Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m almost 6′ 11”, so I probably win.
GAW,
Feivel’s mashul is clearly in praise of those who are mehudar mitzvos. This is rather clear.
There is no reason any of the letzonus that followed should have seen the light of day.
brooklyn19, I know how to make it the way I like it…
brooklyn19, my crash course has crashed.
GAW:
My comment was directed at Feif’s last sentence (beginning with ”Besides…”).
GAW:
My comment was directed at Feif’s last sentence (beginning with ”Besides…”).
Feif,
Your preceding comment states that ”YU types” are not mehudar on mitzvos. (As all the original post praised, being mehudar the mitzvos.)
How about a wallet or keychain? Or a Sefer or book?
rob,
You’ve bashed (what you call) ‘litvaks.’ Why, just the other day you called the CHOFETZ CHAIM a ‘killjoy litvak’.
charlie, der shpraich geshriben du (daven, yeshua, refuah) is nisht poshut farr ah nochri tzu farshtein.
Thank You Dovid Yehuda.
You said it most elequently, better than I could! (Both comments.)
ROB:
Please feel free to quote TANACH to counter what I QUOTED verbatim, and support your position. Your last comment is mere insinuation.
Elucidate please.
That phrase (love the sinner…) has nothing to do with Judaism. The following do:
Tanach, Sefer Y’sha’ya:
1:28
But the destruction of the transgressors and the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed.
13:9
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel, and full of wrath and fierce anger; to make the earth a desolation, and to destroy the sinners out of it.
33:14
The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling hath seized the ungodly: ”Who among us shall dwel with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?”
65:20
There sall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man, that hath not filled his days; for the youngest shall die a hundred years old, and the siner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.
noitallmr –
I second your comment. (dd has misunderstood more than just your last comment.)
Thank You Feivel.
ICOT –
Geat words! The one I had in mind was fluoridation.
Esther – Thats good. But there is a 12 letter word…
firefox.com
Thank You Feivel.
One can never drink enough of Rav Miller’s holy words.
“Duo” is the shortest word with “uo” in it. What is the longest word you can find with “uo” in it?
There is at least one with 12 letters in it.
Esther and everyone – feel free to be the questioner! (and not just the questionee)
asdfghjkl,
Were you a student there?
Feivel,
Everyone would like to hear Rav Miller’s divrei kedusha. Be bold and please share.
Thank You Feivel (again.)
Thank You Feivel.
Beautiful analogy, as always.
This has been discussed ad nausea; their must be at least 5 other threads on this subject.
This is a great exaggeration to put it mildly. See the other threads.
Perhaps ”Dr. Pepper” knows a thing or two about this.
Dr. Pepper, Mazal Tov, Mazal Tov, Mazal Tov!
000, Putting aside whether rob is right ot not, this is a perfect example of your sorry approach to halacha. YOU cannot cherry-pick what YOU like best and THEN go and try to find a mekor afterwards to support what YOU want.
how about virtual dreidel?
congrats on your first (approved) thread.
whos going to approve messages if the mods are gone?
ICOT,
Correct and correct!
Bookkeepper (and its variants) is the only such English word. So how long did it take you to go through your mental edition of the Oxford English Dictionary? 🙂
what makes you so sure I’m not one?
When the mods start saying Tikun Chatzos.
brooklyn19 – theres a dif betw. sometimes and always, like Mr. Night Owl! ! ! !
okay, so its close to 3 AM, Mr. Night Owl 🙂
asdfghjkl, isn’t is like 4 AM in Ireland?
Can’t argue with that 🙂
indeed
Neither. Both are smartcookies.
Now that we have some threads working their way to 500 posts and being over 10 pages long to scroll through, its time to have at least 100 posts per thread.
lol
brooklyn19, correct!
intellegent – correct!
ICOT, re: The Pledge, correct.
Which of the following is the correct statement?
(a) “One small leap for man, one giant step for mankind.”
(b) “One giant leap for man, one small step for mankind.”
(c) “One small step for mankind, one giant leap for man.”
(d) “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
73, Aren’t you the guy who shteiged in Mir?
I don’t know if I explained “that” too well. So here is the best definition I can find about “that”:
Some claim “that” can only be used four times in a row correctly.
Here are some of the definitions of the word “that” in the dictionary:
(As a pronoun)
1. The one designated or implied. “What kind of soup is that?”
2. Used as the subject or object of a relative clause, esp. one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which: the horse that he bought.
(As a conjunction)
3. Used to introduce a subordinate clause. “I doubt that you are right.”
In addition to these definitions it is possible to use any word as a noun when referring to the word itself in quotation marks: The third “that” is used in this way, as it is in this sentence as well. So to analyze the sentence now:
I said that(1),”that(2) ‘that'(3) that(4) that(5) man wrote should have been underlined.”
(1)The first “that” is used according to the second definition, as a conjunction. It introduces the quote. Strictly speaking it isn’t necessary, but in English it is allowed. For example, either of the following two sentences are correct:
1. I said, “I don’t want to do any more riddles.”
2. I said that, “I don’t want to do any more riddles.”
(2) The second “that” follows the first pronoun definition: “The one designated or implied.”
(3) The one it designates is the third “that,” which has quotation marks since it references itself (it is used as a noun). This is easier to understand if you imagine another word, like “letter” in its place: I said that, “That letter that…” – except that it was not a letter written, but the word “that.”
(4) The fourth “that” is used according to the second definition. This is easier to understand if you replace it with “which”: I said that “that ‘that’ which that man wrote…”
(5) The fifth “that” refers to the man, again using the first definition: “The one designated or implied.”
Clearer? Perhaps not. However, does the following sentence make sense?
I said that, “that word which that man wrote should have been underlined.”
Now just replace “which” with “that,” and it still makes sense, right?
I said that, “that word that that man wrote should have been underlined.”
And finally, replace “word” with “that,” and it is clear that the speaker is referring to a specific incidence of the word “that,” in whatever the man wrote, and that the speaker thinks (for some reason) that the word should be underlined.
I said that, “that ‘that’ that that man wrote should have been underlined.”
And that is all that I have to say about that riddle and that “that” or any other “that” that comes along. Which “that?” Never mind that.
ICOT, Monroe died in 1831.
tzippi, (“Re notpashut. I’m trying to figure out who it was that you deem obligatory to speak lashon hara of.”)
SJS: if someone found out something like my friend eating out, the woman would be ostracized and a boat load of lashon hara would be circulating about her.
notpashut: It just so happens that the Chofetz Chaim (Klal 4)says that one SHOULD speak Lashon Hara about the type of person you describe.