Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Dvar Torah : Achare-Kedoshim
Message-ID: <348@unc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Jun-85 18:20:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.348
Posted: Sat Jun  1 18:20:39 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 06:06:25 EDT
References: <136@erc3ba.UUCP> <csd2.3780047>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 28
Summary: 

In article <csd2.3780047> meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) re-posted
and article by Dave Sherman:
>
>From
>hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!dave
>Thu Aug  4 12:59:13 1983
>Subject: destroying holy names written on disk - a Rabbi's answer
>Newsgroups: net.religion
>
>A few weeks ago I posted an article about the origin of "Amen" in
>which I mused over the problem of destroying sacred names which are
>"written" in digital form.
>
>I spoke with Rabbi David Schochet, who is the senior Rabbi (the "Rav")
>of the Lubavitch community in Toronto.
>Rabbi Schochet's answer can be summarized as follows:
>
>1. The translation or transliteration of a holy name into English
>   is not the same as the original, but it is still holy, and, if
>   written on paper, should not be destroyed. One should write "G-d"
>   instead.
>[etc.]

How do you define "translation or transliteration"?
If I always refer to you-know-who as G-d, then
doesn't "G-d" become the new de-facto translation?

	Frank Silbermann