Forum Replies Created
Isnt there a concept of playing “hard to get” or “high maintenence” that really works on some guys?
That kind of boorishness works of fellow boors.
If your husband doesn’t want you to wear makeup, you shouldn’t.
How can this even be a question?? In “B” she is being boorish and self-centered. Any guy with even half a brain would dump her before she got home.
Friends don’t let friends sneeze while driving.
and her husband was the cosmopolitan gentleman Sir Howard Kichelmacher.May 3, 2011 7:53 pm at 7:53 pm in reply to: Getting Married & Trying To Decide To Have TV Or Not #764309
oomis, you are very mistaken. A child who is properly taught that TV is poison, will generally not go to friends to watch. There may be exceptions. A child who has a TV is his house, will have no compunctions watching when at a friend.
Additionally, please reread both “m in Israel” and “kapusta”‘s very good points on this issue above.
aMay 3, 2011 3:01 am at 3:01 am in reply to: Getting Married & Trying To Decide To Have TV Or Not #764286
AWOB: Reread my comment.May 3, 2011 2:47 am at 2:47 am in reply to: Getting Married & Trying To Decide To Have TV Or Not #764282
I don’t think a child without a TV in his home is more likely to watch TV at a friend, than a child who does have a TV in his home. In fact, I believe the opposite.
In the beginning God created the Bit and the Byte. And from those he created the Word.
And there were two Bytes in the Word; and nothing else existed. And God separated the One from the Zero; and he saw it was good.
And God said – Let the Data be; And so it happened. And God said – Let the Data go to their proper places. And he created floppy disks and hard disks and compact disks.
And God said – Let the computers be, so there would be a place to put floppy disks and hard disks and compact disks. Thus God created computers and called them hardware.
And there was no Software yet. But God created programs; small and big… And told them – Go and multiply yourselves and fill all the Memory.
And God said – I will create the Programmer; And the Programmer will make new programs and govern over the computers and programs and Data.
And God created the Programmer; and put him at Data Center; And God showed the Programmer the Catalog tree and said You can use all the volumes and subvolumes but DO NOT USE Windows.
And God said – It is not Good for the programmer to be alone. He took a bone from the Programmer’s body and created a creature that would look up at the Programmer; and admire the Programmer; and love the things the Programmer does; And God called the creature: the User.
And the Programmer and the User were left under the naked DOS and it was Good.
But Bill was smarter than all the other creatures of God. And Bill said to the User – Did God really tell you not to run any programs?
And the User answered – God told us that we can use every program and every piece of Data but told us not to run Windows or we will die.
And Bill said to the User – How can you talk about something you did not even try. The moment you run Windows you will become equal to God. You will be able to create anything you like by a simple click of your mouse.
And the User saw that the fruits of the Windows were nicer and easier to use. And the User saw that any knowledge was useless – since Windows could replace it.
So the User installed the Windows on his computer; and said to the Programmer that it was good.
And the Programmer immediately started to look for new drivers. And God asked him – What are you looking for? And the Programmer answered – I am looking for new drivers because I can not find them in the DOS. And God said – Who told you need drivers? Did you run Windows? And the Programmer said – It was Bill who told us to !
And God said to Bill – Because of what you did you will be hated by all the creatures. And the User will always be unhappy with you. And you will always sell Windows.
And God said to the User – Because of what you did, the Windows will disappoint you and eat up all your Resources; and you will have to use lousy programs; and you will always rely on the Programmers help.
And God said to the Programmer – Because you listened to the User you will never be happy. All your programs will have errors and you will have to fix them and fix them to the end of time.
And God threw them out of the Data Center and locked the door and secured it with a password.
GENERAL PROTECTION FAULT
Are you still friends with him adorable?
Isn’t there a printed guide in English for these halachas?May 2, 2011 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm in reply to: What noticeable differences have you felt while living in diff neighborhoods? #763310
Charlie: Are you saying that the Chasidisha Rebbes will eat in the homes of the women who learn Talmud?
tobg: Unheard of? It is quite common in the frum community!
We always do things differently than the goyim. In fact, throughout history sometimes when the goyim adopt something we have been doing the rabbonim have us stop doing what we used to do so as not to do the same as the goyim.
I noticed how he kept saying *I*, taking credit for everything and stressing himself umpteen times.
aries: I completely agree with you. (Though I do not think it is widespread at all in frum circles.)
It is a shame that it is considered taboo for girls and guys to talk directly to each other without an appointed intermediary these days in the frum community. This is a reform cultural invention that did not exist hundreds of years ago.
This is incorrect. Hundreds of years ago our zeidas and bubbes did not stam shmooze with opposite genders. This is a complete falsity.
most yeshiva bochurim show up on a date and just stutter and stammer their way through making for a lot of uncomfortable moments.
