JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ChabadKahanist on December 26, 2014, 08:24:39 AM
-
Eli Yishai: If Only People Knew What Rabbi Yosef Really Said
Yishai says Rabbi Yosef never supported Oslo Accords; says recordings could reveal all and give him ten mandates.
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services
0
By Nir Har-Zahav
First Publish: 12/26/2014, 2:02 PM
Eli YishaiYonatan Sindel/Flash 90
Chairman of Ha'am Itanu Eli Yishai believes that his party's chances could be enhanced if he published recordings of the Shas party's spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef z"tl.
"Maran [Rabbi Yosef - ed.] never said he supported the Oslo Agreements," Yishai said on Radio Israel, referring to the 1993 accords that Shas under Aryeh Deri enabled in a crucial vote abstention.
Yishai intends to reveal yet-unheard recordings of Rabbi Yosef, but noted that he will "do everything possible without prejudice against the Shas movement - good things that I can say, I will say" - this despite Shas's multiple attacks and even death threats against Yishai.
"But really, perhaps to a certain extent, I am also paying a price," Yishai added. He said that if he played all the recordings his party would supersede Shas and gain ten seats in the next Knesset, in contradistinction to polls indicating he may not pass the Knesset threshold.
"They have said to me, 'If you say all you have to say you will get ten seats plus,' but it's not an easy decision and as a public figure, I know it and I'll do (what I must) even at a large price if I have to," he said.
On the issue of an agreement with the Palestinian Arabs, Yishai insisted that Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef never supported the Oslo Accords - against Shas, which has, at times, aligned itself with the Left and is increasingly doing so under Deri.
"I think the decision to establish a Palestinian state is bad for Israel, it's no secret, unfortunately this is already a fact," he said. "It's there, it works, there are negotiations and talks with the Palestinian Authority, with ministers there."
"This is really a serious problem," he said. "Maran said to me, in recent years, 'I will talk about peace and they wage war,' it is impossible to believe them. You see that they don't want peace, do not want true peace, just to hit their target and destroy us."
Yishai added that there is no plausible possibility that the PA will recognize Israel as a Jewish state, even if they commit to do so publicly, as for them such a decision would be "irreversible."
Yishai, when asked if the Oslo Accords were a mistake, said immediately "yes, I think so."
-
If it's true, he needs to stop being a shlemiel and release those recordings right away !
It would mean that the leaders of the Shas party mislead their voters for decades. But why if they misrepresented his views, would the Rabbi never have mentioned it?
My guess is he probably made some contradictory statements over the years and Yishai has the side of it that usually didn't get press, while the peace talk did get press. So either way, release the recordings and let's go on a the right path instead of the old insane way.
-
That's bulls*t! Had Ovadia Yosef cared so much he would have spoken out. The fact is as matter of principle Ovadia Yosef was very left leaning. Sometimes he spoke against the wickedness and dishonesty of the Arabs, yet he had not ruled them our as "peace partners", and he was in favor surrendering just about any piece of land for a peace treaty, even rationalizing it in his famous "saving life takes precedence to saving territory" halachic thesis.
-
http://youtu.be/08SNBv6MQV4?t=35m1s
Rabbi Mizrachi on this. (From a few days ago). 2 Minutes.
-
http://youtu.be/08SNBv6MQV4?t=35m1s
Rabbi Mizrachi on this. (From a few days ago). 2 Minutes.
Too much to swallow. Rav Ovadia takes it back? He can't, and that move could be just for his popularity, so he gets support from left and right. He was misled? What did they tell him, the Arabs all of a sudden could be trusted? The biggest Torah genius got misled by leftists to think we could have peace with Arabs by giving them tribute. I don't know all the details of this, but with what I know, I don't believe a word of what the Rabbi said.
-
(Quick google search got me to this, I believe we did see this some time ago as well, maybe later I will search the forum and see)
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/letter-reveals-rav-ovadia-reversed-land-for-peace-ruling-in-2003/2013/10/09/0/
Still not our position though, but it claims that he did not trust Arafat and the PA and said not to give them any land for anything. I think it was also apparent during Gush Katif where he cursed Sharon for it.
-
(Quick google search got me to this, I believe we did see this some time ago as well, maybe later I will search the forum and see)
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/letter-reveals-rav-ovadia-reversed-land-for-peace-ruling-in-2003/2013/10/09/0/
Still not our position though, but it claims that he did not trust Arafat and the PA and said not to give them any land for anything. I think it was also apparent during Gush Katif where he cursed Sharon for it.
