dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (07/12/85)
Note that the controversy about the orthopractic view of homosexuality has generated much more net traffic than my posting about jewish singles. Why?
beslove@osu-eddie.UUCP (Adam Beslove) (07/13/85)
In article <335@mhuxi.UUCP> dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) writes: >Note that the controversy about the orthopractic view of homosexuality >has generated much more net traffic than my posting about jewish singles. >Why? Because Samet's head is so far up his bigoted ass that it has taken almost all the Jews on the net to try to get it out. Still no success. I hope he doesn't have any kids.
arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (07/15/85)
> In article <335@mhuxi.UUCP> dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) writes: > >Note that the controversy about the orthopractic view of homosexuality > >has generated much more net traffic than my posting about jewish singles. > >Why? > > Because Samet's head is so far up his bigoted ass that it has taken almost > all the Jews on the net to try to get it out. Still no success. I hope he > doesn't have any kids. I believe this net is degenerating. Ari Gross
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (07/17/85)
> In article <335@mhuxi.UUCP> dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) writes: > >Note that the controversy about the orthopractic view of homosexuality > >has generated much more net traffic than my posting about jewish singles. > >Why? > > Because Samet's head is so far up his bigoted ass that it has taken almost > all the Jews on the net to try to get it out. Still no success. I hope he > doesn't have any kids. I leave the net for a few weeks and I miss all the juicy articles. Oh, well, I guess I'll have to get into the fray now, in the middle of everything. From what I've seen of the articles about homosexuality, and I admit I missed the original postings, we have an argument as to whether we can force our ideas on anyone, whatever the ideas, whoever the person. On one side w have Avi Feldblum and Yitz Samet who say the Torah forbids homo- sexuality, but that we cannot force anyone to abide by this ruling. On the other side we have, as usual, Rich Rosen claiming: how dare anyone force anyone else to do anything, especially since the Torah is meaningless. So far everything is fine. Nothing we haven't had before. Rich is always trying to tell us that the Torah is a good novel, but nothing else. Why Rich insists on posting this idea again and again is beyond me. ( Rich will say he's trying to show how intollerent we are by sticking to our belief in a book when there is no objective proof to this belief. All he shows is how intollerant he is of other people's beliefs ). Also, a usual, Rich is arguing a point not even argued here. How can we force etc, etc. The proponents of the observant attitude said that they are not advocating force here. But some people just don't bother reading articles carefully. With the article I am responding to we have finally sunk to our lowest level. Invariably someone comes out and starts slinging mud. From what I had seen of the discussion so far, it was getting a little hot, but no real defamation. Now, we get someone posting about another person's toilet problems. And then, just to finish Mr. Samet off for good, a prayer that he never have children. I ask you, the readers of this net, is this what we are all about? Has N.R.J and Judaism in general just become a forum and way of insulting one another? Does the author of the article to which I am responding feel better, now that he has insulted Mr. Samet? Does anyone feel better? We can have interesting discussions, indeed heated discussions, about anything in Judaism, even the validity of the Torah ( although most of the discussions would be fruitless, since those discussing have no intention of listening to the other side of the discussion ). But, when we do sit down to discuss articles, we must be gentlemanly ( and gentlewomanly, for those who get insulted about by the quirks of language ). There is no need to insult an adversary. It does not enhance the argument one iota. In fact, it tarnishes the argument. Do you insult the other person because you have no answer to his query, and you wish to deflect attention from that point? We are now in a period known as the Three Weeks, a period of mourning for the entire Jewish people. These weeks are the time when in 69 CE ( or 68 or 70 depending on whose calculartions you use ) the Romans broke the walls of Jerusalem and marched on the Temple. On the last day of this period, the 9th of Av, the Temple was destroyed. It is written in the Talmud that the TEmple was destroyed due to unwarranted hatred. The groups in Jerusalem couldn't get together to form a unified front against the Roamns, and in fact, aided the Romans. The Talmud continues: the Temple will not be rebuilt until the Jews can get together again. We can have discussions about the different attitudes to Judaism. We must be careful not to make these dicussions personal vendettas against others on this net. Likewise, we should not use this forum as a means to show our assumed superior knowledge of Torah or other subjects. We should use this arena to furter tolerance of Judaism amongst ourselves, and tolerance of others, too. Tolerance does not mean that you can do whatever you want and you are right in doing it. I can say that you are wrong in doing something. I just can't stop you from doing it. I will tolerate your actions, but Ithink that they are wrong, for whatever reason. You may think that my reasoning is wrong. Fine. But you must tolerate me in my thinking. Hoping that everyone will take a lesson from the bitter one we as a nation learned more than 19 centuries ago, Eliyahu Teitz.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/85)
