 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008Richard Schultz - do you really work in a sausage factory?
Richard: You are not hard to trace. It is a curiousity that you, after your termination situation at UC Berkeley, were unable to obtain an academic position in the US, neither at any public University, private institution, community college, nor even a Kindergarten to K-12 position. Why is that? Instead, it seems, you ended up working in a chemistry lab designing and testing preservatives for a sausage factory? For PORK sausages? This explains a lot. Amused, and curious, in California... Tim Bolen > Richard: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tim Bolen Yes Richard, go on explain that. Carole www.cellsalts.net :> Instead, it seems, you ended up working in a chemistry lab designing :> and testing preservatives for a sausage factory? :> :> For PORK sausages? : Yes Richard, go on explain that. I am not sufficiently expert in psychiatry to be able to explain Tim Bolen's insanity to you. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > :> Instead, it seems, you ended up working in a chemistry lab designing > :> and testing preservatives for a sausage factory? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am not sufficiently expert in psychiatry to be able to explain Tim > Bolen's insanity to you. If you start by assuming that there has been enough damage to account for the disruption of the First Law, a lot becomes much clearer. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > > In article <47bc0b5c$0$31002$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > > : <jurimed2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6080792e-b098-4333-85a6-1f3f92d1c7f0@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com... > > :> Instead, it seems, you ended up working in a chemistry lab designing > > :> and testing preservatives for a sausage factory? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to account for the disruption of the First Law, a lot becomes > much clearer. The first law of homeopathy? Don't tell me you wrote this while under the influence of a certain beverage. Carole www.cellsalts.net >> > In article > <47bc0b5c$0$31002$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Carole [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The first law of homeopathy? Never mind, Carole. You wouldn't understand. > Don't tell me you wrote this while under the influence of a certain > beverage. Caffeine? Of course. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > >> > In article > > <47bc0b5c$0$31002$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Carole [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Caffeine? Of course. There you go again, chopping bits of the conversation out you don't think are important. What about the other bit you didn't comment on? Carole www.cellsalts.net >> In message <47bc67f6$0$30954$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > Carole wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > are important. > What about the other bit you didn't comment on? Ummm -- Carole? The only part I snipped was your signature. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > <jurim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Yes Richard, go on explain that. Carole, do not be a moron and believe Bolen. : Carole, do not be a moron Alas, you have arrived too late. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" >arrived too late. Is not the subject. > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il >Carole, moron and believe Bolen. Is not the subject. M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t 07-10...@lymbercartel.com http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c1efd889a7678735 That _IS_ topical and worthy of discussion. Stick with the topic, that works for you & us. : Richard: : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : : This explains a lot. It seems that you are completely insane. That would explain a lot. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot." > In article <6080792e-b098-4333-85a6-1f3f92d1c...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, jurim...@yahoo.com wrote: > : Richard: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, > but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot." Richard: You really need to control your emotions. Is all that salt and MSG in the sausage bothering you? Don't have a stoke over this. Calm yourself, and try to focus on the original two questions: (1) You are not hard to trace. It is a curiousity that you, after your termination situation at UC Berkeley, were unable to obtain an academic position in the US, neither at any public University, private institution, community college, nor even a Kindergarten to K-12 position. Why is that? (2) Sausage factory? Amused, in California... Tim Bolen Richard: You really need to control your emotions. Is all that salt and MSG in the sausage bothering you? Don't have a stoke over this. Calm yourself, and try to focus on the original two questions: (1) You are not hard to trace. It is a curiousity that you, after your termination situation at UC Berkeley, were unable to obtain an academic position in the US, neither at any public University, private institution, community college, nor even a Kindergarten to K-12 position. Why is that? (2) Sausage factory? Amused, in California... Tim Bolen *** Carole > Now come on Tim. You're pulling our legs, right? You don't even know if you've got the right Richard Schultz -- there's bound to be many people with that name. Carole www.cellsalts.net > In article > <6080792e-b098-4333-85a6-1f3f92d1c7f0@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, > insane. Is not the subject. > ----- > Richard Schultz > Richard: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Amused, and curious, in California... Timmy...you are skating on the thin ice of anti-semitism. > Timmy...you are skating on the thin ice of anti-semitism. Skating? He swims *below* the ice, Mark. (Note that I do him the courtesy of pretending that he's actually up in the water.) | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > In message <04b3e417-785b-424b-9ebd-50ba08364...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (Note that I do him the courtesy of pretending that he's > actually up in the water.) Hey, some turds float! > -- > | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: > In message > <04b3e417-785b-424b-9ebd-50ba08364...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Mark [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Skating? >> turds Is not the subject. M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t 07-10...@lymbercartel.com http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c1efd889a7678735 That _IS_ topical and worthy of discussion. Stick with the topic, that works for you & us. > -- > > D. C. Sessions <d...@lymbercartel.com> - > Timmy...you are skating on the thin ice of anti-semitism. Whatever are you talking about? Get out of the aerobics class - bending, twisting, and stretching to attempt to prove something that is not there. :> Timmy...you are skating on the thin ice of anti-semitism. : Whatever are you talking about? Get out of the aerobics class - : bending, twisting, and stretching to attempt to prove something that : is not there. So you believe him when he tells you that I was "terminated" (his term) from Berkeley and that I currently work in a sausage factory? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > So you believe him when he tells you that I was "terminated" (his term) > from Berkeley and that I currently work in a sausage factory? These are Richard's words to what the Bowling man wrote at the start of this conversation. The Bowling man wrote the following: >>>>>Richard: You are not hard to trace. It is a curiousity that you, after your termination situation at UC Berkeley, were unable to obtain an academic position in the US, neither at any public University, private institution, community college, nor even a Kindergarten to K-12 position. Why is that? Instead, it seems, you ended up working in a chemistry lab designing and testing preservatives for a sausage factory? For PORK sausages? This explains a lot. Amused, and curious, in California... Tim Bolen <<<<<< I said.... No more aerobics allowed --no more bending, twisting, and stretching!! Where do you see Bowling balls words even come close to your words? Richard: >>> So you believe him when he tells you that I was "terminated" (his term) > from Berkeley and that I currently work in a sausage factory?