Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "superdan" <super@dan.org> wrote in message news:gnc2ml$14ch$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> if u dun shitfuck there u r dead meat. pardon me french.
>>> don & walt u r 2 cool fer school. thanks doods. tho wut's with tat apple thing.
>>
>> I don't usually mind profanity, so for me the big problem is more often the high overhead involved in translating things like this into real words and sentences. ;-) 
> 
> One interesting aspect of writing posts like that is you can use it to defeat snooping programs that look for certain keywords and phrases.

That might have been true back in the 80s (70s?) when "leet" was invented, but I wonder if this still applies today.  I'd honestly be surprised if most obfuscation attempts could actually fool a military text filter these days.  I think it's mostly just an online dialect these days, rather than something of real practical use.

Yigal Chripun Wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:

> > I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if it costs them their life.
> 
> Where did you hear that?

I'm not sure about the Jewish faith but Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible prohibits the accepting of blood and that to do so is a sin.

Many a Jehovah's Witnesses have died because of this belief.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "superdan" <super@dan.org> wrote in message
>> news:gnc2ml$14ch$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> if u dun shitfuck there u r dead meat. pardon me french.
>>> don & walt u r 2 cool fer school. thanks doods. tho wut's with tat
>>> apple thing.
>>
>> I don't usually mind profanity, so for me the big problem is more
>> often the high overhead involved in translating things like this into
>> real words and sentences. ;-)
>
> One interesting aspect of writing posts like that is you can use it to
> defeat snooping programs that look for certain keywords and phrases. It
> also makes it far more difficult for non-native language speakers to
> understand it, if that is one's intention.

Being a non-native English speaker, I *HATE* that kind of writing since it's very hard for me to understand it. When posting to a forum such as this, the considerate thing to do is try to make yourself understandable to others. This is the Internet with people from all over the world, not "the hood".
I also really do not appreciate any use of other-languages like Latin just to make yourself look smart. for instance, I can reply using Aramaic phrases, but I doubt it that most people will understand it here. Unless Walter is going to have newsgroups by language/culture/..
we all need to be considerate to others by trying to write such that it'll be clear to everyone and also try not to forget running the spell checker.

I think native speakers sometimes do not appreciate how difficult it can be for others to understand them. It's the same way with right-handed people that can't understand why ordinary objects like scissors can be incredibly frustrating to a left-handed person (like myself).

Jussi Jumppanen wrote:
> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>
>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>
>>> I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if
>>> it costs them their life.
>> Where did you hear that?
>
> I'm not sure about the Jewish faith but Jehovah's Witnesses believe
> the Bible prohibits the accepting of blood and that to do so is a sin.
>
> Many a Jehovah's Witnesses have died because of this belief.
>

that's simple:

Jehovah's Witnesses != Jews
also,
Jews for Jesus != Jews

As I said before this contradicts one of the most important aspects of Judaism.

Yigal Chripun a écrit :
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "superdan" <super@dan.org> wrote in message
>>> news:gnc2ml$14ch$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> if u dun shitfuck there u r dead meat. pardon me french.
>>>> don & walt u r 2 cool fer school. thanks doods. tho wut's with tat
>>>> apple thing.
>>>
>>> I don't usually mind profanity, so for me the big problem is more
>>> often the high overhead involved in translating things like this into
>>> real words and sentences. ;-)
>>
>> One interesting aspect of writing posts like that is you can use it to
>> defeat snooping programs that look for certain keywords and phrases. It
>> also makes it far more difficult for non-native language speakers to
>> understand it, if that is one's intention.
> 
> Being a non-native English speaker, I *HATE* that kind of writing since it's very hard for me to understand it. When posting to a forum such as this, the considerate thing to do is try to make yourself understandable to others. This is the Internet with people from all over the world, not "the hood".
> I also really do not appreciate any use of other-languages like Latin just to make yourself look smart. for instance, I can reply using Aramaic phrases, but I doubt it that most people will understand it here. Unless Walter is going to have newsgroups by language/culture/..
> we all need to be considerate to others by trying to write such that it'll be clear to everyone and also try not to forget running the spell checker.
> 
> I think native speakers sometimes do not appreciate how difficult it can be for others to understand them. It's the same way with right-handed people that can't understand why ordinary objects like scissors can be incredibly frustrating to a left-handed person (like myself).

vote++; // :-)

I hate when people use acroynms everywhere. It seems a new one is invented each day! I mean, how many time can you save there? What's the hurry?