If Arafat was peaceful, giving him land would be worse. It seems from rabbi Mizrachi's speech that they told him they would hold all the money, and that basically there would be different terms than complete surrender, which means he trusted leftists to make a deal that would be honored with Arabs. I don't think a Torah genius is that stupid.
-
The "lack of emmunah" theory that Rabbi Kahane proposed about him doesn't really explain everything to me. He trusts commies and sex-slavers but not Hashem? My only logical explanation, which isn't a statement of fact in any way, is that they had some kind of dirt on him or one of his friends, and they blackmailed him.
-
The following article in Hebrew brings a quote from former head of Shas party, R. Eli Yishai
http://www.srugim.co.il/100414-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%99-%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%9B%D7%9F-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%95-%D7%9B%D7%9F-%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%99-%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9B%D7%9F
from secular year 2002 {5761 or 5762}
אז עובר ישי לדבר גם על דעותיו ומפתיע את הכתב "אנחנו יושבים כעת בממשלת ליכוד ואנחנו אומרים במפורש: "כן אוסלו, כן פינוי חברון, כן ערפאת."
Translation, we are sitting at this time in the government of the Likud and we say explicitly,
Yes Oslo, Yes Hebron eviction,Yes Arafat"
-
Whatever he said, there was no admission of self mistake, no apology, and no reversal of his principle that significant portions of our tiny country should be traded for peace treaty with the Arabs.
Ovadia Yosef was supposed to be a genius and he lived through the entire history of Israel and most of the events predating its independence. Really he didn't know who our peace partners are until he reached his late 80s? Really he couldn't tell that Arafat was insincere until AFTER the second intifada broke out?
-
Whatever he said, there was no admission of self mistake, no apology, and no reversal of his principle that significant portions of our tiny country should be traded for peace treaty with the Arabs.
Ovadia Yosef was supposed to be a genius and he lived through the entire history of Israel and most of the events predating its independence. Really he didn't know who our peace partners are until he reached his late 80s? Really he couldn't tell that Arafat was insincere until AFTER the second intifada broke out?
Or maybe he was senile?
-
he activated the death oslo accord he could have prevented it triggering the death of thousands of defenseless Jews, he is more culpable along with pipi than others combined.
-
Or maybe he was senile?
He seemed coherent. Either they threatened to shut his yeshivas down or they had something on him or his buddies. I don't know why I'm wasting my brain on this, but I can't figure out any other logical option.
-
He seemed coherent. Either they threatened to shut his yeshivas down or they had something on him or his buddies. I don't know why I'm wasting my brain on this, but I can't figure out any other logical option.
You make sense.
-
You make sense.
Still a billion problems with each of those theories. The event that my gut says key to unraveling this thing is why he cursed Sharon. You don't go around putting level 10 curses on people that did what you said. This makes the theory that the rav was a leftist, and his Wilsonian goggles that saw everything going perfect were ripped off when he saw the effects of what he helped, and got mad. That theory has twice the problems of all my other ones, especially considering his ideology wasn't left wing, at least as far as values are concerned.
You abstain, letting Sharon win, and then you curse him for using what you gave him? The only other theory is he didn't really believe that he was going to do it, the most retarded one, because Rav. Torah genius would be smarter to think Arabs make peace than to think leftists won't make tribute.
I got nothing really, those before were just the top ideas. I have no clue why he did it, but I'm noticing a common theme with my conspiracy theories: He turned from the path to save someone's skin or investment. You don't use Torah for your purposes as a rabbi, so his purposes are likely irrelevant, even from what Rabbi Mizrachi, who's his big fan, said, he seems to have had alterior motives in making a decision for Israel.
The problem though is that if he cursed Sharon, and Hashem blamed the Rav, wouldn't he be cursed too? Why did Hashem let his curse go through if they weren't still tight?
-
Still a billion problems with each of those theories. The event that my gut says key to unraveling this thing is why he cursed Sharon. You don't go around putting level 10 curses on people that did what you said. This makes the theory that the rav was a leftist, and his Wilsonian goggles that saw everything going perfect were ripped off when he saw the effects of what he helped, and got mad. That theory has twice the problems of all my other ones, especially considering his ideology wasn't left wing, at least as far as values are concerned.