<<<< I can not see, no matter how hard I try to see what you see in this situation at all. Bowling Ball said, "termination situation." That's not "terminated," is it? I do not see anywhere that you currently work in a sausage factory. Bowling ball said, "working in a chemistry lab designing and testing preservatives for a sausage factory." What part of that constitutes working in a sausage factory? > > So you believe him when he tells you that I was "terminated" (his term) > > from Berkeley and that I currently work in a sausage factory? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > preservatives for a sausage factory." What part of that constitutes > working in a sausage factory? Debbee, your old self has returned, as a full blown moron. > > > So you believe him when he tells you that I was "terminated" (his term) > > > from Berkeley and that I currently work in a sausage factory? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > >Bee: Where do you see Bowling balls words even come close to your words? Richard: >>> So you believe him when he tells you that I was > > "terminated" (his term) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > situation at all. > > Bowling Ball said, "termination situation." Bee: That's not "terminated," is it? > >Bee: I do not see anywhere that you currently work in a sausage factory. > > Bowling ball said, "working in a chemistry lab designing and testing > > preservatives for a sausage factory." What part of that constitutes > > working in a sausage factory? > >Mark Probert said: Debbee, your old self has returned, as a full blown moron. And my answer to that is...Probert, who is the REAL Moron here? Do read for comprehension. Your friend, Richard Schultz is reading something different into what was being written word for word by Tim Bolen, and trying to play victim out of it. I do not always agree with the Bowling Ball--but in this case, he did not say, the revised version of what was being translated (bent, twisted, and stretched-- you know the aerobics class that many here love to attend), so instead of calling me the "MORON," would the real moron be the person that bent, twisted, and stretched the words in the first place? Face the music, Probert...I'm not the "full blown moron," put it back on the person that denied what was being said, word for word in the first place. > > > > So you believe him when he tells you that I was "terminated" (his term) > > > > from Berkeley and that I currently work in a sausage factory? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > And my answer to that is...Probert, who is the REAL Moron here? YOU Do > read for comprehension. > Your friend, Richard Schultz is reading something different into what > was being written word for word by Tim Bolen, No, not at all. I know what Bolen was doing because this is his usual technique. He was clearly trying to imply that Richard was firedl. and > trying to play victim out of it. I do not always agree with the > Bowling Ball--but in this case, he did not say, the revised > version of what was being translated (bent, twisted, and stretched-- > you know the aerobics class that many here love to attend), so instead > of calling me the "MORON," would the real moron be the person that > bent, twisted, and stretched the words in the first place? No. The real moron is the one who cannot see what Bolen was doing. > Face the music, Probert...I'm not the "full blown moron," put it back > on the person that denied what was being said, word for word in the > first place I know what you are. Anyone with even half a brain does. > >Bee And my answer to that is...Probert, who is the REAL Moron here? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Probert: I know what you are. Anyone with even half a brain does. Apparently, you have some "history" with Bolen, I do not, nor does the "average" person that reads this newsgroup. I don't always agree with his freedom of expression, but he has the right to do it just as much as anyone else here does. When someone "terminates," their employment with an employer-- termination means a variety of issues....quit, laid off, fired, walked off of the job for a variety of reasons. I happen to have some H.R. experience--I can say, I "terminated" my employment with XYZ company, but that does not necessarily mean I was fired, it means I'm no longer connected with XYZ Company. My relationship with them "ended," "ceases to exist," etc. The words you used, Probert are in fact the one that is implying something that may or may not happened. and I really do not think the average reader here "cares." I do not care. Richard was attempting to drag me into the equation. You said, "I know what Bolen was doing because this is his usual > technique. He was clearly trying to imply that Richard was firedl" Schultz would appear to be your friend, based on the numerous amount of times you have come to his defense in this newsgroup. But a real friend wouldn't have written what you wrote above to imply to the readers something about your friend, that may or may not be true. You do not know me, Probert. These words of yours, Probert, " I know what you are. Anyone with even half a brain does," are misleading to the average reader. What are you implying here about me, Probert? If you have history with Bolen, that's between you, and him, and not the rest of the people here. :> Your friend, Richard Schultz ?is reading something different into what :> was being written word for word ?by Tim Bolen, : : No, not at all. I know what Bolen was doing because this is his usual : technique. He was clearly trying to imply that Richard was firedl. What Debbee conveniently forgets is that Mr. Bolen has already posted that he would like to see my termination letter from Berkeley, which means that he is saying directly that he thinks that I was fired from Berkeley. What he is implying is that he has no idea what position(s) I held there. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > What Debbee conveniently forgets is that Mr. Bolen has already posted that > he would like to see my termination letter from Berkeley, which means that > he is saying directly that he thinks that I was fired from Berkeley. What > he is implying is that he has no idea what position(s) I held there. > > ----- Are you implying that I "conveniently forgot" something? This is not a true statement, Mr. Schultz. It would appear that this is your belief, not mine. When people "terminate" their employment with their employer, letters can come from both sides of the employer-employee relationship in the matter of "ceasing of employment." In fact, when people decide to "cease" their employment with their employer, it is often a practice by the employer that they write a letter of acceptance and detail what they expect their employee to do prior to their "ceasing" their employment with them, or the employer, may choose to just usher them out immediately. I have no idea of what you did there, or even if you were an employee. You have made it known that a Richard Herschel (sp?) Schultz got a Ph.D there, and I assuming you were referring to yourself. You can stop with your aerobics exercises in implying that I "conveniently forgot" when in fact, you have no idea of what I thought in the first place. Am I to assume that these continual misrepresentations of what various people say will cease? It would appear to have no purpose other than to get a reaction and to discourage freedom of expressions by those that post here. > > What Debbee conveniently forgets is that Mr. Bolen has already posted that > > he would like to see my termination letter from Berkeley, which means that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "conveniently forgot" when in fact, you have > no idea of what I thought in the first place. Oh, "we" know that you didn't think very much. > Am I to assume that these continual misrepresentations of what various > people say will cease? That would be your task. > It would appear to have no purpose other than to get a reaction and > to discourage freedom of expressions > by those that post here. Wrong. It is fair comment. You want to stifle Richard's speech. I said, and I will repeat it once more so you understand it. Am I to assume that these continual misrepresentations of what various people say will cease? It would appear to have no purpose other than to get a reaction and to discourage freedom of expressions by those