[continued from previous message]   
      
   Reform.  No Orthodox or Conservative Jew would even consider it a   
   legitimate form of Judaism.   
      
      
   > The Jews gave Jesus the stink eye as well.   
      
   Jesus was a Jew and his followers were all Jews.  So it is wrong to say   
   that the Jews did not support him.  A large group of Jews believed him   
   to be the Messiah.  These Jews became "Christians" after his death.   
      
   The Jews who did not believe him to be the Messiah considered him either   
   a prophet or a poser -- depending on their point of view.   
      
   His teachings (at least as presented a century or more after his death)   
   conflicted with the Laws of the Torah (the Old Testament), and so were   
   never accepted by Orthodox, Conservative or Reform Jews.   
      
   Nobody gave him the stink eye.  The Romans crucified him because he   
   refused to accept Caesar as a god, and was suspected of inciting the   
   Jews to rebel against Roman rule.   
      
   >   
   >> His self-conversion would not have been accepted by anyone outside of   
   >> the Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones, Charles Manson set.   
   >   
   > Again, Scheimmer said it looks legitimate.   
      
   And, again, I'm sure that the letter itself was a real letter from the   
   "Rabbi" in question.   
      
   It just would not have been accepted as a legitimate form of conversion   
   by 99.9% of the Jewish people.   
      
      
   >   
   >>>>>>> I attempted to engage Pickering in several conversations regarding his   
   >>>>>>> posts, but he either ignored them, or spat back some angry, and   
   >>>>>>> impolite, remarks.   
   >   
   >   
   > You two were in the middle of a flame war, what did you expect?   
      
   Wrong.  This was before the flame war.  My initial posts to Pickles were   
   friendly attempts to draw him into a conversation.   
      
      
   >   
   >>>>>> Similarly anyone who engages in deep scholarship on a subject cannot be   
   >>>>>> expected to appreciate having a total ignoramus on the subject trying to   
   >>>>>> explain it to him. So while I don't condone his impoliteness, I can   
   >>>>>> fully understand it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You nailed it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is a world of difference between scholarship, and monomaniacal   
   >>>> obsession.   
   >>>   
   >>> Since you're not stranger to obsession I suppose you're speaking from   
   >>> personal experience, Pendragon.   
   >>   
   >> Even I've never carried my pet obsessions even 1/4 so far.   
   >   
   > That would be for a qualified observer to decide.   
      
   No.  One would simply have to site an example that was as extreme as   
   Pick's.   
      
      
   >   
   >>>>>>> Since I didn't relish the idea of getting into a   
   >>>>>>> flamewar with another nutjob   
   >   
   > You and Senetto seemed to think it wouldn't take much to run Stephan   
   > Pickering off, though, so you went for it.   
      
   I didn't expect him to leave.  I just enjoyed making him dance.  (I have   
   sadistic tendencies.)   
      
      
   > (he reminded me of the 50s group's nutter,   
   >>>>>>> "PhillyGuy"),   
   > I'm not familiar with him.   
      
   He was a 45-year old virgin from Philadelphia.  I only had to hint that   
   he was gay and he would fly off the deep end, calling me a Nazi, Satan,   
   and every other evil name or adjective he could think of.   
      
   When I copied his "PhillyGuy" address (by changing the lowercase ells   
   for ones) he freaked out, accused me of stealing his identity, and   
   literally killed off his PhillyGuy identity.  He then went through a   
   series of Usernames which I proceeded to provoke him into killing off.   
   I had a lot of fun with PhillyGuy.   
      
      
   > I do know that everyone on the 1950s music newsgroup seems to hate you.   
   >   
   > Why is that, Pendragon/Scarlotti?   
      
   The 50s group for the most part hates 50s pop, and champions 50s R&B.   
   When I first joined the group, someone anonymously asked "Who is the   
   Father of Rock and Roll?  Bill Haley or Elvis?  This thread got tons of   
   responses, all championing R&B artists from the late 40s through the   
   early 50 (before the term "rock and roll" had even been coined).  I said   
   that Pat Boone had a rock hit six months before Elvis (which is true),   
   but that if we were talking about the "father" (that is, the immediate   
   predecessor) of rock and I, I'd have to say that it was Johnnie Ray.   
      
   Well the shit hit the fan en masse.   
      
   The regulars called me all sorts of names, including "racist" (which did   
   not sit well with me).  I called them a few choice names in return, and   
   the war was on!   
      
      
   >   
   >> I took to ignoring his posts.  Since he only posted once   
   >>>>>>> or twice a week, ignoring him required little to no effort.   
   >>>   
   >>> Is this why you left the 1950s newsgroup?   
   >>   
   >> I left it because I had gotten all I could from it.   
   >   
   >   
   > And all the regulars there hate you.   
      
   Not all of them.  But the majority did.   
      
   I'd been at war with them for 10 years.  It's to be expected.   
      
   >   
   >> I had learned more than enough historical information to write my music   
   >> book, and wanted to get started on it.   
   >   
   > Bruce and Diane still go ballistic at the mention of your name.   
      
   I don't doubt it.  Diane moreso than Bruce.   
      
   > What really happened on the 1950s music newsgroup?   
      
   As noted above, one of my very first posts offended them to the core.   
   It was all downhill from there.   
      
   Johnnie Ray is considered to be the father of rock and roll by many   
   music historians (including Jonny Whiteside, who wrote a bio of Ray   
   called "Cry"), and musicians like Tony Bennett.  They could have simply   
   accepted that as one of the many possible responses to the anonymous   
   question, but they had to start accusing me of being a racist because,   
   God forbid that anyone nominate a white man as the father of Rock n'   
   Roll!   
      
   >> Usenet groups are a huge time-suck.  Just look at the number of posts   
   >> we're wasting our time on here.  This is why I'll be leaving again soon.   
   >   
   > Good riddance, of course.   
   >   
   >>>>>> You handled that well, IMO. "Skip and ignore" the posts and posters   
   >>>>>> you don't like; as long as they stay out of your face, everyone wins.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Definitely a good policy.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Unfortunately, skip and ignore doesn't work   
   >>>   
   >>> It works if you stick with it   
   >>   
   >> No,   
   >   
   >   
   > Yes it does.   
   >   
   >> it doesn't.   
   >   
   > I don't agree.   
   >   
   >> I skipped and ignored this > group entirely for   
   >> over a year, and came back to find it as cluttered with your   
   >   
   > Oh, I'll be posting here for as long as I'm able.   
      
   No shit, Sherlock.  That's why it doesn't work.   
      
   >   
   > If you don't like that then perhaps you're better off moving along.   
   >   
   >>>>>>> At some point Jim and Pickering got into a flamewar regarding Ginsberg.   
   >   
   > Yes, Senetto almost seems to have a grudge against Allen Ginsberg.   
   >   
   > Jealousy?   
      
   Just a healthy dislike of pedophiles.   
      
   >>>>>>> don't recall who started it.   
   >>>   
   >>> Senetto at that point was attacking everything Pickering was posting.   
   >>   
   >> And Pickles was attacking everything Jim posted.   
   >   
   > Yes it was an all out flame war by that point.   
   >   
   >> Of course Pickles was defending a NAMBLA member who had sex underaged   
   >> boys (Ginsberg)   
   >   
   > Again, that's a lie and a misrepresentation.   
      
   Not at all.  Pickles admitting having gone to NAMBLA meetings, NAMBLA   
   conventions, being friends with NAMBLA members, and having taken NAMBLA   
   members to dinner, having discussed NAMBLA with them, and found them and   
   their ideas to be perfectly acceptable.   
      
   Pickles also boasted of having statutorily raped two 14-year old girls   
   (probably a lie, but his boast speaks volumes about his views on the   
   subject), and supported abolishing the legal age.   
      
   >   
   > Allen Ginsberg was never known to have sex with anyone younger than   
   > 18-19 and that was just one young guy who was in love with Allen   
   > Ginsberg.   
   >   
   > This was all posted and archived here a dozen times in 2017-18.   
      
   Wikipedia and other web sources say differently.   
      
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)