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:56:04 +0300, Yigal Chripun <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:33 +0300, Christopher Wright
>> <dhasenan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>>> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gn9qp7$apa$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>>>> A millennium ago, Europe was in the midst of the dark ages while all
>>>>>>> scientific advances were made by Islamic scholars (know Algebra?),
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> christian world went on holy crusades to fight the evil
>>>>>>> "barbarians", now
>>>>>>> a millennium later the wheel had turned and the Islamic world is
>>>>>>> in its
>>>>>>> own dark-age (Iran is prime example of that) and the Islamic
>>>>>>> extremists
>>>>>>> are calling for Jihad against the corrupt and evil heretics of the
>>>>>>> west.
>>>>>>> Non of that is present in Judaism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm no theology expert, but from what I understand, the Islamic
>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>> Jihad really refers to a person's internal good-vs-evil struggle,
>>>>>> not an
>>>>>> external struggle. The so-called "Muslims" that take Jihad to mean
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> committing violence against other people are bastardizing thier own
>>>>>> religion
>>>>>> in the same way that some people bastardize Christianity into
>>>>>> allegedly
>>>>>> being pro-"white power".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite so. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, and has about 4
>>>>> sub-categories one of which is _Jihad_by_sword_
>>>>> here's a quote for example from
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad :
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimāt, divides Jihad into four kinds:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and
>>>>> Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to commend
>>>>> good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah
>>>>> (swt) ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O
>>>>> Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites”
>>>>> (Qur'an [Qur'an 9:73]). Thus, Seraj and Ahmad Hendricks have
>>>>> expressed a view that Muhammad strove against the unbelievers by
>>>>> sword and against the hypocrites by tongue
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> the only link between Judaism to Christianity is that supposedly
>>>>>>> Jesus was
>>>>>>> Jewish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Umm...Judaism and Christianity share an entire Bible. Of course,
>>>>>> Christianity adds another Bible (the "New Testament") but they equally
>>>>>> revere what they call the "Old Testament", which *is* the Jewish
>>>>>> Bible. As
>>>>>> part of that Bible, both religions contain The Ten Commandments,
>>>>>> Moses,
>>>>>> Abraham (this particular part also being shared by Islam), Adam and
>>>>>> Eve,
>>>>>> Noah's Ark, and probably some other things. I'm not sure where you
>>>>>> get the
>>>>>> idea that Jesus's religion is the only connection between Judaism and
>>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Christianity has mostly redefined out of existence most of the
>>>>> Jewish concepts if not all of them as they appear in the bible (the
>>>>> old testament), and the new testament which overrides the old one
>>>>> defines different, and contradicting new concepts.
>>>>> Christians use different interpretations of the bible and the
>>>>> christian faith basically broke backwards compatibility (to borrow a
>>>>> software concept) with Judaism.
>>>> You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to
>>>> first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the
>>>> destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward
>>>> compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity,
>>>> of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was
>>>> written down later than the New Testament.
>>>> Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word and
>>>> regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of
>>>> possible divergence.
>>>
>>> Divergence of belief in the historical content of the text, yes. (I
>>> know that Christianity has some divergence on whether the text is
>>> completely and literally accurate in all aspects. I don't know whether
>>> there are any young-earth creationists among non-Christian Jews, or
>>> anything like that.)
>>>
>>> However, there are a lot of commandments given down regarding what is
>>> clean and unclean, and how to distinguish, and treatment for being
>>> unclean in various ways. That is universally ignored. Doctors do
>>> better at healing people than priests who follow the Torah exactly. In
>>> case of an infestation of mold in your house, you are going to call
>>> someone who specializes in that issue, and they're not going to follow
>>> the Torah, even if they are the strictest of orthodox Jews. And I
>>> haven't seen any Christian who felt compelled to avoid eating
>>> shellfish due to biblical restrictions.
>>>
>>
>> I know one - Jesus.
>>
>> There is also "Jews for Jesus" organization that follow kosher diet.
>> And I've also heard of christian old-believers in Russia that don't eat
>> pork and shellfish.
>>
>>> I don't know many ultra-Orthodox Jews; do any of you know a Jew who
>>> would go to his priest regarding a rash before he would go to a doctor?
>>
>> I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if it costs
>> them their life.
>
> Where did you hear that?
> I doubt that since the preservation of life is a holy jewish principle and which cancels all other commandments in the bible.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. These are indeed Jehovah's Witnesses.

