Censored on soc.jewish.moderated
Adam Helberg
to say I will not waste my time with them.
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:1134060287.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Adam Helberg wrote:
>> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
>> news:1133978132....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > werne...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> During the recent mayoralty campaign, Mayor Blumberg, addressing a
>> >> Jewish audience in an Orthodox synagogue, started off by saying that he
>> >> appreciated the beautiful "Temple" he was in. Well, this didn't sit
>> >> well with the Orthodox audience, although they agreed that their shul,
>> >> or synagogue, is beautiful. It seems that, generally, only the Reform
>> >> people speak of "temples" when they mean snynagogues, although there
>> >> are some Conservative synagogues that are still called "temples." But
>> >> it also seems that at one time the term "temple" was more widespread
>> >> among the Conservatives than it is today. Does anyone know, or could
>> >> guess, when and how usage changed ?
>> >
>> > The Reform movement started using the term "temple" for their houses of
>> > non-worship as an explicit way of denying the Jewish hopes and
>> > expectations of the return to our land and the rebuilding of the
>> > Temple, as promised by God through His prophets.
>> >
>> > By calling them "temples", they were saying that they were no longer
>> > Israelites who had been sent into exile, but that they were right where
>> > they were supposed to be, and had no interest in God's plans for
>> > redemption.
>> >
>> > So long as they continue to call them that, they are continuing to cut
>> > off their connection to the Jewish people and Jewish history.
>> >
>> > Lisa
>>
>> There is a small group of crackpots who want to build a third temple to bring
>> animals
>> to sacrifice like three thousand years ago.
>
> By "small group of crackpots", I assume you're referring to every
> Orthodox Jew on the face of the earth, right? That'd be those of us
> who haven't assimilated. Right?
>
> Lisa
I use the term "crackpot" so you know my opinion of them. No serious person around me
believes in such a thing, yet I hear some on arutz sheva promulgating it. I hope it's
a small minority or we're in trouble.
Animal sacrifices were practiced some 3000 years ago and at that time it was
acceptable behavior. It may have actually functioned as a slaughter house for killing
the animals for food. But just as many abandoned practices were considered proper in
the medieval ages, so this is an anachronism and does not belong today. The people
who advocate this need to look at themselves in the mirror for they are not different
from fundamentalists of other religions who are considered extremist.
Adam
Heinrich
"Adam Helberg" <sendsp...@yahee.com> schreef in bericht
news:Cmjnf.3255$Tg2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Deborah Sharavi
> Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated newsgroup. Needless
> to say I will not waste my time with them.
So, join us on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
There, the only posters who are censored are witless antisemites.
Deborah
Ted
Adam Helberg wrote:
> Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated newsgroup. Needless
> to say I will not waste my time with them.
I assume the post that was censored was your response to Lisa as
follows:
She said:
> > By "small group of crackpots", I assume you're referring to every
> > Orthodox Jew on the face of the earth, right? That'd be those of us
> > who haven't assimilated. Right?
> >
> > Lisa
And you said:
> I use the term "crackpot" so you know my opinion of them. No serious person around me
> believes in such a thing, yet I hear some on arutz sheva promulgating it. I hope it's
> a small minority or we're in trouble.
>
> Animal sacrifices were practiced some 3000 years ago and at that time it was
> acceptable behavior. It may have actually functioned as a slaughter house for killing
> the animals for food. But just as many abandoned practices were considered proper in
> the medieval ages, so this is an anachronism and does not belong today. The people
> who advocate this need to look at themselves in the mirror for they are not different
> from fundamentalists of other religions who are considered extremist.
And they wouldn't let you post the above?
If so -- join the club. Happens to a lot of people, and still these
bozos let the phony Rev et al post. SCJM is a joke. They are supposed
to be the antidote to SCJ, so the idea of the moderated group makes
sense, but the group is run by a bunch of self-appointed censors who go
overboard, knocking out valid posts and squelching discussions. You
ought to join Yitz's group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
Designed specifically as an antidote to the censorship of SCJM while
keeping out the kooks and nuts.
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Dec-2005, "Deborah Sharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Adam Helberg wrote:
> > Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated
> > newsgroup. Needless
> > to say I will not waste my time with them.
>
> So, join us on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
> There, the only posters who are censored are witless antisemites.
Not true.
One very sensible Jewish poster got booted off because she wanted
to know how Yitz' personally moderating *every* post was *less*
censorship than a moderated newsgroup with automoderation for
most posters.
Susan
Deborah Sharavi
> > > Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated
> > > newsgroup. Needless
> > > to say I will not waste my time with them.
> > So, join us on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
> > There, the only posters who are censored are witless antisemites.
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> Not true.
> One very sensible Jewish poster got booted off because she wanted
> to know how Yitz' personally moderating *every* post was *less*
> censorship than a moderated newsgroup with automoderation for
> most posters.
Who was that? Yitz doesn't moderate every post.
Deborah
Ted
Baloney. There's no moderation in Yitz's group. Not even me, and if I
am not moderated, nobody is.
DoD
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Oaknf.9503$Ea6.3787@trnddc08...
Yitz DID NOT boot anyone. Also, Yitz doesn't monitor every post.
Salah Jafar
Salah Jafar
"Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134415920....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ted
Salah Jafar wrote:
> Little tenderization of you Jewish ass will do you good.
> Salah Jafar
on your ringworm and tender hooves? Painful! .
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Dec-2005, "Adam Helberg" <sendsp...@yahee.com> wrote:
> Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated
> newsgroup. Needless
> to say I will not waste my time with them.
>
I'm surprised that your *previous* post was posted, seeing as how we
are not allowed to use such insulting terms.
Maybe it was a different moderator who caught it the 2nd time around.
Susan
>
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> news:1134060287.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Adam Helberg wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a small group of crackpots who want to build a third temple to
> >> bring
> >> animals
> >> to sacrifice like three thousand years ago.
> >
> > By "small group of crackpots", I assume you're referring to every
> > Orthodox Jew on the face of the earth, right? That'd be those of us
> > who haven't assimilated. Right?
>
Adam Helberg
Yes. That's right. I posted a perfectly legitimate opinion that was not extremist, in
fact it's very centrist, but they refused to post it.
I'll check out the yahoo groups.
Adam
Salah Jafar
you yet.news:1134420239.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ed
I see absolutely nothing offensive to anyone in it....
"Adam Helberg" <sendsp...@yahee.com> wrote in message
news:Cmjnf.3255$Tg2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
dsha...@hotmail.com
> Adam, did they give you a rationale for why they censored this discussion?
> I see absolutely nothing offensive to anyone in it....
Ed, join us over on -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
Very refreshing. No moderation, and antisemites are NOT allowed.
Deborah
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> I'm surprised that your *previous* post was posted, seeing as how we
> are not allowed to use such insulting terms.
> Maybe it was a different moderator who caught it the 2nd time around.
>
> Susan
I assume the post you're referring to is this:
> > >> There is a small group of crackpots who want to build a third temple to
> > >> bring
> > >> animals
> > >> to sacrifice like three thousand years ago.
Strong language, but I fail to see any major problem if you're not
calling someone else in the group a "crackpot." (SCJM being a
discussion group, not a sewer like this place.)
Ted
Let's let in Salah. He can be our mascot! You know the old cigarette
slogan: "I'd walk a mile for a camel."
Ted
Salah Jafar wrote:
> Yes I did dropped by the Vet, He said it is not the season yet to impregnate
> you yet.
> Salah Jafar
Adam Helberg
"Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d8qdndRznpP...@comcast.com...
> Adam, did they give you a rationale for why they censored this discussion? I see
> absolutely nothing offensive to anyone in it....
Hello Ed,
No. They cannot really send me a personal reply because I don't post my email address
on the newsgroups.