You abstain, letting Sharon win, and then you curse him for using what you gave him? The only other theory is he didn't really believe that he was going to do it, the most retarded one, because Rav. Torah genius would be smarter to think Arabs make peace than to think leftists won't make tribute.
I got nothing really, those before were just the top ideas. I have no clue why he did it, but I'm noticing a common theme with my conspiracy theories: He turned from the path to save someone's skin or investment. You don't use Torah for your purposes as a rabbi, so his purposes are likely irrelevant, even from what Rabbi Mizrachi, who's his big fan, said, he seems to have had alterior motives in making a decision for Israel.
The problem though is that if he cursed Sharon, and Hashem blamed the Rav, wouldn't he be cursed too? Why did Hashem let his curse go through if they weren't still tight?
Good questions
-
He had a different set of values, so short term funding for his yeshivas and other institutions seemed like a good deal in exchange for portions of the holy land. He was not brilliant in international relations either. He probably also never got information from good unbiased sources. He trusted people like Deri to feed him with their falsehoods. Again showing that he was no genius in reading people character.
He seemed coherent. Either they threatened to shut his yeshivas down or they had something on him or his buddies. I don't know why I'm wasting my brain on this, but I can't figure out any other logical option.
-
He seemed coherent. Either they threatened to shut his yeshivas down or they had something on him or his buddies. I don't know why I'm wasting my brain on this, but I can't figure out any other logical option.
the thirst for power aligned with stupidity suffice! same for pipi can be said and these dark people in the shadow are able to elect dumb on the right they can bent at will every time pipi has bad stuff hidden in the wardrobe that allow this fifth column within have traction on him.
-
He had a different set of values, so short term funding for his yeshivas and other institutions seemed like a good deal in exchange for portions of the holy land. He was not brilliant in international relations either. He probably also never got information from good unbiased sources. He trusted people like Deri to feed him with their falsehoods. Again showing that he was no genius in reading people character.
That's your guys' theory, but it just doesn't add up. You're trusting a leftist to honor a deal with you, that involves trusting Arabs? That says he should have his description changed from ingenious to ingenuous, and it's not an emmunah issue now, you're saying he was a gullible fool. He lived through enough for that to not make sense, and also made lots of rulings. Two I know of are "if you have to work on shabbos, still come in to daven in the morning" and "if you convert/make teshuva in Israel, you must join the Sephardic because there's more of them there". 1 is making a bracha on pork 2 is self-serving, and would mean that converts in Guatemala (or wherever they went) should join Lev Tahore, so that doesn't make sense and I'm sure he wouldn't advocate mandatory Chabad if you find yourself in crown heights. I'm 50-50 on that first one, but the second one doesn't apply to other cases, so I'm 100% against. Maybe he wasn't as smart as they say? Or just more book smart and less "street" smart.
Why curse Sharon? What did he think was going down?
-
the thirst for power aligned with stupidity suffice! same for pipi can be said and these dark people in the shadow are able to elect dumb on the right they can bent at will every time pipi has bad stuff hidden in the wardrobe that allow this fifth column within have traction on him.
I only got like 10% of that, you're saying Rav Ovadia wanted power? Interesting, maybe they promised to stick him or one of his guys in the government, and then they just screwed him. The theory with money works fine until you remember this guy sat around studying day and night and wasn't exactly living lavishly.
-
He had a different set of values, so short term funding for his yeshivas and other institutions seemed like a good deal in exchange for portions of the holy land. He was not brilliant in international relations either. He probably also never got information from good unbiased sources. He trusted people like Deri to feed him with their falsehoods. Again showing that he was no genius in reading people character.
Yes, a genius at reading books and text and memorizing it, and even a genius at talmud study, is not the same thing as a genius at understanding people and personalities or world events.
-
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189220
Explosive Tape Shows Rabbi Yosef Slamming 'Evil' Aryeh Deri
Never before seen recordings show former Shas spiritual head rejecting Deri over corruption; 'Why would I betray Eli Yishai?'
"An explosive recording has been released showing former Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef slamming current party chairman Aryeh Deri for corruption, as tensions continue to escalate between Deri and is arch-rival Eli Yishai.
Aired on Channel Two, the never-before-seen recordings are from a meeting held in 2008 between Rabbi Yosef and several members of his inner circle, including his top aid Tzvi Hakak.