> On one side w have Avi Feldblum and Yitz Samet who say the Torah forbids homo- > sexuality, but that we cannot force anyone to abide by this ruling. > On the other side we have, as usual, Rich Rosen claiming: how dare > anyone force anyone else to do anything, especially since the Torah is > meaningless. > So far everything is fine. Nothing we haven't had before. Rich is > always trying to tell us that the Torah is a good novel, but nothing else. > Why Rich insists on posting this idea again and again is beyond me. Why you insist on posting your ideas again and again is also beyond me. Does that mean your doing so is without merit? > ( Rich will say he's trying to show how intollerent we are by sticking to our > belief in a book when there is no objective proof to this belief. All he > shows is how intollerant he is of other people's beliefs ). If that's all I show TO YOU, it says something about your own intolerance. The only thing I show intolerance for is belief systems that threaten people's lives and freedom and rights to do non-destructive things as they wish. Real heinous and horrible and "intolerant" positions I offer. > Also, a usual, > Rich is arguing a point not even argued here. How can we force etc, etc. > The proponents of the observant attitude said that they are not advocating > force here. But some people just don't bother reading articles carefully. Why they insist on posting these non-force-advocating positions again and again is beyond me. Unless they're trying to non-force them down people's throats through "convincing" them. > With the article I am responding to we have finally sunk to our > lowest level. Invariably someone comes out and starts slinging mud. From > what I had seen of the discussion so far, it was getting a little hot, but > no real defamation. Now, we get someone posting about another person's toilet > problems. And then, just to finish Mr. Samet off for good, a prayer that > he never have children. Funny, that came from another person, not me (nice of you to mention that). But you had said in an earlier article that I disagree with EVERYONE on this net. Clearly the person who posted that remark about Samet got fed up and emitted his pentup frustration with Samet's attitudes all at once. I do it a little at a time. I guess you were wrong about "everyone" holding your party line position. Others also find such intolerance abominable. Some have the gall to actually say so. How awful. > I ask you, the readers of this net, is this what we are all about? > Has N.R.J and Judaism in general just become a forum and way of insulting > one another? Does the author of the article to which I am responding feel > better, now that he has insulted Mr. Samet? Does anyone feel better? It wasn't a nice thing to say. But surely claiming that capital punishment for homosexuality wasn't nice either. (I know, the Torah says so.) And the fact these people hold the extremely undefendable double standard that a group that advocated capital punishment for being Jewish is unconscionable, while Jews advocating capital punishment for homosexuality is not (just because a book says so) is all the more appalling. > We can have interesting discussions, indeed heated discussions, > about anything in Judaism, even the validity of the Torah ( although > most of the discussions would be fruitless, since those discussing have > no intention of listening to the other side of the discussion ). You're right. I doubt that you would listen to the other side of the discussion. I do agree that the discussion has gotten overheated. The subject is a hot topic. Justifying degrading a whole group of people should evoke such discussion. Actually, it should be obvious to all how wrong that is, but since it isn't, it's right that discussion should be heated with those who would justify it. -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
beslove@osu-eddie.UUCP (Adam Beslove) (07/19/85)
In article <633@cvl.UUCP> arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) writes: > >I believe this net is degenerating. > Ari Gross Ari, I believe this newsgroup had degenerated long before my comment about Samet. He's a bigot, and I'm ashamed that he's a fellow Jew. He can hide behind whatever he likes to support his hatred, but hatred it will remain. My statement about Samet's anus and head was the most terse way I could express my disgust with him. He may profess to be a Jew, and go thru all the rituals, but he's not a Jew to me. What ever happened to Rabbi Hillel's Golden Rule? >>>>Adam Beslove (c)1985 (aka Odious Verity) ====================================================================== (UUCP: ...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!beslove) (CSNet: beslove@ohio-state) The world is my sandbox, (ARPA: beslove%ohio-state.csnet@CSNET-RELAY) humanity my playmates.