that post here. >Probert: Wrong. It is fair comment. You want to stifle Richard's speech. I have no intention of stiffling anyone's freedom of expression, but what I want to "cease" are the misrepresentations of my speech by anyone. You, nor anyone else does not have the right to twist, bend, or stretch what I say to fit what appears to be their own agenda here. I *don't* care about whatever affairs or history that you and Bolen would have appeared to have had over the years. It is just like the emails that allegedly came from your wife to to whomever she sent them to about Ilena or Ilena's emails that allegedly went to your wife. That's not anyone else's business but those that were involved, is it? The same for Richard, and yourself. If you have history with Bolen--take it up with Bolen. I'm not interested in "joining sides," and fighting alternative medicine vs conventional medicine. Just like your comment today, calling me a "full blown moron." That was totally uncalled for. One could say you were attempting to stifle my speech. I took the time to go over word for word trying to a reasonable and fair assessment of the situation. The outcome was based on being fair --to all parties and showing different opinions of the situation. But, oh, no, that did not work for you, and/or Richard, and the insults flew when I didn't side in with you. I'm not siding with anyone. > I said, and I will repeat it once more so you understand it. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > did not work for you, and/or Richard, and the insults flew when I > didn't side in with you. I'm not siding with anyone. Bee: I cannot help but notice the obvious here - and that is that Rchard Schultz, or whomever is playing the character of Richard Shultz today, is obfuscating the original question(s). It is kind of GLARING at us right now that "Richard" is avoiding the questions about not being hired in the US, nor is he/she addressing the questions about chermical preservatives for sausage. By the way, Trader Joe's had a special today on Bratwurst. I got a pack. It had no chemical preservatives. Amused in California... Tim Bolen On Feb 21, 10:34 pm, jurim...@yahoo.com wrote: > By the way, Trader Joe's had a special today on Bratwurst. I got a > pack. It had no chemical preservatives. Trader Joe's is a wonderful place to shop. Reasonable prices on Organics. I agree food tastes much better without preservatives. As for your questions not being answered--that's between you and him. Apparently you all have some "history" together. It would appear that people are attempting to want people to take "sides," and that's not something that I am interested in doing. I do find it hilarious (at best), that both Schultz and Probert have come after me and attempted that, to bring me into their apparent history with you. I simply went through the words, and based on the wording alone, I was simply amazed at the bending and twisting of the words. There would appear to be some kind of agenda here. I did not know what a "Pittcon" was and I had to look it up. It sounds like it is a medical and dental device convention, much like Semicon is to the semi-conductor industry. >> I said, and I will repeat it once more so you understand it. >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >By the way, Trader Joe's had a special today on Bratwurst. I got a >pack. It had no chemical preservatives. So you have a fascination for sausages. Interesting. Does your wife know? >Amused in California... > >Tim Bolen >>> I said, and I will repeat it once more so you understand it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> >>Tim Bolen Martin Rady, does your wife know you are on *My space* with other women? > In article <5e340a36-cda6-4a67-9a2a-548815525...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > he is saying directly that he thinks that I was fired from Berkeley. What > he is implying is that he has no idea what position(s) I held there. Debbee ignores Bolen's past, which is demonstrative of his current shtick. He claimed that Barrett was "delicensed" to imply that Barrett did something wrong, when he merely allowed his license tolapse as he is no longer seeing patients. > Debbee ignores Bolen's past, which is demonstrative of his current > shtick. He claimed that Barrett was "delicensed" to imply that > Barrett did something wrong, when he merely allowed his license > tolapse as he is no longer seeing patients. Probert--stop making things up to suit your agenda. You have history with Bolen. I do not, and I'm not taking sides. Got the picture? Good. Barrett was without a license. That is a fact. But Barrett, got his licensed renewed so that he could prescribe for himself, and family. I looked that one up because I did not want to take any one's word for it but the State's word for it. Just like with the Caviat case, I looked it up because I did not want to take what I learned here at face value. Just like I have with the Ilena vs whomever case, all of this is all a matter of public record. As I said to Richard, and I will say to you....Am I to assume that these continual misrepresentations of what various people say will cease? It would appear to have no purpose other than to get a reaction and to discourage freedom of expressions by those that post here. : Probert--stop making things up to suit your agenda. You have history : with Bolen. I do not, and I'm not taking sides. Got the picture? Good. By taking Bolen's ravings seriously, you already have taken a side. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In article <576dc146-514c-4a87-86ae-ed3c53c29...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > : Probert--stop making things up to suit your agenda. You have history > : with Bolen. I do not, and I'm not taking sides. Got the picture? Good. > > By taking Bolen's ravings seriously, you already have taken a side. Quite true, but Debster does not think like that. In fact, she does not think. As for me "making things up", I do not have that vivid imagination as Bolen or Debster has. I call them as I see them, and commenting with pork, etc. referendces to someone in Israel is akin to a subtle form of anti-semitism. > Quite true, but Debster does not think like that. In fact, she does > not think. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pork, etc. referendces to someone in Israel is akin to a subtle form > of anti-semitism. Do not call me, "Debster," that's what my friends call me, and you are not a friend. Pork, Israel? Not everyone in Israel is of the Jewish cultural background, in fact I have heard (don't know how true this is), but there are more in New York from the Jewish cultural background than there are in Israel. There is always something that is offending to every cultural background, and those that yell "discrimination," need to take a look at that. One could flip it around and claim the opposite of anti-semitism. I'm following a case right now in the court system of a "reverse anti semitism," which is pretty interesting. I can see 'both sides" to the equation, but there has to be some "happy medium," which everyone can be able to freely express their opinions without people jumping on the band wagon and yelling "discrimination." I have a discussion last night with a stranger about religion and sexual orientation. Religion is a personal issue, as is sexual orientation. Unless someone "puts it out there in the public view," no one would know what sexual orientation one is, nor would they know what religion or cultural background one is from. Acceptance of people comes from people liking people for who they are, not what religion they are, or what ethnicity they are, or what sexual orientation they are. The minute people "put it on in the public eye," is when they are opening themselves up to be discriminated against. The person I happened to be talking to happened to be of the Moslem faith, but that did not come about in our conversation immediately. We were having a discussion about Malaria, and he brought up his faith in that discussion, and then asked if I was offended that he was Moslem. Absolutely not I told him, that is your personal belief. It just happens not to be mine. We both laughed and continued with our discussion about Malaria. Relgious acceptance seems to stem from how people were raised and the age they are. If one has grown up with the stigma that their religious beliefs are the only religious beliefs in the world, then the problem with discrimination lies with the way you were raised. Acceptance