They posted my first comment but not my second. It's not the first time they
disallowed my posts when I disagree with their prevailing views.
Adam
Salah Jafar
You don't mine calling Teddy, I feel you should be spoiled and babied. I am
credit to you only my dolly.
Salah Jafar
"Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134428862.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jim F.
That's a bit strange. I am an infrequent poster to the moderated group
but in several years of posting, I have only had about three posts
rejected, that I recall. One of my first posts was concerning Isaac
Deutscher's essay, "Message of the Non-Jewish Jew," which certainly
inspired vociferous discussion on the newsgroup but no censorship.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/msg/6e40541bc365b75e?hl=en&
I remember a while back that the most ardent critics of the moderators
were the people who were posting there regularly. I'd dare say that
moderating a newsgroup is rather difficult to do, if one is attempting
to be fair to the different viewpoints that are prevalent in the
group. And it is probably unrealistic to expect consistent moderation,
when a group is moderated by a team of volunteers. Each moderator
is going to have his or her own take as to what is permissible under
the charter of the group and will have different interpretations of
the rules that are supposed to govern the group. C'est la vie.
>
> Adam
>
Ted
Ted
Salah Jafar wrote:
> Teddy
>
> You don't mine calling Teddy, I feel you should be spoiled and babied. I am
> credit to you only my dolly.
Hit button too fast -- you know, Salah, I've talked about it -- the
smell! You need a dip. In fact, your whole herd needs a dip.
teddyd...@hotmail.com
Jim F. wrote:
> That's a bit strange. I am an infrequent poster to the moderated group
> but in several years of posting, I have only had about three posts
> rejected, that I recall.
Well, you are a poster nonpareil I guess. Ask around, and you'll find a
lot of grumbling about SCJM. Thing is, it being a newsgroup and not,
say, the New York Times, it's not as if anyone can do anything about it
except not post there.
Salah Jafar
your crack.news:1134441085.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Adam Helberg
"Jim F." <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:406pd9F...@individual.net...
I don't think it's difficult to moderate such a newsgroup at all. There is no need to
remove any posts except obvious hate speech, such as antisemitism, holocaust denial,
etc. We all know what this type is, and any other is fair comment and should be
allowed.
Adam
Ben Cramer
"Deborah Sharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134414965.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Adam Helberg wrote:
>> Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated
>> newsgroup. Needless
>> to say I will not waste my time with them.
>
> So, join us on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
> There, the only posters who are censored are witless antisemites.
Translation: There, the only posters who are censored are persons who dare
question the yid.
Ben Cramer
You'll learn. Mustn't question the yid, must we. Has to be total and
wholesale acceptance of everything.
Ben Cramer
Lose "moderate" and transpose with "censor". There you go. Now that's the
truth.
Ben Cramer
I feel for you Adam. That perfectly parallels my experience with posting to
AR. I posted a couple of perfectly legitimate and innocent questions, and
they baying pack came down on me like mongrel dogs.
They can take full credit for turning me into a non-believer.
Ben Cramer
Try using words of less than 3 syllables next time. Probably confused them.
>
> Adam
>
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I feel for you Adam. That perfectly parallels my experience with posting to
>AR. I posted a couple of perfectly legitimate and innocent questions, and
>they baying pack came down on me like mongrel dogs.
No one "came down on you". People posted the evidence for the
Holocaust, which you could not refute, and then you started
with your "lying yids" rants.
>They can take full credit for turning me into a non-believer.
LOL oh LOL. And who gets the credit for turning you into
a dopehead?
"my younger Brother got me absolutely stoned on magic mushrooms.
I spent three days sitting in the corner of the tent waiting to come
down." -- the neo-Nazi "Ben Cramer" reflects on his usage of
hallucinatory drugs. Source:
Message-ID: <1125123267.5e5d281ad88798917af26011bcb01dc0@teranews>
RJ.
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 12-Dec-2005, "Deborah Sharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Adam Helberg wrote:
> > > > Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated
> > > > newsgroup. Needless
> > > > to say I will not waste my time with them.
> > >
> > > So, join us on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
> > > There, the only posters who are censored are witless antisemites.
> >
> > Not true.
> > One very sensible Jewish poster got booted off because she wanted
> > to know how Yitz' personally moderating *every* post was *less*
> > censorship than a moderated newsgroup with automoderation for
> > most posters.
>
> Baloney. There's no moderation in Yitz's group. Not even me, and if I
> am not moderated, nobody is.
CindyS got thrown off for saying that.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I can see that just like every other bigot out there, he has a slavering
desire for Jewish malke anal orifices.
Susan
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Emynf.29298$Wo2.20987@trnddc04...
Serve the little twat right. She lies all the time just as you do.
Even the yids don't like converts.
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Dec-2005, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Adam, did they give you a rationale for why they censored this
> discussion?
> I see absolutely nothing offensive to anyone in it....
I asked that myself.
All rejection notices come with a specific reason.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
WHAT prevailing views???
Have you actually read the posts in there??
Susan
Gary Rumain
join
Deborah Sharavi wrote:
> Adam Helberg wrote:
> > Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated newsgroup. Needless
> > to say I will not waste my time with them.
>
> So, join us on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
> There, the only posters who are censored are witless antisemites.
>
> Deborah
> > >> There is a small group of crackpots who want to build a third temple to bring
> > >> animals
> > >> to sacrifice like three thousand years ago.
> > >
> > > By "small group of crackpots", I assume you're referring to every
> > > Orthodox Jew on the face of the earth, right? That'd be those of us
> > > who haven't assimilated. Right?
> > >
> > > Lisa
> >
> > I use the term "crackpot" so you know my opinion of them. No serious person around me
> > believes in such a thing, yet I hear some on arutz sheva promulgating it. I hope it's
> > a small minority or we're in trouble.
> >
> > Animal sacrifices were practiced some 3000 years ago and at that time it was
> > acceptable behavior. It may have actually functioned as a slaughter house for killing
> > the animals for food. But just as many abandoned practices were considered proper in
> > the medieval ages, so this is an anachronism and does not belong today. The people
> > who advocate this need to look at themselves in the mirror for they are not different
> > from fundamentalists of other religions who are considered extremist.
> >
> > Adam
Gary Rumain
in moderation
Ted wrote:
> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 12-Dec-2005, "Deborah Sharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Adam Helberg wrote:
> > > > Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated
> > > > newsgroup. Needless
> > > > to say I will not waste my time with them.
> > >
> > > So, join us on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
> > > There, the only posters who are censored are witless antisemites.
> >
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, Not Gary Rumain <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> So how did a fool like you get on it? Oh, that's right. Only fools can
> join
Sounds like Yitz booted the phony rev!
Such a surprise!
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, Not "Gary Rumain" <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> You should be moderated, asshole.
You'd think the phony rev could figure out how to forger *without* giving
himself away.....
People can only stand your stupidity
> in moderation
... but his projectionism is just too strong.
Susan
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > Not true.
> > > One very sensible Jewish poster got booted off because she wanted
> > > to know how Yitz' personally moderating *every* post was *less*
> > > censorship than a moderated newsgroup with automoderation for
> > > most posters.
> >
> > Baloney. There's no moderation in Yitz's group. Not even me, and if I
> > am not moderated, nobody is.
>
> CindyS got thrown off for saying that.
>
Bullshit. First of all I was there, and I responded to some of her
posts, and she didn't say anything remotely of the kind. I mean, I was
THERE, Susan, and her posts are in the friggin archives. Second, she
cancelled, period. If you want proof, I'll get it from Yitz and post it.
Ted
Adam Helberg wrote:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
> >
> > Designed specifically as an antidote to the censorship of SCJM while
> > keeping out the kooks and nuts.
>
> Yes. That's right. I posted a perfectly legitimate opinion that was not extremist, in
> fact it's very centrist, but they refused to post it.
