Walter Bright wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> I'm glad to hear you're still around. I did feel your colourful language often obscured your content (which was frequently of very high quality).
>> I miss the content. (Not the language so much <g>).
> 
> I seriously doubt superdan uses profanity to offend.
> 
> He's got an ear for dialog, and the wit to write in a style that is a parody of those that use profanity. I think it's hilarious and enjoy reading it.

Certainly I laughed out loud a few times. Actually, I sometimes wondered if he was using a translator, like the Swedish Chef you once posted here. But, like the Swedish Chef, I usually found his posts quite difficult to read.

> P.S. 30 years ago, I went to an art house to see "Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes" (Aguirre, the Wrath of God) in German, subtitled in English. There's one scene where it seemed for a full minute a conquistador was yelling at his horse. Eventually, a subtitle appeared which simply said "You damned horse." When that appeared, two people in the theater laughed, including me, as I knew enough German to know that he'd been swearing at the horse in a most foul and thorough manner <g>.

Sanitised in translation <g>.

BTW, you might appreciate the menu at our canteen. They helpfully provide English translations of the German. Recent entries include:

=====
Wrong rabbit. (Very wrong -- it's Scotch eggs).
Vegetable stew of house husband.
Nuclear braten. (Gives you a healthy glow).
Soil roast to a dessert.
Berries fruits undercover.
Potato cakes sweet or to be hearty and tasty.
Radix vegetables to an apple. (I just _love_ that hexadecimal taste).
All sorts of cute.
=======

Don Wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
> > Don wrote:
> >> I'm glad to hear you're still around. I did feel your colourful
> >> language often obscured your content (which was frequently of very
> >> high quality).
> >> I miss the content. (Not the language so much <g>).
> > 
> > I seriously doubt superdan uses profanity to offend.
> > 
> > He's got an ear for dialog, and the wit to write in a style that is a parody of those that use profanity. I think it's hilarious and enjoy reading it.
> 
> Certainly I laughed out loud a few times. Actually, I sometimes wondered if he was using a translator, like the Swedish Chef you once posted here. But, like the Swedish Chef, I usually found his posts quite difficult to read.

u r talking more about me when i ain't around. relax folks good news. superdan's still tuned in. but i need to work my ass off. my boss is an asshole n cant wait to fire me. hope he intercepts and sees this msg. as fer my language. i grew up in baltimores high risers. if u dun shitfuck there u r dead meat. pardon me french. anyway newsflash. dee exists n is alive n well. cute as bugz ears. won't post coz she's ashamed for having her cover blow. go figure japanese morals.

don & walt u r 2 cool fer school. thanks doods. tho wut's with tat apple thing. apple is fer weenies. unix is da only reason 2 be around them 'puters. get tat unix64 thing goin'. peace.

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.
>
> 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.
>
> So to some extent it's a relationship like:
>
> |
> |Tanakh
> |
> / \_
> | \_
> / \_
> / \
> Judaism Christianity
>
> Also Islam inherits concepts from the Talmud, as well as things from the
> New Testament, so it's not a "single inheritance" situation at all. It's
> as messy as C++ code involving virtual inheritance.
>
> 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.

First off, Thanks for the analogy to OO concepts, thumbs up! <g>

to answer your post:
I didn't assume that modern Judaism is identical to first-century Judaism, and regarding the Talmud, That's not part of the Bible but rather just one book that contains interpretations by many famous Rabbis to the Bible.
Judaism is of course not a root of the above graph and was influenced by other cultures like the ancient Egyptians.

All I was trying to say is that *today* the difference between Judaism and Christianity is so huge that it's meaningless to say Judeo-Christian world-view. there simply is no such thing *today*.

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.)

Judaism doesn't have that big clash of science vs. religion that the Christian world create. the entire handling of the bible is completely different. Jews are required to study the bible themselves and in Synagogue *everyone* read from the bible together. the concept of having a priest to give a sermon to the public is completely foreign to Judaism. There's a saying in Hebrew that says the Torah has 70 faces, meaning that it can be interpreted in many ways and each individual needs to read it himself and understand it himself. That means there's no one world-view that is being dictated on the people like the Vatican does.
The Talmud that Don mentioned deals with many subjects where for each subject there are two opposing interpretations that are presented by two groups of Rabbis and their students. each side presents its case and The Talmud basically encourages to have a debate of the subject in order to understand it.
>
> 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.

Not exactly. Jews where less likely to die in Europe during the dark-ages because of the plague. The reason is because of those rules which require for instance to wash hands before you eat.
Those rules are not arbitrary and have reasons behind them. I agree that for example the rules regarding woman's period are today ridiculous and redundant. The issue here that 5 millenia ago the human knowledge was smaller compared to today and those rules are built on that knowledge. you can always add new rules to Judaism (if the Rabbis have a consensus) in order to adapt to modern times - that happens all the time, but you cannot remove or cancel existing laws so that's why we got stuck with few laws that are today ridiculous by scientific standards.

>
> 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?

as I said there isn't an either-or question about such questions in Judaism and there is no conflict between the two. you can go to the Doctor to get some pills and also to a rabbi to get a blessing and both are complementary rather the contradicting.

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.
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.

"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. ;-)

John Reimer wrote:
> Walter, I've heard a lot of arguments for defending the expression of "art", but this one's a doosie.

Ever watch Monty Python? I asked a brit about the accents they use in their skits, because there are many different british accents. He laughed and said the accents were a parody of the british upper class accents.

I suspected that, not being  british, I was missing half the jokes <g>.

There's also Spongebob Squarepants. It's ostensibly a kid's show, but at least in the early episodes there are a lot of digs at Jacques Cousteau's 70's tv series "The Undersea World". What kid would get those jokes?

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> I know one - Jesus.

I haven't seen 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've heard of Jews for Jesus, actually.

>> 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've heard of similar things with other religions, but my Jewish fiancee claims that all Jewish laws and customs are, by law and custom, ignored if they interfere with your health to any appreciable degree.

"Christopher Wright" wrote
>> 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've heard of Jews for Jesus, actually.

One and only time I've ever heard of Jews for Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LpOmtUn_QA&feature=related

:)

-Steve

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.