> for example, driving on the Shabat is a a sin but if we're talking about an ambulance driving to save someone's life than it's becomes completely "Kosher". As the saying goes: "if you saved one soul of  Israel as if you saved the entire world".
>
> Kinda the exact opposite of the Jihad concept that other people believe in.

From Qur'an:

"...We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul - unless for a soul[1] or for corruption [done] in the land[2] - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." [Qur'an, 5:32] 

[1] i.e. in legal retribution for murder, through the requisite channels of justice.
[2] i.e. that requiring the death penalty, again through the requisite legal channels.

This verse establishes the sanctity of life.

(Taken from http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/Wanton.Destruction.html)

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:36:12 +0300, Christopher Wright <dhasenan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> I know one - Jesus.
>
> I haven't seen Jesus.
>

Seeing is believing, huh?

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:36:12 +0300, Christopher Wright <dhasenan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>> I know one - Jesus.
>>
>> I haven't seen Jesus.
>>
> 
> Seeing is believing, huh?

I haven't *seen* a Christian who obeys all laws from the Torah, or even keeps kosher, to my knowledge. Jesus is not a counterexample unless I have seen Jesus, even if the Dead Sea DVDs are discovered tomorrow that record every second of his existence and prove that he kept all the laws of the Torah. At that point, I would have to determine exactly what I mean by seeing, and whether it applies to recordings; but more importantly, I would need to determine how Jesus got his hands on a DVD burner back when people thought that lightning was Zeus doing target practice.

I’m going to combine a bunch of responses into one here.

Don wrote:
> You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity, of course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was written down later than the New Testament.

Not sure what you mean by “breaking of backward compatibility”. As regards (2), the Talmud is based on discussions and decisions made and taken from the second century BCE to the fifth or sixth CE; much is due, for example, to Hillel the Elder (c.110BCE–10CE).

<snip>
> Actually it'd be pretty interesting to model it in code <g>. The Tanakh (Old Testament) involves a number of virtual functions and a lot of code. Christianity and modern Judaism inherit all of the code from it, Islam only inherits the interfaces.

Except for things like:

sacrifice(Animal a) {

	version(Christianity) {
		pragma(message("deprecated; see Jesus")); return;
	}
	version(Modern Judaism) {
		// not currently implemented; maintaining stub function
		pray(Shacharis);
		return;
	}
	…
}


Christopher Wright wrote:
> Divergence of belief in the historical content of the text, yes. (I know that Christianity has some divergence on whether the text is completely and literally accurate in all aspects. I don't know whether there are any young-earth creationists among non-Christian Jews, or anything like that.)

Among the Orthodox, views range from Young-Earth Creationism to taking
the Creation Story as purely metaphor; the most authoritative position
is from the Talmud: “Whoever regards four things would better not have
been born: the things above, the things below, the things that were
before, and the things that shall be.” To continue the code metaphor,
Genesis has the comment:
	/* You are not expected to understand this. */
(as do things like Ezekiel 1 &c.)

> However, there are a lot of commandments given down regarding what is clean and unclean, and how to distinguish, and treatment for being unclean in various ways. That is universally ignored. Doctors do better at healing people than priests who follow the Torah exactly. In case of an infestation of mold in your house, you are going to call someone who specializes in that issue, and they're not going to follow the Torah, even if they are the strictest of orthodox Jews.

For the most part, the rules of “clean” and “unclean” are bound up in
Temple service and are therefore on hiatus. They are still studied,
though, and are still active to some extent.


Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:33 +0300, Christopher Wright
>> I don't know many ultra-Orthodox Jews; do any of you know a Jew who would go to his priest regarding a rash before he would go to a doctor?
>
> I've heard many Jews refuse to do the blood transfusion even if it costs them their life.

I think you’re confusing Jews with Christian Scientists. I can’t think of any medical procedure an Orthodox Jew would not have done in life- or health-threatening situations. As for blood transfusions specifically, local organizations in the Orthodox community run blood drives regularly.

—Joel Salomon

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> I also really do not appreciate any use of other-languages like Latin just to make yourself look smart. for instance, I can reply using Aramaic phrases, but I doubt it that most people will understand it here.

B’Asrah hodain? No, nobody will get it. ☺

—Joel Salomon