In it, Rabbi Yosef refers to the possibility floated by some Shas members of Deri making a comeback following several years in the political wilderness, after being jailed for corruption in 1999. "Anyone who suggests that isn't just wrong, he's a fool... 30%-40% (of Shas supporters) will leave us," the rabbi says.
"They judged him in court - why take someone who is a thief?" the agitated Rabbi Yosef asks Hakak. "Why would you take someone who accepts bribes?"
Addressing Deri's respect for Rabbi Yosef's authority, or lack thereof, the rabbi added: "I know from past experience, Aryeh is too independent. A number of times I have spoken with him - he didn't want to listen."
At one point he even refers to Deri as a "rasha," or wicked person, when relating Deri's ouster of a family member from a particular position within Shas. "Your mother cried tears," he related.
If he wanted to run a party, suggested Rabbi Yosef, "let them make him his own party... I won't betray Eli Yishai."
The recordings come as tensions between Deri and former Shas party head Eli Yishai continue to escalate.
Yishai headed Shas following Deri's incarceration, but despite Rabbi Yosef's harsh words for Deri, four years after the recording he backed him to take over from Yishai. The two were at loggerheads ever since then, with Yishai being effectively sidelined by his arch-rival and even prevented from attending a memorial service for Rabbi Yosef.
The tensions led Yishai to break away earlier this month and form his own party, Ha'am Itanu. Polls showed that the party would split Shas's electoral strength, and left some Shas officials concerned for the party's very future.
But the drama deepened further still after a pact between Shas and Ha'am Itanu not to attack one another was left in tatters when Deri publicly slammed Yishai during a press conference. Deri loyalists have threatened violence against Yishai for breaking away from Shas, and a group of extremists even disrupted a press conference announcing Yishai's new party, which was initially called "Yachad" before being changed to Ha'am Itanu. One Shas supporter was arrested over the incident in Jerusalem's Ramada hotel.
In response, Yishai said he possessed recordings of Rabbi Yosef which clearly showed his support for him over Deri, and implied he would be releasing them at some point; the latest recordings are believed to be only the first of several.
Intriguingly, Channel Two claims that subsequent recordings will reveal just why, despite his harsh words for Deri, Rabbi Yosef eventually agreed to support him over Yishai four years after the recording."
This has to do with the crook Deri, but what's it got to do with Land for Peace? At least on the bright side this may help put the nail in the Shas coffin.
-
היום כולם יודעים את שטענתי תמיד:סבא,הרב עובדיה יוסף זצוק״ל התנגד לא רק להתנתקות אלא גם להסכמי אוסלו.
גם היום אם היינו זוכים וסבא היה בחיים, הוא ודאי היה מוביל מדיניות המתנגדת מסירת שטחים לאויב הערבי.
זו האמת ואין בילתה.
Today everyone knows that always claimed: grandfather, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef זצוק״ל opposed to disengagement but also for the Oslo accords.
Even today if we win and Grandpa was alive, he would have opposed the policy of handing over territory to the Arab enemy.
It's true and not spent.
From R' Ovadia Yosef's Grandson (Via Facebook).
-
היום כולם יודעים את שטענתי תמיד:סבא,הרב עובדיה יוסף זצוק״ל התנגד לא רק להתנתקות אלא גם להסכמי אוסלו.
גם היום אם היינו זוכים וסבא היה בחיים, הוא ודאי היה מוביל מדיניות המתנגדת מסירת שטחים לאויב הערבי.
זו האמת ואין בילתה.
Today everyone knows that always claimed: grandfather, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef זצוק״ל opposed to disengagement but also for the Oslo accords.
Even today if we win and Grandpa was alive, he would have opposed the policy of handing over territory to the Arab enemy.
It's true and not spent.
From R' Ovadia Yosef's Grandson (Via Facebook).
I think this is a rewriting of history. But at least it's a good rewriting - an improvement over the reality. If people will assume going forward that he was against Oslo, that is a win-win situation.
-
Ok, I also see R' Mizrachi put this video of R Ovadia against Deri on his page. (Hebrew). As well as R' Bar-Hayim.
-
I think this is a rewriting of history. But at least it's a good rewriting - an improvement over the reality. If people will assume going forward that he was against Oslo, that is a win-win situation.
Good thing Torah wasn't about win-win politics.
-
Good thing Torah wasn't about win-win politics.
I don't understand your comment. What are you saying?
-
I don't understand your comment. What are you saying?
