"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...

It lets people know why some students of rabbis act the way they do.
Their "teachers" have a bit to learn.

And so you've taken it upon yourself to teach the r.r.s. community about
this? So this, then, is something you consider a public service. You should
preface your subject titles with some sort of Public Service
Announcement-type warning. Sort of like this :

PSA: Blood sucking rabbi!

That is, if you're not going to use the old OT standby.

No. I wasn't disagreeing with the age of the boys. The age, so far as
I know, was NOT STATED. Therefore, I could only presume it to be eight
days of age.

Then a better word would have been presumably, rather than supposedly. The
way you phrased it, it appeared you had some issue with it. I'm not a net
cop, btw, so I can live with your explanation. g

I'll qualify this. IF the rabbi gave the pre-toddlers / newborns herpes
he'd probably been sucking, or blowing, somewhere else first!

Gosh. I didn't know that rabbi's took vows of celibacy, that they never
married, that they never dated and kissed girls, etc. And a quick bit of
research at www.herpes.com tells me that:

"Oral herpes, an infection caused by the herpes simplex virus, is estimated
to be present in 50 to 80 percent of the American adult population."

So, there's at least an even chance that -you've- got it. What have -you-
been sucking and blowing?

Relax...I'm not going to out you. But you really do need to learn how herpes
is spread. That probably goes double for the mohel. He should at least get
checked, or Yawveh needs to step up and protect these kids. Personally, I
recommend the scientific approach. And so much for you qualifying your
statement.

And I thought it was just CATHOLIC PRIESTS and some never, never guy out
in Tennessee! :-)

If you've got kids, I hope you teach them better than that.

Oh, I didn't want to wear out that other thread so I thought I'd start a
new one so folks wouldn't belabor the other one.

Then again, what was the point of posting the story in that thread as well
as the new one? Your excuse doesn't wash.

Besides that one of
your buddies, I guess, had "requested" it be discontinued.

I wasn't aware that I had buddies here. What makes someone my buddy in this
instance? Also, that thread was so old in Usenet terms that it was
effectively dead, buried and forgotten until you resurrected it in order to
tell us that someone ages ago asked for it to be discontinued.

We'll probably find out eventually whether it was a lie or whether I was
falsely accused of "lying for Jesus".

You totally missed my point, as I knew you would when I said:

quote

Lying for Jesus, are we? Once again, your credibility rating, unbelievably
low as it is, takes another hit. For someone who thinks he's such an expert
on Jews, you clearly don't know Jack...even when it's spelled out right in
front of you. Reread the article, this time with an emphasis on
comprehension.

/quote

Since he wasn't circumcising anyone with his teeth, and since the article
clearly stated what he in fact -was- doing, that is "drawing blood from the
circumcision wound", and since you seemed to consider yourself some sort of
authority on all matters Jewish, well...what am I to think?

You lied. Either that, or you didn't read the article. Or, you don't know
what you're talking about as far as Jewish circumcision rituals go. Take
your pick; they all make you look like an ass.