There is a saying in chazal, “hane-elovim ve-einon olvim”, so I restrict my answer to mariner by just pointing out the reason why I though his comments were “appalling”‘
You wrote (amongst a lot of other stuff)”almost all major mekomei torah in europe were LITVISH…mir,ponevtich…etc” I hate to break it to you, but Jews did some learning in Warsaw, Cracow,Pressburg,Sanz,Liadi,etc..too.
You seem to confuse the yeshivos with mekomos hatorah. And-may I point out that the majority of poskim in Europe were not of litvishe origin.(check it out out). It is not right to demean people that you never met.
Additonally, you question virtually every minhag that the chassidim have (upsherin, not sitting in the sukkah on shmini atzeret..etc…)ALL of these minhagim have a solid basis in halacha. Incidentally,not putting tefilin on chol hamoed has the better of the argument.
I had a long exchange with Think Big over some of the words that I have used in the past and I admitted to be in the wrong. I was determined not to “bad-mouth’ anyone and I think it owuld be advisable for everyone to do this and debate the issues on its merit.
BY THE WAY, Rav Hutner zz’l was NOT of chassidsiche origin. He was of Ashkenaz origin,although not necessarily Litvish. (I heard this from his own mouth) and the only reason why he was somewhat close to chassidus was because he grew up in Warsaw, not exactly a litvishe place. Also, you claim “his learning was litvish”. “bemechilas kevod toroscho”, his learning was eons away from litvish learning. Whether in his “ma-amorim”,which definitely were not litvish, or even his pilpulim and his sefer on Nozir, his learning was a far cry from litvish.
Anyway- I suscribe to the Torah of a blue-blood yekke, who learned in the litvishe citadel of Lakewood and turned to chassidus. His Torah was one of unlimited ahavas ysroel. I mean, of course, R’shlomo Carlebach zz’l.Kein jirbu komohu beyisroel.