What a big chilul Hashem that Hashem made by writing the mistakes we made along with the good things, he should have just put the good things and we'd be OK. I don't know what he was thinking, but I'm not going to make that mistake.
-
What a big chilul Hashem that Hashem made by writing the mistakes we made along with the good things, he should have just put the good things and we'd be OK. I don't know what he was thinking, but I'm not going to make that mistake.
WHAT? Hashem did not ever tell us to embrace the Oslo Accords. (And certainly He didn't write it). In fact, the "halachic" rationale employed by those who were in favor of it was completely illogical nonsense, which was refuted by clear-thinking rabbis. Your suggestion that because a well-known and esteemed rabbi said it means it's "from God" is a distortion of Judaism and a mistake on your part.
-
WHAT? Hashem did not ever tell us to embrace the Oslo Accords. (And certainly He didn't write it). In fact, the "halachic" rationale employed by those who were in favor of it was completely illogical nonsense, which was refuted by clear-thinking rabbis. Your suggestion that because a well-known and esteemed rabbi said it means it's "from God" is a distortion of Judaism and a mistake on your part.
One of the posts that encouraged me to leave. Clearly, I'm implying that misleading people into believing that Rav Ovadia was a saint on this issue is wrong because it's the wrong thing to do, what will happen when the truth is exposed can be dealt with, deception is bad, unless someone changed the Yom Kippur prayers.
My second post ^ is in reference to was using the logic you presented and applying it to Torah, I was talking about Hashem writing Torah, not the Oslo accords. I can test with a 14 year old to make sure these posts also pass the retard test, but as far as I can see, it's pretty easy for anyone to see I didn't didn't say Oslo was a divine directive spoken by Hashem through the lips of Rav Ovadia.
-
One of the posts that encouraged me to leave. Clearly, I'm implying that misleading people into believing that Rav Ovadia was a saint on this issue is wrong because it's the wrong thing to do, what will happen when the truth is exposed can be dealt with, deception is bad, unless someone changed the Yom Kippur prayers.
Not everyone is going to understand what you are saying. Sometimes what you write isn't clear. If it's not clear or it's misunderstood, simply say so and explain what you meant. Calling people retards for misunderstanding a cryptic comment you made is bad for this forum.
My second post ^ is in reference to was using the logic you presented and applying it to Torah, I was talking about Hashem writing Torah, not the Oslo accords.
I still have no idea what you're talking about. In this thread I asserted that Rabbi Yosef was wrong and used logical fallacy to defend his position. You are "using the logic I presented" and "applying it to Torah" ? What does that even mean? Maybe you can specify what logic in particular you refer to? And how you "apply it to Torah?" As it stands now I don't understand your comments.
I can test with a 14 year old to make sure these posts also pass the retard test, but as far as I can see, it's pretty easy for anyone to see I didn't didn't say Oslo was a divine directive spoken by Hashem through the lips of Rav Ovadia.
Again, stop with the childish insults.
When you said this: "What a big chilul Hashem that Hashem made by writing the mistakes we made along with the good things, "
I didn't know what mistakes you're talking about because this entire thread was about Rabbi Yosef's mistake in supporting Oslo. So I thought that is the "mistakes we made" you referred to. I still don't know what you mean. It's ok if I didn't understand or if I misinterpreted. You can just say so. Why not just explain it to me? Why must you attack and insult me?
-
Not everyone is going to understand what you are saying. Sometimes what you write isn't clear. If it's not clear or it's misunderstood, simply say so and explain what you meant. Calling people retards for misunderstanding a cryptic comment you made is bad for this forum.
I still have no idea what you're talking about. In this thread I asserted that Rabbi Yosef was wrong and used logical fallacy to defend his position. You are "using the logic I presented" and "applying it to Torah" ? What does that even mean? Maybe you can specify what logic in particular you refer to? And how you "apply it to Torah?" As it stands now I don't understand your comments.
Again, stop with the childish insults.
When you said this:
I didn't know what mistakes you're talking about because this entire thread was about Rabbi Yosef's mistake in supporting Oslo. So I thought that is the "mistakes we made" you referred to. I still don't know what you mean. It's ok if I didn't understand or if I misinterpreted. You can just say so. Why not just explain it to me? Why must you attack and insult me?
Retard test is an expression. It means see if anyone can figure it out.
"I think this is a rewriting of history. But at least it's a good rewriting - an improvement over the reality. If people will assume going forward that he was against Oslo, that is a win-win situation."
