Emunas: “It’s really amusing being lectured on Tanya from someone who says they barely learn Chassidus.”
Is that really your best answer to someone who quotes Tanya to argue with what you say?! If he’s wrong in his understanding in Tanya, show him how and why. But to say that you know more than him therefore you’re right is an escape and pure gaavah. Seems to me that’s the same manner Lubavichers decided that their rebbe is a navi, nassi and the Mashiach. “We just know more than you, so there’s no point in you arguing!”
“There are significant discrepancies between the siddur and the SA harav. Ending time for shabbos and fifth bracha of shema in maariv”
Therefore? Oh, I get it. Because at times the Baal Hatanya changed his mind later in life, that means that we can discount anything he wrote in Hilchos Talmud Torah if we decide that it’s ‘good’ to do otherwise. Did I get that right?
Makes sense. It’s the same thing you do when it comes to maamarei Chazal and the words of Rishonim that don’t quite suit what you want to believe, e.g. when it comes to the criteria of Mashiach.