PopabarAbba: I did not pursue the pedantic discussion whether opposition to Slifkin was political or not, because ,indeed , it was pedantic and not substantial. I said clearly that Slifkin’s attackers believe in what they say but that it has a political purpose too. As I wrote, if you can discredit any non-talmudic and non-traditional sources, then all that leaves you is a life of kollel, which is blatantly political as it pertains to jobs, positions,etc.
I don’t think you know what political means…
And you’re the one who started the discussion, so it rings a little hollow that you recuse yourself from it when challenged, by calling it “pedantic”.
Also, I don’t think you know what pedantic means…