Even if that is true, there is nothing wrong with that. These bochorim get married and get along just fine with their spouse, certainly no less (and actually better) than people who hang around girls before marriage.
This is mentioned in the Treason Act 1351 Wikipedia article, as well as in a 1994 New York Times story, amongst other places.
Anne Boelyn and Kathryn Howard were convicted, and executed, under the Treason Act 1351.
anon for this: If it is consensual, the Treason Act holds the Prince’s wife equally liable.
Actually Charles and Camilla would also be liable for misa under Torah Law, as they sinned while Camilla was married at the time to someone else. The point again being the status of the woman (i.e. eishes ish) determines the sin for both parties.
Although Charles infidelity was not a capital offense under English Law (for either parties.) Diana’s was.
And to add to popa_bar_abba, the fact is in the discussed case here under both Torah Law, and in English Law, both she (Diana) and he (James Hewitt) receive the same capital punishment.
Now I understand better “shelo asani isha”
James Hewitt, Diana’s “friend”, was equally liable for the death penalty.
Here is the official language of the legislation:
It is the Treason Act 1351 that makes it a capital crime; and that was on the books and the prescribed penalty at the time of Diana’s indiscretion. The Treason Act 1695 limits prosecution of 1351 to within 3 years of committal.
I’m not sure if the penalty is automatically death, or if the judge could have sentenced Diana to a lesser penalty (i.e. life imprisonment), but why do you assume she would not have been prosecuted had Diana’s crime been discovered within the statue of limitations? Suggestions were made that the one she sinned with, James Hewitt, ought to be so prosecuted. But it was pointed out that it was already past the 3 years SoL. (Diana was dead by then.)
I ate it.
aries: There is simply no excusing Diana’s unfaithfulness. Such activity is never justifiable. She should have been executed for her crimes, as per the law. She lucked out that the 3 year statue of limitations, per the Treason Act 1695, expired before her infidelity was discovered. In any event, G-d gave her was justice failed to.
however they say it. but they will say it at the chuppah so as not to embarass the kallah
They will say it even at a woman’s second marriage when it is obvious to all she is not one?
Then you may have a case of a mekach ta’us and a rav should be consulted. If the husband has no post facto complaints there is no reason the marriage cannot continue* and there is a high degree of probability that the kesubah would still be valid anyway.
If it is a mekach ta’us the marriage itself is invalid, so how can you say there is a possibility the kesuba would be valid?
Rav Moshe’s tefach was a b’dieved, i.e. if it happened inadvertently. Not c”v for an eishes ish to b’davka display a tefach.
The British Royals have quite a sordid marital history. Heck, the entire reason the Church of England was created, and Britain abandoned Catholicism, was so that one man (King Henry) could divorce his wife for the girl-of-the-moment (who didn’t last herself too long before he beheaded her and went on to another 4 wives.)
BTW Kate originally caught William’s attention in college by prancing down a runway in a very promiscuous outfit.
Diana was not a commoner prior to her marriage. And she was philandering subsequent to her marriage. Nothing he did can excuse her unfaithfulness. Her actions, under the law, were a capital offense under the Treason Act 1351 and she was legally subject to be executed for treason.
What if she never informed him of her status, and he only found out after?
You need to wash hamotzi for Melave Malke.
BTW, what search syntax did you use in your attempts to google this information?
Even if you find it exists, can we pasken from a random outlying Rishon?
And what if the Rishon spoken of is non-existent. How is that point determined?
As do I.
MDG: Specifically, how does one “dress too yeshivish”?April 29, 2011 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762718
The British Monarchy is of German descent.
mexipal: How is that related to the discussion at hand?April 29, 2011 7:13 pm at 7:13 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762714
ZD: Where does your information that his abdication was anything other than voluntary come from?
how do you know that they always dressed differently?
Lo shinu es malbusham.
Perhaps you can live with your father.
Yeshivish is outwardly appearing as someone who does Tzaddik stuff.
Yeshivish is outwardly appearing as Jewish, as Jews have always dressed differently than others.April 29, 2011 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762700
Henry VIII? Wasn’t he the guy who had 2 of his Queens’ beheaded for adultery?April 29, 2011 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm in reply to: Doing Something L'Ilyui Nishmas A [Purposeful] Suicide #764754
HaLeiVi: Recollection. Do you believe otherwise?April 29, 2011 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762698
A Woman: That is neither an excuse nor mitigates her crime. Under the laws of England at the time, she committed a capital offense (as she was the consort of the Crown Prince of England) and was liable to be hung. (Incidentally, what she did would be chayiv misa under our laws too.)
Additionally, Charles was no worse a spouse when he got married than William is today. If I recall some stories of William of the last number of years, he may have an even more iniquitous reputation than his father had at the time of his marriage.