only comes when you quit putting it out there in the public view, because do have the right to express themselves as they see it. And you've said time after time again that you do believe that people have the right to stifle one's speech, and if you truly feel that way, then you have to be accepting of what people say that you do not happen to like. I do get the Bolen Report - there are things in it that I agree with -- Yes, our health system needs a major overhauling, and people should have the freedom to be involved in their own health care, and I believe that insurance companies need to rethink what they will cover and what they won't cover. There are things I do not agree with either. So state I am 'taking sides with Bolen," is ridiculous, which is what you and your friend Richard Schultz are trying to do, tie me with him. What is your point behind all of this? This is an alternative health newsgroup and until the other day it was the only newsgroup I have posted in. I happen to like some forms of alternative therapies because they work for me. I cannot understand those that post in an alternative health group that dislike the freedom to choose what works for them so much. Yes, people have the right to express their opinions about alternative health care that dislike it, or even hate it. As I have said, if you have issues with Bolen, deal with him directly. The best thing you can do when someone puts something out there that you do not agree with or offends you is to "ignore it." > > Quite true, but Debster does not think like that. In fact, she does > > not think. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do not call me, "Debster," that's what my friends call me, and you > are not a friend. Aw, shucks, Debster. You cut me to the quirk. > Pork, Israel? Not everyone in Israel is of the Jewish cultural > background, Many follow Halal, with a similar view of pork. However, that is not relevant to the point I made. > in fact I have heard (don't know how true this is), but there are more > in New York [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "discrimination," need > to take a look at that. NY is not the topic. > One could flip it around and claim the opposite of anti-semitism. I'm > following [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > without people > jumping on the band wagon and yelling "discrimination." Reverse anti-semitism? You mean that a non-semite loves a semite? > I have a discussion last night with a stranger about religion and > sexual orientation. Religion is a personal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what religion > or cultural background one is from. Not so. For a person following Halal, the difference would be quite obvious in a situation where they go to eat. Acceptance of people comes from > people liking > people for who they are, not what religion they are, or what ethnicity > they are, or > what sexual orientation they are. The first smart thing you ever said. The minute people "put it on in the > public eye," is when > they are opening themselves up to be discriminated against. Now you got stupid again. I have the right to put it out in the public eye as you say. The > person I happened to be > talking to happened to be of the Moslem faith, but that did not come [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > both laughed and continued > with our discussion about Malaria. Since younever had malaria, I assume you were quiet. > Relgious acceptance seems to stem from how people were raised and the > age they are. If one has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > right to express themselves as they > see it. My putting my faith in the public view is my right. From what you say, I guess you oppose the right of Christians to wear a cross, decorate their homes for Christmas, get ashes on their foreheads for Ash Wednesday, etc. And you've said time after time again that you do believe > that people have the right to stifle > one's speech, That is out right bullshit, and YOU KNOW IT. I have said that I support OWH's free marketplace of ideas time and again. and if you truly feel that way, then you have to be > accepting of what people say that > you do not happen to like. > > I do get the Bolen Report Print it out, read in toilet. Use instead of Charmin. - there are things in it that I agree with > -- Yes, our health system needs a major overhauling, > and people should have the freedom to be involved in their own health [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So state I am 'taking sides with Bolen," is ridiculous, which is what > you and your friend Richard Schultz are trying to do, We are not trying, we are saying it. > tie me with him. What is your point behind all of this? This is an > alternative health newsgroup and until the other day it was the only > newsgroup I have posted in. I happen to like some forms of > alternative therapies because they work for me. I cannot understand > those that post in an alternative health group that dislike the > freedom to choose what works for them so much. You have been told that no one opposes your right to choose. I, and others, post here to show that there are two sides to alternatives. Note that there is no such thing as "alternative medicine". Yes, people have the > right to express their opinions about alternative health care that > dislike it, or even hate it. > > As I have said, if you have issues with Bolen, deal with him > directly. The best thing you can do when someone puts something out > there that you do not agree with or offends you is to "ignore it." Like the Nazis were ignored in the 1930's. > Aw, shucks, Debster. You cut me to the quirk. Too bad, how sad. This was what I wrote that was snipped: Pork, Israel? Not everyone in Israel is of the Jewish cultural background, in fact I have heard (don't know how true this is), but there are more in New York from the Jewish cultural background than there are in Israel. There is always something that is offending to every cultural background, and those that yell "discrimination," need to take a look at that. >Probert: Many follow Halal, with a similar view of pork. However, that is not > relevant to the point I made. Then what was the point you were attempting to make? You know some of us are not of the Jewish cultural bakground, and have no clue what you are talking about. >Probert: NY is not the topic. Ok, I'll buy that. > Reverse anti-semitism? You mean that a non-semite loves a semite? A long the lines of someone claiming discrimination against them, when in fact it was the other way around. > >Bee: I have a discussion last night with a stranger about religion and > > sexual orientation. Religion is a personal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Probert: Not so. For a person following Halal, the difference would be quite > obvious in a situation where they go to eat. And how would the average reader to this board even know about that? They wouldn't. This is not a jewish cultural newsgroup. > Bee: Acceptance of people comes from > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Probert: The first smart thing you ever said. That's how my father taught me. My mother on the other hand cringed when I brought home someone she didn't approve of when I was in college. >Bee: The minute people "put it on in the > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Probert: Now you got stupid again. I have the right to put it out in the public > eye as you say. I'm not being "stupid," this is my opinion. You want people to accept you, then let them accept you as you are---people still have stereo-types about people in their heads based on history of different kinds of people--from their parents, their grandparents, etc. When I was a kid our neighborhood was a melting pot of people whose parents or their parents came from "away." We knew who went to the Catholic Church, who couldn't eat meat on Friday, what families went to church on Saturday, and who wasn't Catholic on the block but no one cared. We all played together, ate together, and it did not bother any of us that we were not all from the same religion. No one cared. We went to everyone's First Communions, and Bat and Bar Mitzahs, and Baptisms. > Probert: Since younever had malaria, I assume you were quiet. Of course I have not had it, but it is a problem in other countries and one must not only focus on our own country, but other countries as well. You do know that some of our health problems today have migrated from other countries. That