>
Yeah, it is a good group -- not a sewer like this place, and not a
nursery school like SCJM.
Ted
Adam Helberg wrote:
>
> I don't think it's difficult to moderate such a newsgroup at all. There is no need to
> remove any posts except obvious hate speech, such as antisemitism, holocaust denial,
> etc. We all know what this type is, and any other is fair comment and should be
> allowed.
>
Your right, and it has been pointed out a bunch of times. Ain't
happening, not in SCJM.
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
> > They posted my first comment but not my second. It's not the first time
> > they
> > disallowed my posts when I disagree with their prevailing views.
>
> WHAT prevailing views???
> Have you actually read the posts in there??
>
moderated him because they didn't agree with him. What -- you're going
to say it doesn't happen? You're going to say that this hasn't been a
subject of compalint for aeons? Gimme a break.
fla...@verizon.net
What you refuse to understand is that people of all spectra have said this.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > Not true.
> > > > One very sensible Jewish poster got booted off because she wanted
> > > > to know how Yitz' personally moderating *every* post was *less*
> > > > censorship than a moderated newsgroup with automoderation for
> > > > most posters.
> > >
> > > Baloney. There's no moderation in Yitz's group. Not even me, and if I
> > > am not moderated, nobody is.
> >
> > CindyS got thrown off for saying that.
> >
> Bullshit. First of all I was there, and I responded to some of her
> posts, and she didn't say anything remotely of the kind.
What do you mean "you were there" *&* that she didn't say it?
I mean, I was
> THERE, Susan, and her posts are in the friggin archives.
Yes, the ones that made it, sure.
Susan
DoD
"Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134483467.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Susan is lying through the skin of her teeth. Yitz threw nobody out.
DoD
Ted
>
> I mean, I was
> > THERE, Susan, and her posts are in the friggin archives.
>
> Yes, the ones that made it, sure.
>
Susan, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're
getting sour grapes from a lady who came into the group on day one, and
started bitching and moaning about how horribly managed it was, and the
group hadn't even started! She started posting incredible bullshit
about how Yitz didn't have a "vision for the group." For chrissakes, he
only just started the group the day before! She was trolling pure and
simple, and if it was up to me, I'd have kicked her ass off the group.
As it is, she dropped off of her own accord and is not missed. I see
you're not disputing that anymore.
It's a nice group. You don't want to join, fine. But don't spread
third-hand crap in this sewer when you don't know what you're talking
about.
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> What you refuse to understand is that people of all spectra have said this.
>
> Susan
Yeah. Because it is TRUE.
Also, I don't get your Yitz-bashing. All you're doing is feeding the
jackasses here by posting ignorant crap on that score.
Ted
DoD wrote:
> > Bullshit. First of all I was there, and I responded to some of her
> > posts, and she didn't say anything remotely of the kind. I mean, I was
> > THERE, Susan, and her posts are in the friggin archives. Second, she
> > cancelled, period. If you want proof, I'll get it from Yitz and post it.
>
> Susan is lying through the skin of her teeth. Yitz threw nobody out.
He absolutely did not. I don't get this vendetta. It's a little nutso.
DoD
True. Cindy left on her own accord. And the group seems to monitor itself
just fine. Even when I posted that mean spirited reply to Hillel, I asked
Yitz to yank it. (That was before I figured out that you can yank your own
posts.)
On a aside. Isn't that a great discussion on the Temple between Deborah and
Hillel. I am learning quite a bit there. Nice discussion and no
anti-semitism and I feel like I can chime in at any time (with no
moderation) and ask questions. Yitzs group beats SCJM hands down in my
opinion.
Ted
DoD wrote:
> True. Cindy left on her own accord. And the group seems to monitor itself
> just fine. Even when I posted that mean spirited reply to Hillel, I asked
> Yitz to yank it. (That was before I figured out that you can yank your own
> posts.)
>
> On a aside. Isn't that a great discussion on the Temple between Deborah and
> Hillel. I am learning quite a bit there. Nice discussion and no
> anti-semitism and I feel like I can chime in at any time (with no
> moderation) and ask questions. Yitzs group beats SCJM hands down in my
> opinion.
Yeah, and you know why? Yitz doesn't moderate! He doesn't even
participate in the discussions that much.
The thing about SCJM that annoys me is that these people hand-moderate
every single frigging post, which is a lot of work and nobody asks them
to do it in the first place. Then they get all sullen when their
crummy moderation is challenged and say, "hey, look at all the work I
do!" Well, who the hell asked them? They're all self-appointed, all
there of their own accord, accountable to nobody. SCJM is, ex the
anti-Semitism, as bad as this place.
Adam Helberg
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ZYynf.29320$Wo2.3764@trnddc04...
Susan, I don't post my email address on Usenet so they cannot send me a "rejection
notice". The reason they would write in their notice is also not important, for I
already know the reason. What I wrote is fair comment so the only reason could be
they disagreed with me.
Adam
Ted
Adam Helberg wrote:
>
> Susan, I don't post my email address on Usenet so they cannot send me a "rejection
> notice". The reason they would write in their notice is also not important, for I
> already know the reason. What I wrote is fair comment so the only reason could be
> they disagreed with me.
>
>
"contrary to Charter" or some other infuriating bureaucratic
double-talk. Just as well you didn't get it.
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
> > What you refuse to understand is that people of all spectra have said
> > this.
> >
> > Susan
>
> Yeah. Because it is TRUE.
So you are reversing yourself, and saying that yo uagree
with me that there *is* no "agenda" because the beliefs are all so
widespread.
Good.
> Also, I don't get your Yitz-bashing. All you're doing is feeding the
> jackasses here by posting ignorant crap on that score.
I can say the same about you & anyone else who is "bashing" SCJM.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's a nice group. You don't want to join, fine. But don't spread
> third-hand crap in this sewer when you don't know what you're talking
> about.
You first.
You have been doing pretty much the same thing about SCJM.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Adam Helberg wrote:
> >
> > Susan, I don't post my email address on Usenet so they cannot send me a
> > "rejection
> > notice". The reason they would write in their notice is also not
> > important, for I
> > already know the reason.
Then tell me what it is.
> > What I wrote is fair comment so the only reason
> > could be
> > they disagreed with me.
So you *don't* know the reason.
> >
> >
> You'd have gotten some bullshit about "insufficient Jewish content" or
> "contrary to Charter" or some other infuriating bureaucratic
> double-talk. Just as well you didn't get it.
So, IOW, because SCJM isn't run how YOU think it should be, you'
can just trash it.
Which is fine, but don't turn around & call other people trolls for doing
the SAME about a group YOU like.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am not lying & if anyone has a vendetta, it's you guys against SCJM.
Susan
DoD
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:jlGnf.6209$Jz6.527@trnddc06...
Well, maybe you are not lying but if you are not, then Cindy lied to you.
A. Nobody threw Cindy out.
B. Yitz does not censor, and he barely even reads stuff.
C. Yitz is more like a bouncer in a bar than a "moderator"
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > You'd have gotten some bullshit about "insufficient Jewish content" or
> > "contrary to Charter" or some other infuriating bureaucratic
> > double-talk. Just as well you didn't get it.
>
> So, IOW, because SCJM isn't run how YOU think it should be, you'
> can just trash it.
> Which is fine, but don't turn around & call other people trolls for doing
> the SAME about a group YOU like.
Susan, you're not even a member of Yitz's group! You don't know a
fucking thing you're talking about, and are just irresponsibly passing
on third-hand crap from a person with sour grapes. I have first-hand
experience with SCJM, and so do a lot of other people who say the exact
same thing. The moderators arbitrarily yank and delay posts. That is a
fact. That is an ancient and TRUE complaint. Wake up and smell the
goddamn coffee.
