and fun but unreal-
>	istic... therefore Naomi is guilty of being a white, uppermiddle class,
>	academic feminist that is out of touch with reality and what real
>	men are like!!

	Bingo. Wolf is just shoddy in her research. What sense does it
make to analyze recent stuff from the popular media without putting it
in the context of the history of Western art? But it's academically
safer to attack Madonna or Playboy or Vogue than stuff with the patina
of history and reputation overlaying its worship of beauty and
eroticism. And it's less work :-).

>Write me an ACADEMIC response -- not an emotional one.

	How 'bout just a short one?

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism