Mr. Barron, thank you again for taking the time to write. I would like you to know that I am bothered by what you mean when you refer to "your community" when you have no idea which community I belong to. To be quite honest, I have lived in several communities of different persuasions. I reiterate, you will find many independent minded people in all communities. And, I too am certain "that a very strong majority are in fact law-abiding, hard working, decent human beings."

Mr. Barron, thanks very much for taking the time to write all this. You say you are not Orthodox and I am going to guess that you have no real experience with the many Orthodox communities yet, you speak in such blanket statements about our communities... Yes, we are not perfect, but forgive me if I don't quite care for the way you put it. I live in this community and there are many of us here and a good deal of us are independent thinkers. I invite you to come into the communities and spend quality time. Then, I wonder if you might word your thoughts a little differently.

Context, thank you. I know that good deeds are never for naught. One is rewarded for them and they are never canceled by the misdeeds of others!

Shmarya -- and yet, when I was not silent, you chose to delete my posts!

I still do not believe that silence cancels out the good deeds of the many!

Feminista, I asked a simple question and have yet to hear an intelligent response. A lot o anger and nastiness but nothing intelligent. Let me ask it again, why do the misdeeds of some cancel all the good done by so many?

Shmarya, you really are very sick and I think you might even know why. Hope, you'll share with all your readers...

Janci -- there you go again with your unintelligent gibberish. Now let someone explain why the actions of a few negate the incredible good of the many. And please, make it an intelligent response!

"Unfortunately, guys like this dead Stark character and the (very sporty looking) Weinstein character destroy any good done by people who are fair and decent in their behavior." Why??? Because this blog site refuses to report the thousands of wonderful acts performed by upright Jews throughout the world? Why does the behavior of two men negate all of that? Please explain!

dh--you make me laugh! Well, there are neighborhoods and there are neighborhoods. None of this happens in the chassic neighborhoods although it does sound like fun.

dh--How are you? I am not Bobov and I cannot tell you where the entrance is to the sukkah. I would imagine there are openings from both sides. I believe Orthodox Jews practice one halacha but there have always been different rabbis who see things differently. The important thing for most people is to have a rabbi whom they can follow.

Shmarye--sorry! The shul I belong to as well as hundreds of others, is owned by my rabbi and not by any congregation. Once again, if I wished to use the sukkah for my private function, I would need permission from my rabbi to do so. In some shuls, there would be a fee for this usage. Please, provide me with the source for your argument, unless, of course you cannot.

Shmarye--you keep saying the shuls which are privately owned together with their sukkas are halachicly for public use and anyone has the right to do what they wish in them. Again, your source? Just provide the source!

Shmarya--don't know what world you live in. There are hundreds or shuls in some of the Orthodox neighborhoods. I would never think of them as public because they certainly aren't. They are privately owned and function at the discretion of whoever owns them. My shul has a large sukkah but I would never dream that it is a public sukkah. If I wished to hold a function during sukkos, eg a bris, bar mitzvah, kiddush etc. I would surely need to obtain permission and there likely would be a hefty fee for its use. Perhaps you would like to provide the source for your argument.

Shmarya, I don't like calling anyone an idiot because that is not who I am. However, something is very wrong with you. Would love to know what. The Bobov sukkah is not a public sukkah. It is part of the shul and is used for shul purposes. Why can't you "process" that? Again, this chassidic community does not live according to your interpretation of halacha. They have have their own rabbis and rebbes who are move than capable of understanding and living with halacha. They will also continue to follow the manner in which they have been accustomed to living for the last couple of centuries. There are differences between the different Orthodox groups. You need to learn about them and respect them. Perhaps you are incapable. I can respect that.

Shmarya, like I said, I don't expect you to back down. Nor do I expect you to develop an understanding of the different groups in the Orthodox community. The chassidic women in this community do not expect to eat in the sukkah because this is the way it has been for centuries in these communities. They have no obligation to do so and, in this community, they certainly do not feel deprived. Gevezener Chusid, is quite correct, this is not a public sukkah for it belongs to the shul and is used by the shul. Your idea about building a public sukkah in Boro Park for any women who might wish to use one is laughable and a waste of public funds because it would serve no purpose in this community. If anyone else who is familiar with the community disagrees with me, please speak up.

Shmarya, you know fully well that they have not banned women from sitting in a sukkah. It is more than likely, that their wives and daughters are eating with them comfortably in their home sukkahs. If they aren't, it would only be for lack of space. If they wish to prevent party like mingling in the public sukkah, which nobody uses to eat their meals, then that is their choice and I choose to respect it. Your reporting is skewed here. But I don't expect you to back down.

2. Women who don't have sukkahs can't use the public sukkah and all women have to stay home rather than use the public sukkah all because of a Bobov modesty rule that is asinine and anti-halakha. Shmarya, you know fully well that women have no obligation to sit in the sukkah. So, yes, if a woman has no sukkah and if she is not invited to another private sukkah, then she will not eat in a sukkah. No injustice has occurred. To my knowledge, nobody eats in the public shul sukkah and she truly has no need to be there! So, if the chassidim would like to prevent mingling of the sexes, so be it. Get over it.

dh--I am sorry for what your family has put you through. It would be really nice if you could find a Succah tonight. Chag Someach

dh--you are the first person on this blog who I find reasonable. However, I don't care much for the way Shmarya does what he does. I also sincerely believe Granpa Leon Gleckman does not derive nachas up there and, if he were here, he would likely have some choice words for grandson Shmarya.

dh--you have a style that does put a smile on my face. What Shmarya does on this blog is a chilul Hashem. However, I just did a google search to find out about the good deeds that he has done and I haven't uncovered them yet. If you can direct me to where I might learn about all of his incredible accomplishments, I promise to look at them. However, I am sure you might agree that making the above comments about a man before he was even buried was not such a good deed.

dh--wow! I am glad you got that off you chest.

dh--you know very well this is not about my ancestors. This is about the pot calling the kettle black and I, for one, would love to hear from a psychologist as to why a man has the need to do so.

janci--it seems to me that one who enjoys dishing it out, should also know how to take it. This is an issue I have with this blog. So many dishing it out without the ability to take anything at all. I am afraid that is not very honest. Now how sad is that.

dh--you miss the point while showing yourself to be the nasty insulting person that you are.