People have been complaining about SCJM for literally years! The only
person I've ever heard have a beef about Yitz's very young group was
somebody there a month ago for a period of exactly maybe two days, who
was there to troll and disrupt and lied to you about kicked out.
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > Susan is lying through the skin of her teeth. Yitz threw nobody out.
> >
> > He absolutely did not. I don't get this vendetta. It's a little nutso.
>
> I am not lying & if anyone has a vendetta, it's you guys against SCJM.
>
venom. Hell, at least I have a REASON to dislike SCJM. I've posted
there and been treated unfairly like plenty of other people. So yeah, I
don't much care for SCJM, but I have to get on the back of a long line
in that regard.
But you -- what's your frigging beef? I don't understand why you're
knocking a small Yahoo group that you know nothing about, and that has
been going along pretty nicely for the past month.
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > You'd have gotten some bullshit about "insufficient Jewish content" or
> > > "contrary to Charter" or some other infuriating bureaucratic
> > > double-talk. Just as well you didn't get it.
> >
> > So, IOW, because SCJM isn't run how YOU think it should be, you'
> > can just trash it.
> > Which is fine, but don't turn around & call other people trolls for
> > doing
> > the SAME about a group YOU like.
>
> Susan, you're not even a member of Yitz's group! You don't know a
> fucking thing you're talking about, and are just irresponsibly passing
> on third-hand crap from a person with sour grapes.
No, I am reporting what I was told.
And while you are correct that she quit the group, she did so because
she was being chewed out for the same thing YOU are doing to SCJM,
and figured she was just beating the door on the way out.
> I have first-hand
> experience with SCJM, and so do a lot of other people who say the exact
> same thing. The moderators arbitrarily yank and delay posts.
No they do NOT.
NO one has EVER said ANYTHING about "arbitrary."
EVERYONE gets a REASON.
Just because YOU DO NOT AGREE with the reasons
does NOT make them "arbitrary".
That is a
> fact. That is an ancient and TRUE complaint.
It is as much sour grapes as you are saying this complaint is.
Wake up and smell the
> goddamn coffee.
You first.
Ted
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > I have first-hand
> > experience with SCJM, and so do a lot of other people who say the exact
> > same thing. The moderators arbitrarily yank and delay posts.
>
> No they do NOT.
> NO one has EVER said ANYTHING about "arbitrary."
> EVERYONE gets a REASON.
> Just because YOU DO NOT AGREE with the reasons
> does NOT make them "arbitrary".
>
They always have a reason! A bullshit bureaucratic reason! Come on.
Don't be ridiculous.
OK, you win. All the dozens of people who complained about SCJM over
the years were wrong. The mods are perfect. OK, fine.
Ted
Uh, excuse me. You came here and said somebody was bounced from Yitz's
group and that was a lie. You've backed down on that and should
apologize.
No, Susan, I'm not posting third-hand crap on SCJM. I have posted there
so I know what everybody except you seems to know, which is that the
mods reject post arbitrarily. They even have a website with rejection
"templates." http://scjm.jewish-usenet.org/reject-msgs/
They just cut and paste. Who do you think you're fooling?
Ted
from
http://scjm.jewish-usenet.org/reject-msgs/other
Nobody elected these clowns, and they act like the goddamn Belgian
Bureau of Standards.
From: scjm-moderators@@scjm.jewish-usenet.org (Moderators of
soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Thank you for your submission to soc.culture.jewish.moderated (a copy
of which is included below for reference).
Unfortunately, having reviewed your submission, the reviewing
moderator has decided to reject your submission. His or her rationale
should be explained in the moderator comments section, below.
Please note that if you have crossposted to s.c.j.m along with other
groups, your article will not appear in any of the groups due to the
nature of the Usenet article transmission system. You should, in that
case, repost the article after having removed our group from the
Newsgroups: header.
If you believe this rejection to have been in error, you may appeal
the moderator's decision to the entire moderation board. For
instructions on how to file a proper appeal, please see
http://scjm.jewish-usenet.org/appeals.html or the periodic posting to
SCJM.
Please note that appeals which are not filed in accordance with the
provided instructions will not be considered. (Be sure to note the
post identifier included below, before the text of your submission, as
you will need it to file your appeal.)
If you believe this message *itself* to be in error, for example if
you did not submit an article to soc.culture.jewish.moderated, please
contact the maintainer of the moderation software at
scjm-maint@@scjm.jewish-usenet.org. Do *not* send substantive
questions or
comments about the moderation of the group to that address.
Sincerely,
The soc.culture.jewish.moderated moderation team
<scjm-moderators@@scjm.jewish-usenet.org>
----------- Begin moderator comments ----------
@COMMENTS
----------- End moderator comments ----------
----------- Original submission (PostID: $ID) follows ----------
@OLDHEADERS
@BODY
Ted
Here's the irony of this whole thing Susan -- this SCJM you're sucking
up to has a totally negative opinion of YOU.
In another post you mentioned some posts I made in SCJM. Well, did you
bother to read that thread? Somebody suggested that posting here in SCJ
against the anti-Semites was a good thing. Then your pals in SCJM that
you are defending piled on the guy and flamed him, saying how terrible
it was that Jewish people post here and how it "fed" and "encouraged"
anti-Semitism. Who does were they talking about? Y-O-U.
Not a single person spoke up in favor of YOU.
And you're coming into this sewer sticking up for these people who
think you suck? It's pathetic.
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > I am not lying & if anyone has a vendetta, it's you guys against SCJM.
> >
> Well, you're spreading lies,
No, I am not.
> and I don't get that and I don't get the
> venom.
You are the one with the venom.
I am simply pointing out that it's NOT superior to SCJM, and that SCJM
isn't the hellhole a FEW malcontents have been trying to paint it as.
> Hell, at least I have a REASON to dislike SCJM.
And the person who complained to me had a REASON to dislike this other
group.
> I've posted
> there and been treated unfairly like plenty of other people.
In your opinion.
You over-reacted and flounced out.
In fact, it's what you accused Cindy of doing on the Yahoo group.
> So yeah, I
> don't much care for SCJM, but I have to get on the back of a long line
> in that regard.
It's not as long as the list of people who still post there & like it fine.
>
> But you -- what's your frigging beef?
Maybe it's the fact that you are doing exactly what you are accusing
me of, refusing to admit it or even understand that this is what you are
doing, and all the while screeching at me.
I don't understand why you're
> knocking a small Yahoo group that you know nothing about,
Wrong.
I just know something you don't like.
and that has
> been going along pretty nicely for the past month.
And SCJM has been going along nicely for YEARS.
The sooner you realize that nothing is perfect & stop whining
about things that aren't perfect but that others like, the better.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's a nice group. You don't want to join, fine. But don't spread
> > > third-hand crap in this sewer when you don't know what you're talking
> > > about.
> >
> > You first.
> > You have been doing pretty much the same thing about SCJM.
> >
>
> Uh, excuse me. You came here and said somebody was bounced from Yitz's
> group and that was a lie. You've backed down on that and should
> apologize.
I did in another post.
I re-checked my source and she said that she was *going to be* bounced
because of the things the moderator said to her.
>
> No, Susan, I'm not posting third-hand crap on SCJM. I have posted there
> so I know what everybody
Now *this* is a major lie.
> except you seems to know, which is that the
> mods reject post arbitrarily.
And this is a lie - which even YOU prove as such below.
And even if you didn't prove it, the fact that you & 2 or 3 others may
say so absolutely does not make it so.
> They even have a website with rejection
> "templates." http://scjm.jewish-usenet.org/reject-msgs/
And there's how you prove that you are lying.
Yes, they have templates because they CAN'T reject "ARBITRAILY".
They have a NARROW SET OF RULES for rejection, & they FOLLOW
them. The fact that a HANDFUL of posts - go ahead, tell me you've
had more than 4 or 5 posts rejected, and for "no reason" - got rejected
in NO WAY "proves" ANYTHING that you've posted.