would be a no brainer, and we certainly need to help other countries overcome health problems in their countries. > My putting my faith in the public view is my right. From what you say, > I guess you oppose the right of Christians to wear a cross, decorate > their homes for Christmas, get ashes on their foreheads for Ash > Wednesday, etc. If people want to put it out there - it is certainly their right, but there are people who have stereo-types imprinted in their heads from their childhood, and/or the way they were raised, or their own religious beliefs that could cause people to put that stereo type out their on them. The same with sexual orientation. What one does in privacy is certainly not my business or anyone else's business. > Bee: And you've said time after time again that you do believe > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Probert: That is out right bullshit, and YOU KNOW IT. I have said that I > support OWH's free marketplace of ideas time and again. Yep, you are right, I made a typo--and left the words "DO NOT," out of the sentence. The sentence should read, "And you've said time after time again that you DO NOT believe that people have the right to stifle one's speech." > >Bee: I do get the Bolen Report > > Probert: Print it out, read in toilet. Use instead of Charmin. Why? I enjoy reading some of it, because I can agree with some of it. I believe that our country's health system needs serious revamping. It is a broken system and it needs to be fixed so that the same quality of health care is available to every single American regardless of their income. > >Bee: So state I am 'taking sides with Bolen," is ridiculous, which is what > > you and your friend Richard Schultz are trying to do, > >Probert: We are not trying, we are saying it. You get more hilarious every time you bring that up. I'm not taking sides. You have clearly taken sides with Schultz. As you have with many of the anti alternative health care posters that have posted here previously and now. You have demonstrated over and over and over against those of us that believe in alternative health care therapies. It would be pretty much common knowledge by looking around in this newsgroup at the postings now, and years ago by the number of people that support alternative health care therapies but have just been run off by those that are against alternative health care choices. > Probert: You have been told that no one opposes your right to choose. I, and > others, post here to show that there are two sides to alternatives. > Note that there is no such thing as "alternative medicine". Yeah, right. There have been a lot unfounded attacks on alternative health care therapies. Andrew has posted about acupuncture; he has personal experience in his field, which certainly outweighs those that have zero experience in it, and have made fun of him for what he chooses to do for people in his chosen career. Everyone that uses some form of alternative therapies has been openly made fun of, like people that are against alternative therapies think they have the right to call people names that use alternative therapies. Do a search in "goggle news." That's where I pull up topics of interest that I post in this newsgroup. You might not like the term, "alternative medicine," but it is used in many of the search engines that I use, and not just google. In fact, I rarely use google. I personally do not think it is the best search engine. Bee: > As I have said, if you have issues with Bolen, deal with him > directly. The best thing you can do when someone puts something out > there that you do not agree with or offends you is to "ignore it." >Probert: Like the Nazis were ignored in the 1930's. I wasn't around in the 1930's, and I suggest if you are upset with that, find people that were around in the 30's, and go after them. I don't know how old Bolen is, but I don't think Bolen was around then either. > > > Quite true, but Debster does not think like that. In fact, she does > > > not think. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Pork, Israel? Not everyone in Israel is of the Jewish cultural > > background, Deb, do you think the Israeli muslims eat pork? No, they don't. Practially nobody in Israel eats pork, whether Jew or Gentile. Finding pork in Israel is just a little easier than finding a winning lottery ticket in the UK. > Many follow Halal, with a similar view of pork. However, that is not > relevant to the point I made. [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > Like the Nazis were ignored in the 1930's. On Feb 24, 5:49 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Deb, do you think the Israeli muslims eat pork? No, they don't. > Practially nobody in Israel eats pork, whether Jew or Gentile. > Finding pork in Israel is just a little easier than finding a winning > lottery ticket in the UK. Thanks, Andrew. I have friends that happen to have a Jewish cultural background (they do not go to worship); they eat pork, ham and bacon. I apologize but I did not know. I also know people that were raised in the Mormon church (but no longer go to worship) that drink cola based soft drinks and coffee. I guess what I do not understand Andrew (and maybe you can help me out here) is why if pork is offending to the Jewish culture why do the jewish culture background merchants (deli's, old fashioned meat markets, restaurant owners/chains, grocery stores) sell pork based products? That makes zero sense to me. And while we are on the subject, what does it mean when someone says, the product is "Kosher." There's a place for instance in LA that sells really good hot dogs, called, "Jeff's Kosher Hot Dogs." What makes them "Kosher?" Are they blessed by someone? is it in the manufacturing of the product? Do they have secret ingredients? > On Feb 24, 5:49 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > fashioned meat markets, > restaurant owners/chains, grocery stores) sell pork based products? Pork isn't offensive to Jews. Kosher Jews just don't eat it. It isn't a matter of revulsion. Some orthodox Jews believe that one should not wear a garment of mixed fibers such as cotton & polyester or even wool and cotton. That doesn't mean they find such garments to be wrong or unfit for humans. Would it be wrong for a Jewish carpenter to build a church despite the fact he doesn't plan to worship there? > That makes zero > sense to me. And while we are on the subject, what does it mean when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > by someone? is it in the manufacturing of the product? Do they have > secret ingredients? Well, Kosher rules are unfortunately complicated. There are more than a few views on that and it isn't a very easy question to answer briefly. Kosher hot dogs have meat from Cows only and it is restricted to certain parts, no lips, sphincters, etc. The meat and the manufacturing process do have to be blessed by an orthodox rabbi, but there is more to it than that. Suffice it to say that I would never serve my mother a non-kosher hot dog. On Feb 24, 9:14 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, Kosher rules are unfortunately complicated. There are more than > a few views on that and it isn't a very easy question to answer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there is more to it than that. Suffice it to say that I would never > serve my mother a non-kosher hot dog. So basically if it looks like "mystery meat," and has ingredients that it could be this, or could be that, that it is a no-go, right? Now, is this true for everything that is eaten? Would you serve your mother food that is not 100% Kosher? Or just meat? Now, here is one more off topic question. Why do all of the temples (or a lot of them) named "Beth" something? When I was a kid, my brother's best friend attended Temple Beth El - and another friend attended another temple with Beth---is Beth symbolic of something? Thanks Andrew - I appreciate the cultural lessons. : Now, here is one more off topic question. Why do all of the temples : (or a lot of them) named "Beth" something? When I was a kid, : my brother's best friend attended Temple Beth El - and another friend : attended another temple with Beth---is Beth symbolic of something? "Beth" is a traditional way of transliterating the Hebrew word for "House." (The word is actually pronounced "bait" in modern Hebrew). Thus "Beth El" means "House of God" -- a name that appears in Christian contexts as well (e.g. the street in suburban Pittsburgh called "Bethel Church Road"); "Beth Shalom" means "House of Peace," and so on. : Thanks Andrew - I appreciate the cultural lessons. Just keep in mind that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and that nearly everything that he has told you so far has been incorrect. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "French bread makes very good skis" > In article <b3f99875-a219-43d6-9d15-8d7517c3e...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Just keep in mind that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and that > nearly everything that he has told you so far has been incorrect. Just keep in mind that Richard has a nasty habit of lying and is too much of an a.shole to admit it. > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "French bread makes very good skis" :> : Thanks Andrew - I appreciate the cultural lessons. :> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : Just keep in mind that Richard has a nasty habit of lying and is too : much of an a.shole to admit it. Can you point out a single lie that I posted in my corrections of your numerous mistakes about kashrut, shaatnez, and the availability of pork in Israel? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "These are just simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know -- morons." > In article <b3f99875-a219-43d6-9d15-8d7517c3e...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Just keep in mind that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and that > nearly everything that he has told you so far has been incorrect. I know how steamed you are over being exposed as a remorseless liar. I know you are desperate to find a way to do the same to me, but I'm sincere in what I say. Sure, I make mistakes, but I've proven I can admit them. At any rate, what I said about "Some" orthodox jews is a fact. Some won't wear any mixed fiber garment. You came up with the notion that I said it was prohibited. The Hebrew National Hot Dog website disagrees with you about Lips & Sphincters. Perhaps they don't know as much about kosher wieners are you. After all, they only have experience with manufacturing them, you have personal experience being one. At any rate, if you have a citation that is more authoritative than Hebrew National's website, I'm all ears. As for the hot dogs being all cow, I was wrong. I should have said and meant to say that the hot dog had to be made out of the meat of one kosher animal, not a mixture. It is fortunate someone as knowledgeable as yourself was there to correct me. I'm grateful to you for preventing the grave consequences that would have befallen Debbee in her search for Kosher Hot Dogs. > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "French bread makes very good skis" On Feb 25, 3:13 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: I'm grateful to > you for preventing the grave consequences that would have befallen > Debbee in her search for Kosher Hot Dogs. Thank you, Andrew, I think we can all sleep better tonight, knowing this. I'm going to the store tomorrow (after my pin cushion appointment) in search of a package of Kosher hot dogs at the grocery store. I'll let you know tomorrow if I made the conquest was successful!! : I know how steamed you are over being exposed as a remorseless liar. You have yet to show a single lie that I have told. And there is one obvious piece of evidence that I have told no lies -- I have nothing to gain by the lies that you claim that I have told. : I know you are desperate to find a way to do the same to me, but I'm : sincere in what I say. Sure, I make mistakes, but I've proven I can : admit them. You mean the way that you've admitted your mistake about the "requirement waiver" claim? : At any rate, what I said about "Some" orthodox jews is a fact. Some : won't wear any mixed fiber garment. You came up with the notion that : I said it was prohibited. The only reason that they wouldn't wear such a garment would be because they believe that it is prohibited, which it is not. : The Hebrew National Hot Dog website disagrees with you about Lips & : Sphincters. I couldn't find any place on the website where they *mention* lips and sphincters. Perhaps you could give us a specific citation to a particular web page on that site. : Perhaps they don't know as much about kosher wieners are : you. After all, they only have experience with manufacturing them, : you have personal experience being one. At any rate, if you have a : citation that is more authoritative than Hebrew National's website, : I'm all ears. I don't have time to look up the citation in Yoreh Deah. *If* Hebrew National (the kashrut of which, by the way, is not accepted by many, because the triangle-K organization accepts certain leniencies that are not universally accepted) doesn't use lips and sphincters, it is not an issue of kashrut. Their website claims that they only use meat from the forequarter, with no mention one way or the other of what are euphemistically referred to as "meat by-products." If they do not use "meat by-products," it is a marketing decision, not one related to kashrut. The reason that they only use the forequarter is a matter of practical economics, not of kashrut. The only parts of a kosher animal that are forbidden are the blood, some of the suet (which is reserved for priestly use, AFAIK a prohibition that is still in effect), and the sciatic nerve. Because removing the sciatic nerve is difficult and time-consuming and requires a specially skilled technician, in the U.S., it's much more economical for a kosher slaughtering plant to sell the hindquarter to a non-kosher meat processor than it is to go to the trouble of removing the sciatic nerve. So *if* the meat by-products in Hebrew National hot dogs do not contain sphnicters, it is not because they are inherently not kosher -- it is because they have been sold to someone else before they get to Hebrew National's plant. : As for the hot dogs being all cow, I was wrong. I should have said : and meant to say that the hot dog had to be made out of the meat of : one kosher animal, not a mixture. It is fortunate someone as : knowledgeable as yourself was there to correct me. I'm grateful to : you for preventing the grave consequences that would have befallen : Debbee in her search for Kosher Hot Dogs. So far, you have been wrong about every single thing you have said regarding halakhah. I can understand your "displaced anger" at having been corrected by someone who, while by any reasonable standard is an ignoramus, at least knows far more about the matter than you do. Did you at least watch the video on the Chabad web site about checking for shatnez? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In article <61507c1c-8b99-4bd1-bb39-84dd07269...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > obvious piece of evidence that I have told no lies -- I have nothing to > gain by the lies that you claim that I have told. Oh, but I have and I have done so repeatedly. The fact that you lie to deny them is sad. Anyone reading knows that you've lied about what you said and what I've said. The fact you haven't found a way to profit from your deceit is irrelevant. Lying without profit is one thing, lying without remorse is YOUR thing. > : I know you are desperate to find a way to do the same to me, but I'm > : sincere in what I say. Sure, I make mistakes, but I've proven I can > : admit them. > > You mean the way that you've admitted your mistake about the "requirement > waiver" claim? Keep fixating on your bizarre loopholes, literature curriculums, and chemistry course. I'm sure it is time well spent. On the other hand, I have a medical school admissions officer who verfied what I said. > : At any rate, what I said about "Some" orthodox jews is a fact. Some > : won't wear any mixed fiber garment. You came up with the notion that > : I said it was prohibited. > > The only reason that they wouldn't wear such a garment would be because > they believe that it is prohibited, which it is not. Don't you EVER get tired of being Wrong? Those in Wilmington (and elsewhere) say they do so because they observe to a higher standard. It is an error for you to assert that, but if you keep doing it after being corrected, it becomes a lie. > : The Hebrew National Hot Dog website disagrees with you about Lips & > : Sphincters. > > I couldn't find any place on the website where they *mention* lips and > sphincters. Perhaps you could give us a specific citation to a particular > web page on that site. They show the parts of the