I'm saying there is no good rewriting of history, it wouldn't be good if Torah was like other religions and made all our kings and forefathers out to be people that never did one wrong thing.
"Again, stop with the childish insults." It's wise not to let anyone know anything about you, because people will use any information they have on you to insult what you say. I gotta remember not to tell anyone anything about me. Or maybe I shouldn't talk to people that are out to get me. If i was insulting you, it's because I don't like you, and if I don't like you, I don't talk to you.
bye now.
-
Retard test is an expression. It means see if anyone can figure it out.
"I think this is a rewriting of history. But at least it's a good rewriting - an improvement over the reality. If people will assume going forward that he was against Oslo, that is a win-win situation."
I'm saying there is no good rewriting of history, it wouldn't be good if Torah was like other religions and made all our kings and forefathers out to be people that never did one wrong thing.
Now I know what you meant because you explained it. I don't disagree.
"Again, stop with the childish insults." It's wise not to let anyone know anything about you, because people will use any information they have on you to insult what you say.
I haven't told you personal information. This is another case where I really don't understand what you are saying.
I gotta remember not to tell anyone anything about me.
You mean like when you said... Never mind.
Or maybe I shouldn't talk to people that are out to get me.
I'm not "out to get you" and the suggestion that I am is frankly absurd.
If i was insulting you, it's because I don't like you, and if I don't like you, I don't talk to you.
bye now.
This comment reflects the behavior of a child which does not add value to a discussion forum. Not only does it not add value, it diminishes the forum.
-
Now I know what you meant because you explained it. I don't disagree.
I haven't told you personal information. This is another case where I really don't understand what you are saying.
You mean like when you said... Never mind.
I'm not "out to get you" and the suggestion that I am is frankly absurd.
This comment reflects the behavior of a child which does not add value to a discussion forum. Not only does it not add value, it diminishes the forum.
Lol I knew you wouldn't figure that out and that you'd prove my point. If I told you I was 30, you'd try to hurt my feelings and discredit me based on something else, but you choose to use the word child in close to 10% of your insults because you believe it will humiliate me into submission to your pathetic attempt at intellectual bullying. You're out to get whatever you can, and you lash out when you feel intellectually threatened. I'm only going to start insulting you when you start the twisted egotistical attacks on me, and I like to keep everything simple, because insults are better when you're really insulting the person, not attacking behind a phony ego veil for self-superiority.
I occasionally do not understand what some people are talking about. I either ask them about it or I do not comment on that point. You come up with the most absurd stitched-together things and then come up with the best titles that should be henceforth added to my and my childrens' names to shame us all about the horrible thing you assumed out of openly declared ignorance that I support.
If you say "explain what you mean" I will explain what I mean. If you insult me because you're frustrated that you didn't understand or because you decided I believe Rav Ovadia would wear a birthday party hat around privately, then I will not explain what I mean, I will call you a dog.
-
Just realized too, you keep repeating that "it diminishes the forum" thing in your insult posts as a way to bring back up your insult that my age represents an intellectual handicap that governs and discredits everything I said or will say, because that way you show you've taught me the rules, and what I needed to stop my bad behavior (reflected in and also governing and discrediting everything I said or will say) was you, the wise and responsible one by virtue of you doing this, to tell me that I should think of the forum, and not be a selfish little boy who wouldn't explain you what I meant when you insulted me instead of asking what I meant.
People who are comfortable with the facts and righteousness of their cause do not use their age as justification for its accuracy and justness. I'm not here to pet your ego bub. Talk to me with a basic measure of respect or I'll talk to you like you're scum.
-
Lol I knew you wouldn't figure that out and that you'd prove my point. If I told you I was 30, you'd try to hurt my feelings and discredit me based on something else, but you choose to use the word child in close to 10% of your insults because you believe it will humiliate me into submission to your pathetic attempt at intellectual bullying.
Not true. I believe you when you say that you are 30. I would have pegged you for around 25, but I could believe 30. A 30 year old can at times act like a child. So could an 80 year old.