> They just cut and paste.
And why should they type out the same thing over & over???
You are now just making up things to whine about!!
> Who do you think you're fooling?
No one that you're fooling.
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > Also, I don't get your Yitz-bashing. All you're doing is feeding the
> > > jackasses here by posting ignorant crap on that score.
> >
> > I can say the same about you & anyone else who is "bashing" SCJM.
> >
>
> Here's the irony of this whole thing Susan -- this SCJM you're sucking
> up to has a totally negative opinion of YOU.
And you lie again.
I am extremely friendly with a number of people who post here.
In fact, one of them specifically has been known to post here, too.
>
> In another post you mentioned some posts I made in SCJM. Well, did you
> bother to read that thread? Somebody suggested that posting here in SCJ
> against the anti-Semites was a good thing. Then your pals
Noy "my pals".
A few people.
in SCJM that
> you are defending piled on the guy and flamed him, saying how terrible
> it was that Jewish people post here and how it "fed" and "encouraged"
> anti-Semitism.
Funny, YOU did that, in your previous post, above.
The very same thing you are ragging on "all of SCJM" about.
> Who does were they talking about? Y-O-U.
Not just M-E, but Y-O-U, too.
But this was not the entire newsgroup - not by a long shot.
>
> Not a single person spoke up in favor of YOU.
You lie AGAIN.
(& there were people who ignored the entire thread because they dislike
controversy).
>
> And you're coming into this sewer sticking up for these people who
> think you suck? It's pathetic.
What's pathetic is how desperate you are to smear SCJM.
SCJM is NOT just a handful of people.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > I have first-hand
> > > experience with SCJM, and so do a lot of other people who say the
> > > exact
> > > same thing. The moderators arbitrarily yank and delay posts.
> >
> > No they do NOT.
> > NO one has EVER said ANYTHING about "arbitrary."
> > EVERYONE gets a REASON.
> > Just because YOU DO NOT AGREE with the reasons
> > does NOT make them "arbitrary".
> >
> What is this, the freakin party line here?
No, it's an informed observation.
> Sure they give a reason!
> They always have a reason! A bullshit bureaucratic reason!
Your disagreement with a reason does not automatically
make it a "bullshit bureaucratic" one.
> Come on.
> Don't be ridiculous.
You first.
>
> OK, you win. All the dozens
Quite untrue.
Stop exaggerating.
Or, ratherm, don't be ridiculous.
> of people who complained about SCJM over
> the years
Yeah, it's lasted for YEARS because it's so horrible.
> were wrong. The mods are perfect. OK, fine.
Thanks for admitting you don't really have an argument -
I never said they were perfect.
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> You are the one with the venom.
> I am simply pointing out that it's NOT superior to SCJM, and that SCJM
> isn't the hellhole a FEW malcontents have been trying to paint it as.
>
How the hell would you know? You don't belong to Yitz's group. You just
saw it was being talked about here and flounced in with a lie.
> > Hell, at least I have a REASON to dislike SCJM.
>
> And the person who complained to me had a REASON to dislike this other
> group.
She was a troll who came in with the flames turned on and then, in
classic troll fashion, started screaming when people responded. She
came in to make trouble and that was obvious from the gitgo.
> > I've posted
> > there and been treated unfairly like plenty of other people.
>
> In your opinion.
> You over-reacted and flounced out.
Again, as usual, you have no don't know what you're talking about. I'm
talking about posts from MONTHS ago. I have avoided the group generally
ever since. No posts of mine were halted in my recent experience there.
> > But you -- what's your frigging beef?
>
> Maybe it's the fact that you are doing exactly what you are accusing
> me of, refusing to admit it or even understand that this is what you are
> doing, and all the while screeching at me.
Excuse me, nobody was "accusing you" of a goddamn thing when, totally
for no reason, you came in and said that whatsername, the troll, was
kicked out when you yourself admit she wasn't.
> I don't understand why you're
> > knocking a small Yahoo group that you know nothing about,
>
> Wrong.
> I just know something you don't like.
Susan, the problem is that you have been talking again and again about
stuff you no nothing about. Hell, you just did it agaiin -- you said
Yitz's group wasn't better than SCJM and you have never been a member
of Yitz's group! Hell, it isn't hard to be better than SCJM. Just let
people talk like adults, don't act like a nanny. It's easy. It is
actually less work than the self-appointed policemen at SCJM.
> And SCJM has been going along nicely for YEARS.
It's the only game in its town -- the only general Jewish Usenet group,
and it has been a subject of the SAME complaints for YEARS.
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You want to see a "reason." Here's the all-purpose "other template"
> from
> http://scjm.jewish-usenet.org/reject-msgs/other
And you'll notice that this "other template" has a section for
comments, and, like ALL messages, has a place for you to
go to protest the decision.
I have had less than half a dozen posts rejected over the years,
and have had decisions reversed, too. Once, a moderator told
me that he had just hit the wrong button (I thought that was
pretty funny).
> Nobody elected these clowns,
Wrong again.
> and they act like the goddamn Belgian
> Bureau of Standards.
They act like they are carrying out the trust placed in them.
Susan
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> Yeah, it's lasted for YEARS because it's so horrible.
>
> > were wrong. The mods are perfect. OK, fine.
>
> Thanks for admitting you don't really have an argument -
You're starting to sound like your friend the Rev. Ever hear of
"sarcasm"?
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > Here's the irony of this whole thing Susan -- this SCJM you're sucking
> > up to has a totally negative opinion of YOU.
>
> And you lie again.
> I am extremely friendly with a number of people who post here.
You came under attack for promoting anti-Semitism by posting here.
Nobody stood up for you. Not one. This is a lie? Prove it? Post a link
to the post of the person who defended you.
> > Who does were they talking about? Y-O-U.
>
> Not just M-E, but Y-O-U, too.
I have been posting here in SCJ for three weeks. You have been posting
here for -- how many YEARS? They were posting about you.
> But this was not the entire newsgroup - not by a long shot.
> >
> > Not a single person spoke up in favor of YOU.
>
> You lie AGAIN.
Name one. David started that discussion. Not me. No one posted in your
defense. Name one. Post a link here. David was shouted down -- oh, and
when he tried to post in YOUR defense, his post was arbitrarily -- I
repeat, arbitrarily rejected.
> (& there were people who ignored the entire thread because they dislike
> controversy).
Yeah, your "pals." Hey, David doesn't post here. He was defending what
you and I are doing but mainly you, because you have been doing it for
years. He talked about how people get threats and such and not a single
person posted in support of what he was saying.
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > What is this, the freakin party line here?
>
> No, it's an informed observation.
No it isn't. It's a ridiculous observation. Look at the subject header.
This topic was begun by some ordinary guy who has no history here and
who had the identical problem that people have had with SCJM for years
-- the same prob that I had a few months ago, DoD had a few weeks ago,
Bob (Beachrunner) had a few weeks ago too, etc. etc. etc.. Hell, if you
go to SCJM itself you can see posts from people saying what I just
said, which is that people have left over the years because of the
moderation.
You may not agree with the criticism -- OK, that is your privilege. But
denying there has been tons of criticism of SCJM moderation is nuts.
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hell, at least I have a REASON to dislike SCJM.
> >
> > And the person who complained to me had a REASON to dislike this other
> > group.
>
> She was a troll
And why is *she* a "troll" but *you* not?
Get it, yet?
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > What is this, the freakin party line here?
> >
> > No, it's an informed observation.
>
> No it isn't. It's a ridiculous observation.
In your obviously/proven biased opinion.
This post proves it, your others do, too.
> Look at the subject header.
Yes, it's a reactionary one.
> This topic was begun by some ordinary guy who has no history here
You are completely wrong.
Adam Helberg has posted here before
and
> who had the identical problem that people have had with SCJM for years
> -- the same prob that I had a few months ago, DoD had a few weeks ago,
> Bob (Beachrunner) had a few weeks ago too, etc. etc. etc..
So we have 4 people, one of whom admits he can't even get an answer
from scjm because he won; give them an e-mail address.
You are so determined to make this worse than it is that you are
proving that you have an ulterior motive.
Hell, if you
> go to SCJM itself you can see posts from people saying what I just
> said, which is that people have left over the years because of the
> moderation.
Some people have left, yes.
You can;t please everyone.
And Yitz' group has also had someone leave, too *already*.
Get it, yet?
Susan
Ted
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> I did in another post.
> I re-checked my source and she said that she was *going to be* bounced
> because of the things the moderator said to her.
> >
> > No, Susan, I'm not posting third-hand crap on SCJM. I have posted there
> > so I know what everybody
>
> Now *this* is a major lie.
>
> > except you seems to know, which is that the
> > mods reject post arbitrarily.
>
> And this is a lie - which even YOU prove as such below.
> And even if you didn't prove it, the fact that you & 2 or 3 others may
> say so absolutely does not make it so.
Susan, you are completely self-deluded. SCJM has such a horrific
reputation for unfair moderation over the years that it is part of the
folklore of Usenet. There are two or three others saying that in THIS
THREAD. For heaven's sake, this has been going on for years. There was
a Yahoo group set up three years ago to discuss auto-moderation because
of the crummy moderation at SCJM. This is old news. Give it up.
Ted
No, Susan, and you're not the one who gets it. I posted this:
> These same people boast in other newsgroups about how they've slipped
> into the "moderated jew newsgroup." This individual, quoted by backron
> above, proudly referred to SCJ as the "anti-semite newsgroup" or words
> to that effect, which is correct because he and a few others have made
> it that way.
No, I don't think that's trolling. As a matter of fact, the SCJM mods
are considering doing just that--banning the anti-Semites just as I
said. Oh, and one of your "friends" posted this:
"Ted, actually, it's that way because well-intentioned people are
arguing with them there. You all make it fun for them. Like Kastor
said, he sees it as a game. Congratulations on making it a fun one for
him."
I have been posting here for a few weeks, you for years. They were
posting about Y-O-U.
Oh, and then your "pal" at SCJM said this about YOU:
"With the able help of all the well-meaning Jews of the loopy
persuasion
who spend their time keeping the fun going for them. I don't get why I
should care if he posts here. He can only do so if he behaves
himself."
"He" being your friend the phony Rev.
As for Cindy, what happened was she came and started screaming. What
she said made no sense whatsoever. Do you want me to go into details
about what she was posting? Do you want me to post here the crap that
she was giving us after all of two days?
Ted
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> So we have 4 people, one of whom admits he can't even get an answer
> from scjm because he won; give them an e-mail address.
> You are so determined to make this worse than it is that you are
> proving that you have an ulterior motive.
Are you serious? This is amazing. Susan, in the thread discussing the
charter amendment, people DEFENDING the moderators agree that regular
users have flocked away from the group and that it has hurt the group.
I mean, I don't care one way or the other, it is your frigging group. I
just don't get your rigidity. It's nuts.
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > Here's the irony of this whole thing Susan -- this SCJM you're sucking
> > > up to has a totally negative opinion of YOU.
> >
> > And you lie again.
> > I am extremely friendly with a number of people who post here.
>
> You came under attack for promoting anti-Semitism by posting here.
Actually, only one person named me - and not in SCJM.
And when she *did* name me, she did it in a *general* rant that
she posted here about *all* the Jews who post here.
The other 3 (ONLY 3 - not the "total newsgroup") also made a
general complaint, not about just me.
> Nobody stood up for you. Not one. This is a lie? Prove it? Post a link
> to the post of the person who defended you.
You mention it yourself, below.
But I amsure that you do not consider the many posts suggesting
that I be protected from harassment as "standing up for me", right?
>
> > > Who does were they talking about? Y-O-U.
> >
> > Not just M-E, but Y-O-U, too.
> I have been posting here in SCJ for three weeks. You have been posting
> here for -- how many YEARS? They were posting about you.
I didn't say they weren't.
They were talking about Jews doing this in general in general.
>
> > But this was not the entire newsgroup - not by a long shot.
> > >
> > > Not a single person spoke up in favor of YOU.
> >
> > You lie AGAIN.
>
> Name one. David started that discussion. Not me. No one posted in your
> defense. Name one. Post a link here. David was shouted down
Dave was answered by ONE person.
It was, in fact, the very end of the thread.
-- oh, and
> when he tried to post in YOUR defense, his post was arbitrarily -- I
> repeat, arbitrarily rejected.
So how did he get shouted down if he couldn't post??
>
> > (& there were people who ignored the entire thread because they dislike
> > controversy).
>
> Yeah, your "pals."
Yes, that's right.
They understand why I post, even tho' they wouldn't be caught dead here,
and I understand why they didn't want to get into any argument.
I hardly bothered with it myself, if you'll notice.
Susan
Ted
flames like the one below but not letting Adam's innocuous post.
Dec 13, 5:52 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
From: "Fiona Abrahami" <f...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> - Find
messages by this author
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:52:01 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Tues, Dec 13 2005 5:52 pm
Subject: Re: Sure makes you want to throw up
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Harry Weiss" <hjwe...@panix.com> wrote
> Giora Drachsler <g...@huji.ac.il> wrote:
> > "Fiona Abrahami" <f...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > There is no comparison between kosher supervision in galut, and kosher
> > > supervision in Israel, in terms of costs. In galut many kosher
products
> > > are
> > > produced in special runs at factories or production sites which
normally
> > > non-kosher products. This normally entails the shutting down of the
> > > production lines, a thorough cleaning of all machinery and utensils,
and
> > > micro-management of non-jewish staff handling the food during
production.
> > > This, by its very nature, is going to be more expensive (because it is
> > > more
> > > labour intensive) than a production line which is kosher from the
start.
> > > In
> > > Israel kosher products are generally manufactured on production lines
that
> > > are kosher from the start, or that once kashered are maintained to a
> > > kosher
> > > standard. Just like driving you car, where stop-start city driving
costs
> > > more than motorway (freeway/autobahn) driving because it uses more
> > > resources, small run kosher production cost more than continual kosher
> > > production.
> > Your theory is good, but here, the hechsher is proportional with the
sales
> > volume (much like a tax).
Put up, or shut up. To date you have not provided a single piece of
evidence
to support your bigotted accusation that hechsherim costs the customers
anything. Not a shred of evidence. Now you claim the costs are
proportional
to sales!? That is charge that would be impossible to cover up, so, if
it is
so, then you can provide proof, can't you?
> > >> There is no way that Giora or anybody outside the industry can
provide
> > >> such numbers,
> > > Then he shouldn't make such accusation.
> > I never understood why are you so sympathetic with the Hechsher cost.
It's simple, I don't eat treif. And as I can't be there to supervise
product
manufacture myself, I am happy to pay someone qualified to do it for
me.
Hilonim cannot be trusted to say whether a product is kosher, so
without a
hechsher I won't buy the product, and manufacturers know that.
> > I know, the Haredim have large families to support, still . . .
And what the hilonim lack in family size they make up for in
arrogance...
> Either you have absolutly no abilty to comprehend basic marketging or you
> are totally blinded by your irrational hatred of religious Jews.
He's just a trouble-maker Harry. It's rather sick, but for him this is
sport.
Fiona
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If so, it's because he parrots me, being unable to think for himself.
Ever hear of
> "sarcasm"?
Soirry that you can't see how your use of sarcasm proves that
you had nothing else. And I see that you snipped what *I* said
that proved it: I never said it was perfect. What you posted was
a strawman.