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (07/20/85)
> : > : > With the article I am responding to we have finally sunk to our > lowest level. Invariably someone comes out and starts slinging mud. From > what I had seen of the discussion so far, it was getting a little hot, but > no real defamation. Now, we get someone posting about another person's toilet > problems. And then, just to finish Mr. Samet off for good, a prayer that > he never have children. > > I ask you, the readers of this net, is this what we are all about? > Has N.R.J and Judaism in general just become a forum and way of insulting > one another? Does the author of the article to which I am responding feel > better, now that he has insulted Mr. Samet? Does anyone feel better? > > We can have interesting discussions, indeed heated discussions, > about anything in Judaism, even the validity of the Torah ( although > most of the discussions would be fruitless, since those discussing have > no intention of listening to the other side of the discussion ). But, > when we do sit down to discuss articles, we must be gentlemanly ( and > gentlewomanly, for those who get insulted about by the quirks of language ). > There is no need to insult an adversary. It does not enhance the argument > one iota. In fact, it tarnishes the argument. Do you insult the other > person because you have no answer to his query, and you wish to deflect > attention from that point? > : > : > We must be careful not to make these dicussions personal vendettas against > others on this net. Likewise, we should not use this forum as a means to > show our assumed superior knowledge of Torah or other subjects. We > should use this arena to furter tolerance of Judaism amongst ourselves, > and tolerance of others, too. Tolerance does not mean that you can do > whatever you want and you are right in doing it. I can say that you are > wrong in doing something. I just can't stop you from doing it. I will > : > > > Eliyahu Teitz. Very well stated! Name calling and mud slinging are not my idea of Jewish values, ideals, philosophy, laws, or or anything else that I'd like to read on this net. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
jerry@uwmcsd1.UUCP (Jerry Lieberthal) (07/23/85)
> > : > > : > > With the article I am responding to we have finally sunk to our > > lowest level. Invariably someone comes out and starts slinging mud. From > > Eliyahu Teitz. > > Very well stated! > > Name calling and mud slinging are not my idea of Jewish values, ideals, > philosophy, laws, or or anything else that I'd like to read on this net. > -- > Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask I couldn't agree more. I've just started reading this news group, and was generally appalled at what was contained therein. I am looking forward to constructive ideas, etc... Jerry Lieberthal Computing Services Division ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jerry
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/24/85)
In article <osu-eddi.476> beslove@osu-eddie.UUCP (Adam Beslove) writes: >Ari, > I believe this newsgroup had degenerated long before my comment >about Samet. He's a bigot, and I'm ashamed that he's a fellow Jew. He can >hide behind whatever he likes to support his hatred, but hatred it will >remain. My statement about Samet's anus and head was the most terse way I >could express my disgust with him. He may profess to be a Jew, and go thru >all the rituals, but he's not a Jew to me. What ever happened to Rabbi >Hillel's Golden Rule? Arguments ad hominem (name-calling) wastes our time. If you disagree with Samet's interpretations of the Torah, then offer your own corrected Torah interpretations. If you agree with his interpretations, but disagree with the Torah in general, then your arguments are with the Torah, not with Samet. Frank Silbermann