CS I have to admit that you are starting to make me angry!
Here is what you wrote in your first post on renewing this thread on November 1 (page 3 – cut and paste):
“regarding demanding from Hashem, I brought proof from the positive response to the demand of lama nigara.
Some have responded its not a demand.
So to respond to that, yes it is. I mean just translate it.”
I replied the same day (page 3):
“CS since when is Lama Nigara a demand or even a request? It is a question, insinuating a request but only [the word “only” was an obvious typo and should have read “not”] a demand.”
I have since shown that not only is it not a demand but it wasn’t even addressed to Hashem. And now we get this from CS:
“RSo: In short, I wrote demand/ strong request, because, as I recall, you had a problem with any kind of strong language. You chose to emphasize demand over request. To me it is a matter of semantics. But i would need to look up the start of your question which is somewhere on page three, to be able to properly post your original problem, and thus show these sources adress that. No time though right now”
1. You wrote demand.
2. You did not write at that time “strong request” or any similar expression.
3. I chose to reply to what you wrote, not to what you changed it to at a later date after I had replied.
4. It’s only semantics if the two mean the same thing. You wrote “demand” I said it wasn’t a demand. That’s not semantics. Look it up.
5. My “original problem” as you so nicely put it is that you got it wrong and you won’t admit it.
Which leads nicely to the following post of yours:
“With regards to showing I can be wrong, I have np with that if I believe that to be the case.”
As with much of what’s wrong in Lubavich, האמת נעדרת.