Susan
Ted
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > You came under attack for promoting anti-Semitism by posting here.
>
> Actually, only one person named me - and not in SCJM.
> And when she *did* name me, she did it in a *general* rant that
> she posted here about *all* the Jews who post here.
> The other 3 (ONLY 3 - not the "total newsgroup") also made a
> general complaint, not about just me.
No, but David named you (and me and Deborah and DoD and a few others)
and, let's face it, you are the biggest poster here. Hey, that's not a
knock. It's the truth.
>
> > Nobody stood up for you. Not one. This is a lie? Prove it? Post a link
> > to the post of the person who defended you.
>
> You mention it yourself, below.
No, I'm not counting David. He is not a regular there. He instigated
that part of the thread and nobody came to your defense.
> Dave was answered by ONE person.
> It was, in fact, the very end of the thread.
Not true. I'll refresh your memory.
One said
"some of those anti-semites follow them 'home' and come and post
here for 'bragging rights'. They can then go back to the sewer and say
that they got a post through on the 'jew newsgroup'. And if we start
moderating by author instead of content, they will then go to the sewer
and use that as further indication that we censor."
Another said
"You're fighting idiots in a newsgroup
where -- if you didn't answer them -- wouldn't get much traffic at all.
You're not fighting antisemitism in the world at large, you're not
protecting Jews at risk, you're not battling people with vast
political,
economic or religious institutions behind them."
Responding to an analogy between the nuts here and Father Coughlin in
the thirties, still another said:
"Father Coughlin on his radio show at the time, I probably would have
no to
that, too. You'd just have been playing into his hands.
Coughlin's audience was out there, but YOU are the audience on SCJ. No
audience, no performance."
And another said,
"SCJ is a teensy little sewer. It'd be like some
wacko scribbling antisemitic slogans on the wall of a dirty public
toilet. People are more likely to take Jew Watch seriously than
anything on SCJ. You must realize that." etc. etc.
And there would be more people chiming in, if not for the fact that
Dave tried to respond further and his post was ARBITRARILY spiked.
I just don't get why you are so rigidly defending them when what you do
here
is trashed and NOBODY comes to your defense, and when the one person
who does so gets his post spiked! And you defend the person who spiked
him! It's nuts.
L Alpert
> "Deborah Sharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134414965.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Adam Helberg wrote:
>>> Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated
>>> newsgroup. Needless
>>> to say I will not waste my time with them.
>>
>> So, join us on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jewish-usenet-refugees/
>> There, the only posters who are censored are witless antisemites.
>
> Translation: There, the only posters who are censored are persons who
> dare question the yid.
Come on now ben-ben. You know we actually allow your kind to have a
question or two each year. Goyim do not have bandwidth to support any more
then that.
DoD
"Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134515999.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What I don't understand is there is a lot of people that I would bet that
have automoderation that overly discuss their political opinions. I thought
that group was about discussing things Jewish and not their political
opinions.
Ted
DoD wrote:
> > Susan, you are completely self-deluded. SCJM has such a horrific
> > reputation for unfair moderation over the years that it is part of the
> > folklore of Usenet. There are two or three others saying that in THIS
> > THREAD. For heaven's sake, this has been going on for years. There was
> > a Yahoo group set up three years ago to discuss auto-moderation because
> > of the crummy moderation at SCJM. This is old news. Give it up.
>
> What I don't understand is there is a lot of people that I would bet that
> have automoderation that overly discuss their political opinions. I thought
> that group was about discussing things Jewish and not their political
> opinions.
Maybe, but that doesn't seem to be where the problem lies. Religion
seems to be the hot button issue there, and that's where the newcomers
get mugged. Look at the situation you encountered, and look at what
Adam ran into here. He -- horrors! -- used the word "crackpot"
appropriately to describe people who want to rebuild the Temple, and he
immediately got dumped on and wasn't allowed to respond. Happens time
and time again.
DoD
"Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134531378....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
My point is, if you are not moderated, you are considered one of the
favorites of the moderators, and you are allowed to say anything you want,
whether it is on topic or not. That would mean that as long as you tow the
party line of a few people, you get a free pass. That is country club
behavior.
Ted
DoD wrote:
> > appropriately to describe people who want to rebuild the Temple, and he
> > immediately got dumped on and wasn't allowed to respond. Happens time
> > and time again.
>
> My point is, if you are not moderated, you are considered one of the
> favorites of the moderators, and you are allowed to say anything you want,
> whether it is on topic or not. That would mean that as long as you tow the
> party line of a few people, you get a free pass. That is country club
> behavior.
Yes, that's what I meant. And if you don't tow the line, they take away
your automoderation. The free pass comes into play also if you say the
wrong thing and step on someone's toes as Adam did, so automoderators
like Cindy laced into him, and he tried to respond and they shut him up.
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:D8Anf.16237$hB6.9632@trnddc05...
>
> On 13-Dec-2005, Not Gary Rumain <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> So how did a fool like you get on it? Oh, that's right. Only fools can
>> join
>
> Sounds like Yitz booted the phony rev!
> Such a surprise!
Not a surprise at all. Yitz will boot anyone he disagrees with. Such deceit
already.
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ksHnf.16323$hB6.839@trnddc05...
>
> On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>> > > You'd have gotten some bullshit about "insufficient Jewish content"
>> > > or
>> > > "contrary to Charter" or some other infuriating bureaucratic
>> > > double-talk. Just as well you didn't get it.
>> >
>> > So, IOW, because SCJM isn't run how YOU think it should be, you'
>> > can just trash it.
>> > Which is fine, but don't turn around & call other people trolls for
>> > doing
>> > the SAME about a group YOU like.
>>
>> Susan, you're not even a member of Yitz's group! You don't know a
>> fucking thing you're talking about, and are just irresponsibly passing
>> on third-hand crap from a person with sour grapes.
>
> No, I am reporting what I was told.
> And while you are correct that she quit the group, she did so because
> she was being chewed out for the same thing YOU are doing to SCJM,
> and figured she was just beating the door on the way out.
>
>> I have first-hand
>> experience with SCJM, and so do a lot of other people who say the exact
>> same thing. The moderators arbitrarily yank and delay posts.
>
> No they do NOT.
> NO one has EVER said ANYTHING about "arbitrary."
> EVERYONE gets a REASON.
> Just because YOU DO NOT AGREE with the reasons
> does NOT make them "arbitrary".
>
> That is a
>> fact. That is an ancient and TRUE complaint.
>
> It is as much sour grapes as you are saying this complaint is.
>
> Wake up and smell the
>> goddamn coffee.
>
> You first.
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <teddyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > except you seems to know, which is that the
> > > mods reject post arbitrarily.
> >
> > And this is a lie - which even YOU prove as such below.
> > And even if you didn't prove it, the fact that you & 2 or 3 others may
> > say so absolutely does not make it so.
>
> Susan, you are completely self-deluded. SCJM has such a horrific
> reputation for unfair moderation over the years that it is part of the
> folklore of Usenet.
You are the one who is deluded.
"Folklore of Usnet"?
Please!
There are two or three others saying that in THIS
> THREAD. For heaven's sake, this has been going on for years. There was
> a Yahoo group set up three years ago to discuss auto-moderation because
> of the crummy moderation at SCJM.
Most of the complaints are that the moderators are supposedly not
answerable to anyone.
Most of the complaints are that you can't even discuss the moderation
policies *on* SCJM since it's off-topic & the moderators have to abide by
the rules.
And SOME of the complaints are that the moderators are too LENIENT
They are the exact oposite of you & the very few here who are insisting
on the ridiculous "abitrary" nonsense.
> This is old news. Give it up.
I am not going to give up to a lie.
All you have proven is the point I have been trying unsuccessfully to make,
and that is that nothing is perfect & you will always have people who will
complain.