Again, I am not calling you a child, I am pointing to a specific behavior, ie If i was insulting you, it's because I don't like you, and if I don't like you, I don't talk to you.
which you happen to have exhibited repeatedly on the forum, where you personally insult because you feel threatened or whatever reasons you have, and I have called that behavior childish . Because it is. It simply is. If you don't like someone here, too bad. Your personal insults are not welcome nor is it mature to do so. That is not to say you are a child, or that you are not capable of better. On the contrary, I think you are capable of better which is what makes it frustrating that you choose to conduct yourself in this way, and also the forum itself deserves better and you make it look petty and tedious in those instances when you choose to behave this way - Again, not a tragic personality flaw or trait, just something you are doing from time to time, and you shouldn't.
You insult, you scream and carry on, and you write long rambling curses and conspiracy theories about how other members are out to get you, when I try to diffuse the situation or work it out with you, you react by saying "I don't like to talk to u, nana nana" - How is that adult behavior? And then when I point out how that's not productive and it's childish, you fly off the handle because I dared to say something negative toward you. I called you a child and intellectually bullied OH NO (even though that's not at all what I'm doing) (And follow up with more insults and profanity and conspiracy theory about superiority displays)
I will call you a dog.
This behavior doesn't belong here. Please get over yourself and stop feeling the need to call people dogs. If you feel that need, simply don't express it here. I am not the only one who thinks it's detrimental to the forum when you personally attack members. I'm sure the mods feel the same way.
-
Just realized too, you keep repeating that "it diminishes the forum" thing in your insult posts as a way to bring back up your insult that my age represents an intellectual handicap that governs and discredits everything I said or will say,
Um no. It's because the forum looks very embarrassing when it turns into a flame war and long rambling insulting posts with profanity. It's not the intention of what this forum is supposed to be or what it aims to achieve. That's the reason I say it diminishes the forum. Because I believe it does. It lowers the quality of the discourse here and discredits us all. No ulterior motives, no trying to accuse you of being young or being handicapped. I don't care how old you are, I never even believed you were young, I assumed we are not that far apart in age. It has nothing to do with your age. It's what I honestly believe about the forum. Why can't you just take what I say at face value and stop trying to read something sinister into it. Sinister about YOU. It's not all about you. Just a comment I believe regarding the forum.
because that way you show you've taught me the rules, and what I needed to stop my bad behavior (reflected in and also governing and discrediting everything I said or will say) was you, the wise and responsible one by virtue of you doing this, to tell me that I should think of the forum, and not be a selfish little boy who wouldn't explain you what I meant when you insulted me instead of asking what I meant.
What is all this stuff?
People who are comfortable with the facts and righteousness of their cause do not use their age as justification for its accuracy and justness. I'm not here to pet your ego bub. Talk to me with a basic measure of respect or I'll talk to you like you're scum.
You have already called me scum and said far worse to me because of your perception that I disrespect you when I didn't. Again, my age doesn't matter. I could be 12 but if what I say has value and I can express myself in a mature way with respect for other members and participants, no one should consider my age for 1 second. I don't get what all this animosity is about. Talking to other (non-troll, non-haters, etc) members "like they're scum" makes the forum look really embarrassing IMO. That is my opinion I truly believe and there is nothing additional to read into it.
I would say that same thing no matter who on this forum made the comment you just made. That seems to be part of the problem here. I react to statements people make here. That's what a forum is. A statement can have good logic behind it, faulty logic, it can be promoting immorality or morality, it can be consistent with Torah or inconsistent with Torah. Pointing out any of these things about a person's statement is not a personal attack on the person who said it. We are here to argue and discuss logic and ideas, doing so is not a personal affront - why do you take it so personally if I contradict you or critique your logic?
-
WHAT? Hashem did not ever tell us to embrace the Oslo Accords. (And certainly He didn't write it). In fact, the "halachic" rationale employed by those who were in favor of it was completely illogical nonsense, which was refuted by clear-thinking rabbis. Your suggestion that because a well-known and esteemed rabbi said it means it's "from God" is a distortion of Judaism and a mistake on your part.
Israel Chai,
Do you believe this comment was disrespect? I don't see any disrespect or personal attack in this comment at all. As it turns out I may have completely misinterpreted what you were saying, but I still don't see a problem with what I wrote aside from that mistake. Based on what I thought you meant, I said you made a mistake and drew an incorrect conclusion of Judaism with the suggestion you made. (Turns out you didn't mean what I thought you meant, and you weren't suggesting what I thought you were. So then there was no point to my reply obviously. That's irrelevant here). Let's pretend right now you did suggest it: Why is saying that your suggestion is a mistake or an incorrect conclusion considered by you a personal attack or affront? It's not.