animal that are kosher. The head is not one of those parts and neither are the flanks. If you can't understand that graphic, email the Hebrew National folks. Tell them that they have gotten the whole kosher thing wrong. While you're at it, tell the folks at UNC Medical School that they do not understand the proper meaning of "Standard" in the context of their curriculum. After that, you may want to go tilt at some windmills. > : Perhaps they don't know as much about kosher wieners are > : you. After all, they only have experience with manufacturing them, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > kosher -- it is because they have been sold to someone else before they get > to Hebrew National's plant. Richard, if sphincters are kosher, then I say to you "bon appetit"! Until I see something more definitive, I'm comfortable with Hebrew National's kosher standards. > : As for the hot dogs being all cow, I was wrong. I should have said > : and meant to say that the hot dog had to be made out of the meat of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by someone who, while by any reasonable standard is an ignoramus, at least > knows far more about the matter than you do. First off, I'm correct about the first part, that some jews don't wear any mixed fibers. Feel free to say "mea culpa". Secondly, I take the Hebrew National website over your word. They have 103 years of exprience manufacturing kosher wieners as opposed to having ~50 years of personal experience being one. As for the rabbi blessing the process, you are correct. The proper word is "approve". Again, many thanks for making that clear. > Did you at least watch the video on the Chabad web site about checking > for shatnez? Nope. Why would I? The issue wasn't about what is prohibited, only what some orthodox jews choose. Next, you'll tell me I'm wrong when I say that Some orthodox jews will not ride in an elevator with mixed company (Men & Women). > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." :> : At any rate, what I said about "Some" orthodox jews is a fact. ?Some :> : won't wear any mixed fiber garment. ?You came up with the notion that :> : I said it was prohibited. :> The only reason that they wouldn't wear such a garment would be because :> they believe that it is prohibited, which it is not. ? : Don't you EVER get tired of being Wrong? Those in Wilmington (and : elsewhere) say they do so because they observe to a higher standard. : It is an error for you to assert that, but if you keep doing it after : being corrected, it becomes a lie. Ask them about the principle in halakhah that "kol she-lo assur mutar." They are not "observing a higher standard" -- they are, if your report is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it is), either *violating halakhah*, which makes them non-Orthodox by definition, or at best, acting out of ignorance. Have *you* seen the video that I cited, which is found on Chaba'ds own website, and which clearly shows that Chabad accepts that it is permissible to wear garments made of mixtures of fibers as long as they are not shatnez (wool + linen)? Have you shown it to this "rabbi" of yours? Your original claim was in the context of "this is something that Orthodox Jews do" as an illustration of what is normative practice. That implication is misleading at best, since no Orthodox Jew who actually knows something about the prohibition refuses to wear a garment made of cotton and polyester. :> : The Hebrew National Hot Dog website disagrees with you about Lips & :> : Sphincters. ? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : They show the parts of the animal that are kosher. That is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. They show *the parts of the animal that they use*. The *only* parts of a cow that are forbidden are the three that I listed: the blood, certain parts of the suet, and the sciatic nerve. If you don't believe me, then you can consult http://tinyurl.com/2cwodk, which contains an article written by an Orthodox rabbi and which confirms what I wrote (although he points out that the blood vessels are prohibited in addition to the blood itself). : The head is not one of those parts and neither are the flanks. That is yet another example of your inability to read for comprehension. The graphic draws a line and says that everything on one side is kosher (the side that includes the head) and everything that is on the other is not. What they show in the graphic are the cuts of beef. Here's a question for you: one of the traditional Eastern European "delicacies" (I use the term advisedly) that is served by kosher delicatessens is tongue. In fact, *Hebrew National* sells kosher tongue (cf. http://tinyurl.com/2guzfm for an ad for Hebrew National kosher tongue). What part of the cow do you think "tongue" comes from? <crickets chirping> : If you can't : understand that graphic, email the Hebrew National folks. Tell them : that they have gotten the whole kosher thing wrong. If you read the article that I cited, you will find that it says, inter alia, Most of the forbidden fat and the sinew of the thigh vein are found in the hindquarters of the animal. Since their removal is difficult and must be done by one who is highly qualified, the hindquarters are not used for kosher meat in most Jewish communities, except where meat is not readily obtainable, as in Israel and some European communities. That is consistent with what I wrote: the hindquarter of the cow is *not* inherently non-kosher, only that the effort needed to make it kosher is not worth it in the U.S. : Richard, if sphincters are kosher, then I say to you "bon appetit"! : Until I see something more definitive, I'm comfortable with Hebrew : National's kosher standards. You misread what Hebrew National's web site says, and ignored my detailed explanation of why the hindquarters are generally not kosher in the U.S. Perhaps the "more authoritative" source I cited above will convince you, but I doubt that you'll even read it. : As for the rabbi blessing the process, you are correct. The proper : word is "approve". Again, many thanks for making that clear. You are still wrong. While in practice, kashrut supervision is done by rabbis (this is mostly a matter of economics), in principle, it need not be. In fact, the entire industry of kashrut supervision only grew up with modern manufacturing processes that separate the consumers from the producers. In principle, if the guy who does the slaughter is a Sabbath observer and tells you that the meat is kosher, halakhically, you can believe him without needing the approval of a rabbi. And I know people who were not rabbis who did act as mashgichim (supervisors) -- not for slaughtering, the rules of which are rather involved, but in restaurants and kitchens. :> Did you at least watch the video on the Chabad web site about checking :> for shatnez? : : Nope. Why would I? The issue wasn't about what is prohibited, only : what some orthodox jews choose. Another lie from you, I see. The issue is that the shatnez checker *specifically read the label of a garment made of mixed wool and polyester*, that *he did not object to the mixture*, and that the video is found *on Chabad's web site*. : Next, you'll tell me I'm wrong when I : say that Some orthodox jews will not ride in an elevator with mixed : company (Men & Women). Why should I, when, for a change, you have said something that is correct? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." In article <259d48f0- f48b-489d-9c66-42312494d...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: :> : At any rate, what I said about "Some" orthodox jews is a fact. ?Some :> : won't wear any mixed fiber garment. ?You came up with the notion that :> : I said it was prohibited. :> The only reason that they wouldn't wear such a garment would be because :> they believe that it is prohibited, which it is not. ? : Don't you EVER get tired of being Wrong? Those in Wilmington (and : elsewhere) say they do so because they observe to a higher standard. : It is an error for you to assert that, but if you keep doing it after : being corrected, it becomes a lie. > Ask them about the principle in halakhah that "kol she-lo assur mutar." >They are not "observing a higher standard" -- they are, if your report [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fibers as long as they are not shatnez (wool + linen)? Have you shown > it to this "rabbi" of yours? Since I don't give a rat's a.s, how 'bout you ask them? > Your original claim was in the context of "this is something that Orthodox > Jews do" as an illustration of what is normative practice. That implication > is misleading at best, since no Orthodox Jew who actually knows something > about the prohibition refuses to wear a garment made of cotton and > polyester. My original claim is exactly this: "Some orthodox Jews believe that one should not wear a garment of mixed fibers such as cotton & polyester or even wool and cotton." The fact you choose to raise a strawman in order to be argumentative speaks volumes about your motivation (rage). :> : The Hebrew National Hot Dog website disagrees with you about Lips & :> : Sphincters. ? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : They show the parts of the animal that are kosher. That is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. They show *the parts of the animal that they use*. The *only* parts of a cow that are forbidden are the three that I listed: the blood, certain parts of the suet, and the sciatic nerve. If you don't believe me, then you can consult http://tinyurl.com/2cwodk, which contains an article written by an Orthodox rabbi and which confirms what I wrote (although he points out that the blood vessels are prohibited in addition to the blood itself). : The head is not one of those parts and neither are the flanks. That is yet another example of your inability to read for comprehension. The graphic draws a line and says that everything on one side is kosher (the side that includes the head) and everything that is on the other is not. What they show in the graphic are the cuts of beef. Here's a question for you: one of the traditional Eastern European "delicacies" (I use the term advisedly) that is served by kosher delicatessens is tongue. In fact, *Hebrew National* sells kosher tongue (cf. http://tinyurl.com/2guzfm for an ad for Hebrew National kosher tongue). What part of the cow do you think "tongue" comes from? <crickets chirping> Good point! : If you can't : understand that graphic, email the Hebrew National folks. Tell them : that they have gotten the whole kosher thing wrong. If you read the article that I cited, you will find that it says, inter alia, Most of the forbidden fat and the sinew of the thigh vein are found in the hindquarters of the animal. Since their removal is difficult and must be done by one who is highly qualified, the hindquarters are not used for kosher meat in most Jewish communities, except where meat is not readily obtainable, as in Israel and some European communities. That is consistent with what I wrote: the hindquarter of the cow is *not* inherently non-kosher, only that the effort needed to make it kosher is not worth it in the U.S. : Richard, if sphincters are kosher, then I say to you "bon appetit"! : Until I see something more definitive, I'm comfortable with Hebrew : National's kosher standards. You misread what Hebrew National's web site says, and ignored my detailed explanation of why the hindquarters are generally not kosher in the U.S. Perhaps the "more authoritative" source I cited above will convince you, but I doubt that you'll even read it. Unlike yourself, I can admit an error. I'm wrong and you are right in the instance regarding the lips and sphincter being non-kosher. Frankly, I'm impressed with your zeal in pursuing this matter. I think it is only fair to recognize your passion & excellence by designating you MHA's Kosher Wiener Expert. I'll defer all such matters to you in deference to your expertise. : As for the rabbi blessing the process, you are correct. The proper : word is "approve". Again, many thanks for making that clear. You are still wrong. While in practice, kashrut supervision is done by rabbis (this is mostly a matter of economics), in principle, it need not be. In fact, the entire industry of kashrut supervision only grew up with modern manufacturing processes that separate the consumers from the producers. In principle, if the guy who does the slaughter is a Sabbath observer and tells you that the meat is kosher, halakhically, you can believe him without needing the approval of a rabbi. And I know people who were not rabbis who did act as mashgichim (supervisors) -- not for slaughtering, the rules of which are rather involved, but in restaurants and kitchens. I've heard differently from some knowledgeable folks. Still, you seem to care a lot more about this off-topic issue than I. I'm content to let you have that explanation as the last word. :> Did you at least watch the video on the Chabad web site about checking :> for shatnez? : : Nope. Why would I? The issue wasn't about what is prohibited, only : what some orthodox jews choose. Another lie from you, I see. The issue is that the shatnez checker *specifically read the label of a garment made of mixed wool and polyester*, that *he did not object to the mixture*, and that the video is found *on Chabad's web site*. Richard, here you go again. Don't you ever get tired of creating strawmen and lying about what I've said? This is reminiscent of our recent discussion on acupuncture. You repeatedly lied about me citing a webpage as the basis for my argument. You fought against that strawman over several posts, too. When I pointed out that your argument was both wrong and your own, you just snipped that from the discussion without comment. Ditto for your claim that I said acupuncture only works when done by a licensed acupuncturist. As the google archive reveals, I said "Some orthodox Jews believe that one should not wear a garment of mixed fibers such as cotton & polyester or even wool and cotton." Since my statement is factual, you have decided that YOU want to argue about whether or not wearing mixed fibers is always prohibited. Your rage has driven you to knee- jerk reactions, like this Strawman, to almost every post I've made in the past week. In the words of Ricard Teh-Fu Tan, O.M.D., L.Ac, "Let Go, Get Over it, & Move on!" : Next, you'll tell me I'm wrong when I : say that Some orthodox jews will not ride in an elevator with mixed : company (Men & Women). > Why should I, when, for a change, you have said something that is correct? Now, if I were a passive-aggressive personality like yourself, I would say, show me in the scriptures where it says "Elevator"! ::: They [Hebrew National] show the parts of the animal that are kosher. :: That is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. They show *the :: parts of the animal that they use*. The *only* parts of a cow that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: points out that the blood vessels are prohibited in addition to the blood :: itself). ::: The head is not one of those parts and neither are the flanks. :: Here's a question for you: one of the traditional Eastern European :: "delicacies" (I use the term advisedly) that is served by kosher :: delicatessens is tongue. In fact, *Hebrew National* sells kosher :: tongue (cf. http://tinyurl.com/2guzfm for an ad for Hebrew National kosher :: tongue). What part of the cow do you think "tongue" comes from? : Good point! "Good point" in the sense that it proves that your claim that the cow's head is not kosher was completely wrong, and my explanation of why it is was completely right. : Unlike yourself, I can admit an error. I'm wrong and you are right in : the instance regarding the lips and sphincter being non-kosher. I can and have admitted errors in cases where I have been shown to make them (look up articles in rec.arts.movies.past-films that contain the phrase "Cornel Wilde" to see a recent example). In this particular thread, however, I have not made any, while you have made more than enough for the both of us. : Frankly, I'm impressed with your zeal in pursuing this matter. I : think it is only fair to recognize your passion & excellence by : designating you MHA's Kosher Wiener Expert. I'll defer all such : matters to you in deference to your expertise. I wish that I could believe that you have learned the lesson, namely, that when it comes to matters of Jewish law, you are pretty much an ignoramus and that you should not be telling people about it. The other issue -- that you can pretty much trust me on the subject -- is secondary. I do find it amusing the lengths that you will go to to avoid having to admit that there are things that you don't know about when they are things that I *do* know about. ::: As for the rabbi blessing the process, you are correct. The proper ::: word is "approve". Again, many thanks for making that |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message