Eliyahu put it best:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/msg/b5054c77744b9df3?hl=en&
Susan
Gary Rumain
Ted wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > Not true.
> > > > One very sensible Jewish poster got booted off because she wanted
> > > > to know how Yitz' personally moderating *every* post was *less*
> > > > censorship than a moderated newsgroup with automoderation for
> > > > most posters.
> > >
> > > Baloney. There's no moderation in Yitz's group. Not even me, and if I
> > > am not moderated, nobody is.
> >
> > CindyS got thrown off for saying that.
> >
> Bullshit. First of all I was there, and I responded to some of her
> posts, and she didn't say anything remotely of the kind. I mean, I was
> THERE, Susan, and her posts are in the friggin archives. Second, she
> cancelled, period. If you want proof, I'll get it from Yitz and post it.
I hate to have to say this about my own wife, but Suzy really is a
thick Irish cunt.
We let her play along with her fantasy about being Jewish, but all our
friends know
she's really a shikse.
Dave Umansky
> Most of the complaints are that the moderators are supposedly not
> answerable to anyone.
> Most of the complaints are that you can't even discuss the moderation
> policies *on* SCJM since it's off-topic & the moderators have to abide by
> the rules.
> And SOME of the complaints are that the moderators are too LENIENT
> They are the exact oposite of you & the very few here who are insisting
> on the ridiculous "abitrary" nonsense.
It's not nonsense. Ted said earlier that I posted a note in the moderated
group and it was arbitrarily rejected.
What happened was very simple. I was engaged in a discussion of posting on
this group. I attempted to respond to one of the very heated replies to my
message, very much continuing the discussion, and I received a form response
saying "Unfortunately, having reviewed your submission, we are unable to
post
it, since it falls outside the defined topic of the newsgroup. For your
information, soc.culture.jewish.moderated is chartered for "the
discussion of all aspects of Judaism, including its history,
philosophy, culture, practice, and law."
Further down was this specific explanation:
"No substantive Jewish content or content relevant to the proposed
charter amendment."
That same remark could be applied to all of the posts in that entire
messsage topic. All X hundred of them. That is why Ted called it arbitrary.
Also he is correct in that my remarks were speaking on behalf of you and he
and the other people posting here, and also that there was no support.
I am not the first to have experienced this and so have many others. To say
that "very few" have complained about this precise issue is just not true.
Dave U
cindys
> As for Cindy, what happened was she came and started screaming.
What a lie. *Screaming* about what? I told Yitz I didn't understand how
heavier moderation = freer flow of conversation. I expressed that I didn't
see how he could have it both ways. That is a perfectly legitimate
observation/question regarding the moderation policy. It is not trolling and
not screaming either. Then, some other poster announced that she found my
(2) postings offensive and not well-meaning, despite the fact that I had
prefaced my posts with the statements that they were well-intentioned and
intended to be constructive. Then, some other guy jumped in and agreed that
he had found my posts rather "odd" and wondered why was I *trying to
destroy* a group that had only been in existence for 2 days? I was
completely taken aback and felt that these were personal attacks and said so
and then Yitz accused me of being a troll and threatened to remove me from
the group, so I simply left on my own.
>What
> she said made no sense whatsoever.
It didn't make sense *to you* because you were not aware of the history of
SCJM vis-a-vis disputes regarding moderation policy. My mistake was that I
should have limited my questions regarding the moderation policy to private
e-mail with Yitz rather than posting them. But nevertheless, it was still
quite a stretch for anyone to accuse me of trolling and trying to destroy
the group. I've been a regular usenet poster on SCJM and SCJ unmoderated for
years. I've been accused of many things but never of being a troll.
>Do you want me to go into details
> about what she was posting? Do you want me to post here the crap that
> she was giving us after all of two days?
Oh please. Get a life. The supposed *crap* I was giving *you* is outlined
above. And who do you mean by *us?* The last time I checked, the group
belonged to Yitz and Yitz only. My questions/comments were addressed to him
and to him only, not to you and not to anyone else on the group. And Yitz
and I subsequently did discuss the matter at some length via private e-mail
and ostensibly came to a meeting of the minds. BTW, how is my old *friend*,
your alter ego, Dave Umansky?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
cindys
"Adam Helberg" <sendsp...@yahee.com> wrote in message
news:K8mnf.3320$Tg2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...> news:1134414971.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Adam Helberg wrote:
> >> Here is the type of discussion that was censored on the moderated
newsgroup.
> >> Needless
> >> to say I will not waste my time with them.
> >
> > follows:
> >
> > She said:
> >> > By "small group of crackpots", I assume you're referring to every
> >> > Orthodox Jew on the face of the earth, right? That'd be those of us
> >> > who haven't assimilated. Right?
> >> >
> >> > Lisa
> >
> > And you said:
> >> I use the term "crackpot" so you know my opinion of them. No serious
person around
> >> me
> >> believes in such a thing, yet I hear some on arutz sheva promulgating
it. I hope
> >> it's
> >> a small minority or we're in trouble.
> >>
> >> Animal sacrifices were practiced some 3000 years ago and at that time
it was
> >> acceptable behavior. It may have actually functioned as a slaughter
house for
> >> killing
> >> the animals for food. But just as many abandoned practices were
considered proper
> >> in
> >> the medieval ages, so this is an anachronism and does not belong today.
The people
> >> who advocate this need to look at themselves in the mirror for they are
not
> >> different
> >> from fundamentalists of other religions who are considered extremist.
> >
> > And they wouldn't let you post the above?
>
> Yes. That's right. I posted a perfectly legitimate opinion that was not
extremist, in
> fact it's very centrist, but they refused to post it.
--------
If they *refused* to post it, then why did it appear on SCJM yesterday?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bxInf.36607$7r6.22927@trnddc07...> > fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 13-Dec-2005, "Ted" <tdic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
> > > > Also, I don't get your Yitz-bashing. All you're doing is feeding the
> > > > jackasses here by posting ignorant crap on that score.
> > >
> > > I can say the same about you & anyone else who is "bashing" SCJM.
> > >
> >
> > Here's the irony of this whole thing Susan -- this SCJM you're sucking
> > up to has a totally negative opinion of YOU.
>
> And you lie again.
> I am extremely friendly with a number of people who post here.
> >
> > In another post you mentioned some posts I made in SCJM. Well, did you
> > bother to read that thread? Somebody suggested that posting here in SCJ
> > against the anti-Semites was a good thing. Then your pals
>
> Noy "my pals".
> A few people.
>
> in SCJM that
> > you are defending piled on the guy and flamed him, saying how terrible
> > it was that Jewish people post here and how it "fed" and "encouraged"
> > anti-Semitism.
>
> Funny, YOU did that, in your previous post, above.
> The very same thing you are ragging on "all of SCJM" about.
>
> > Who does were they talking about? Y-O-U.
>
> Not just M-E, but Y-O-U, too.
> >
> > Not a single person spoke up in favor of YOU.
>
> You lie AGAIN.
> controversy).
Speaking for myself, I just didn't want to get into the middle of an
argument between Susan and Lisa. And while it is true that a few of the SCJM
posters disagree with Susan's activities on SCJ unmoderated, they are in
total agreement with her on a host of other issues. She is one of the most
universally beloved posters to SCJM. Susan is kind, gentle, sympathetic,
sensitive and cares about everyone.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
The Re'evd
Suzy Cohen the foul-mouthed Irish fishwife convert
<flav...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 13-Dec-2005, "Gary Rumain" <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > You should be moderated, asshole.
>
> You'd think the phony rev could figure out how to forger *without* giving
> himself away.....
Where's the thick Irish cunt's proof that I'm "forgering" (sic)
anybody????
> People can only stand your stupidity
> > in moderation
>
> ... but his projectionism is just too strong.
But you're still just a thick Irish cunt.
> Suzy