-
Not true. I believe you when you say that you are 30. I would have pegged you for around 25, but I could believe 30. A 30 year old can at times act like a child. So could an 80 year old.
Again, I am not calling you a child, I am pointing to a specific behavior, ie which you happen to have exhibited repeatedly on the forum, where you personally insult because you feel threatened or whatever reasons you have, and I have called that behavior childish . Because it is. It simply is. If you don't like someone here, too bad. Your personal insults are not welcome nor is it mature to do so. That is not to say you are a child, or that you are not capable of better. On the contrary, I think you are capable of better which is what makes it frustrating that you choose to conduct yourself in this way, and also the forum itself deserves better and you make it look petty and tedious in those instances when you choose to behave this way - Again, not a tragic personality flaw or trait, just something you are doing from time to time, and you shouldn't.
You insult, you scream and carry on, and you write long rambling curses and conspiracy theories about how other members are out to get you, when I try to diffuse the situation or work it out with you, you react by saying "I don't like to talk to u, nana nana" - How is that adult behavior? And then when I point out how that's not productive and it's childish, you fly off the handle because I dared to say something negative toward you. I called you a child and intellectually bullied OH NO (even though that's not at all what I'm doing) (And follow up with more insults and profanity and conspiracy theory about superiority displays)
This behavior doesn't belong here. Please get over yourself and stop feeling the need to call people dogs. If you feel that need, simply don't express it here. I am not the only one who thinks it's detrimental to the forum when you personally attack members. I'm sure the mods feel the same way.
I didn't say I was 30. And I only insulted in response to insults, but I don't make phony general insults like the behavior behind the way you expressed certain things means you as a person behave like an untrained child, I'll just call you a snarling wolf-boy, because when people insult me, it shows they deserve insults.
There's an interlude in what you wrote there that sounds like a daddy's speech to a boy before his first day of school, and then you end your condescending display of moral and intellectual superiority, while declaring your trumpeted loyalty to the forum and my personal behavioral growth in such a way as to make the most pompous British royal groan, and then follow it up with a not-so-subtle hint that I should no longer be allowed to post things on the forum or should decide not to myself, because it would be better off without me.
You aren't into really disgusting liberal ideologies, and don't use their level of logical fallacy, so these posts don't need to be three pages for a 1 minute statement to work out all the evil little twists going on behind what they want. Those types of people, I don't like, and if I do talk to them, I'll waste my day, so I stop. There are other reasons for which I will not like someone and decide that talking to them is strongly not to my benefit. "I don't like to talk to u, nana nana" - How is that adult behavior?" That is not adult behavior. That answer is set up to show that you won the argument you declared these posts now focus on, B.I.R.T. I behave like a child, because there is a correlation between not talking to people you don't like and kids not talking to their parents when they're upset, with causation obviously implied.
"And then when I point out how that's not productive and it's childish, you fly off the handle because I dared to say something negative toward you." Well I guess there is the possibility you're really slow, and you think you need to tell me watch my not behaving as you see fit based on your insults based on your missassumptions of what I say again and again, and what's necessary for me to now behave as you like is to internalize the idea of what is best for the forum, that you can and have taught me with your condescending, self-superior and repetitious "advice".
Intellectual bullying is when someone tries to say he knows better than someone else inherently, and therefore they should accept all insults as given and move on with them. You use that with a straw man accusation of me using a straw man " I called you a child and intellectually bullied OH NO" since I never said that. There were other insults, but you fight from that one because you can twist "don't insult based on assumption" into "he's hurting my feelings". You should be a lawyer for black rapists, or a gossip columnist.
Also, a conspiracy, by definition, involves more than two people, you're trying to say you don't believe that the accusation of you acting self-superior by continutally repeating "the rules" and "let me tell you what is best for the forum" are true, and I am saying this because I am a crazy person who imagines things in his mind. Of course you could say why you felt that was the best course of action, but now you get to look like the cool guy and insult me again in the same go.
I don't feel the need to call you a dog for myself, I feel the need because the only way to knock a 30 foot imaginary crown off someone's head is to smack it, and I'd like to discuss politics without your malicious personal attacks every time what I say flusters you. You keep repeating for me to leave though, was that something you did alot in the past to others too, or did that develop since I've been around?
You're a coward dog. If you have a problem with me, don't make half-insults while saying you don't understand, but you'll insult me for good measure. Go all in or all out, don't chase me with your tail between your legs.