Forum Replies Created
I agree with yekke2. People on the CR appear to be more wary of offence/intrusion than there is actually taking place. Any truly personal queries are skilfully removed by the constantly vigilant Moderators. Although perhaps Y2 is not being sensitive enough to the sensibilities of those who may be more diametrically challenged than himself, although this is pure conjecture.
Anyway, to answer the original question and keep this thread from plunging into the realms of groundless assumptions and backbiting, I’m not saying Pesach hasn’t been kind to my weight, but suffice it to say my dimensions have been sufficiently altered as to require immediate intervention. Or, in laymans terms, Matzoh+Sleep+Post-Pesach-Chometz=Unwanted-Weight-Gain.
To all the people who have reacted to this question by posting various words such as ‘Unsummable’ – DikDukDuck, ‘Polyfaceted’ – Oomis, ‘Different’ – Profound101, you all appear to have attempted to take the shortcut to profundity. Simply stating in a vague, quasi-esoteric fashion that one defies description does not ipso-facto make one profound, nor does stating what one is not describe what one is. Not that I mind, simply that if you disagree with the premise behind the question, then state you disagree, don’t allude to fallacy of the central aim of the OP with a nondescript, straight-out-of-the-textbook-on-self, non-word.
Whilst I agree with you that this thread should not concern itself with individual’s actions in the way Yekke2 did, he was justified in doing so, seeing as the individual he was responding to had bought their own actions into the frame on their own volition. They had bought up their own case as being an example of perfectly justifiable behaviour, and when it was pointed out that they had refused to properly defend their actions, the same actions they believed were perfectly fine, it is only fair that YK2 could point out this discrepancy in the manner that he did, observing that they have thus far avoided any and all pertinent points short of denying daas Torah.
In that case, pity me. My screen name is as close a description as I am willing to give, and that is one, solitary word.
I must hold some kind of record: I failed to understand that a particular reference point was verboten. I therefore managed to get around two dozen posts in total deleted, including a couple that weren’t even my own by drawing unnecessary attention to them. I also tried to open five or six threads on the subject, two of which were active for a short time before they too were deemed problematic. A fair amount of my deleted posts were nothing more than Happy Faces directed at other posts. So I think, for now, I can claim to have had the most Moderations of any poster in the past few days. Unless anybody can challenge this?
In the future, if you do not want part of what you write to be posted, please use a separate post. It is far easier to delete than to edit. Thank you.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
As a regular summer camper, hitchhikes in random areas are not a new thing for me. My experiences have been exclusively positive, but then again there but for the grace of G-d…
A story that did not occur to me, but I heard first hand, occurred to a fellow camper several years ago. He was about 15 or 16, on a hike and got separated from his group. He was not lost, simply with a different group, just to be clear. He was wearing a hooded top, as it was raining. He looked for a hitch, a car stopped and, after informing the Madrich by phone that he was going to join his own group farther down the road, he left. A minute into the drive, which was to a spot a few minutes drive away, he took of his hood. The guy, who until that point had seemed very friendly, glanced at his cappel and said, in a sharp voice, “Are you Jewish?”
The bochur answered affirmatively. The man swung the road onto the side of the road, in the middle of the nowhere, and brusquely ordered him out of the car. Not the scariest story ever, perhaps, but certainly worrying. As for me, literally just the other day I was coming back from a day out with my friends, and I was unable to get on the bus home. So, since I was about a forty minute run from my home, I started running along the side of the motorway. Traffic was sluggish at one point, so I decided to race the cars on foot. There was one particular car that I kept overtaking. I noticed the guy staring out the driver’s window, and I flashed him a big smile and kept running. A minute down the road, he caught up, pulled over and gave me a lift. He was a very friendly black man with a large cross on the dashboard, although I didn’t notice that until I got into the car. He turned out to be funny, interesting and took me virtually all the way home. He wasn’t Jewish but was very interested in Jews, and whilst I expected some proselyting none was forthcoming. He was genuine and I enjoyed his company. My cheshbon was that firstly, it made sense that he would pull over out of kindness, considering the way he first saw me, and secondly, I was bigger than him, and if anything, he should have been scared of me. but those points were, in retrospect, not valid, and I should have exercised more caution. Generally, people should not take hitches unless they’re with people they know and trust.
But even from a goyishe point of view, ‘morally’ <ask PAA if that has any merit to exist>, I hold that punishment purely for the sake of revenge is almost* pointless. There is no reason to punish somebody for past deeds. What have you to gain? What has he to gain? The concept of vengeance, the way I see it from a purely moral standpoint, is baseless.
I accept your point that you were talking from a Jewish standpoint. But you seem to pin the entire concept of punishment from a ‘goyishe’ position as vengeance. I would say that, in the absence, choliloh, of a Jewish standpoint, there is still a requirement for the abuser to receive punishment. This does not have to be solely motivated by vengeance, but by a society saying that this crime deserves this punishment, and that this abuser deserves, and therefore is, punished. The fact that there may be an extra ulterior motive of revenge is irrelevant, as that is not the driving force. I hope I haven’t posted prematurely, having not had the chance to observe the rest of the thread yet.
Here is my rather belated reply: In your megillos above, you had two points. one was from a halchic standpoint, and, as far as I can see, as accurate a summation of the way halacha dictates we look at this as I have seen thus far.
But where I believe you slip up, if you’ll pardon me for saying this, is when you approach this from a purely moral standpoint. I may have read you wrong, and as you will probably understand I am not writing this with hours to spare, but you seemed to say that morally, he should not be punished. Now, were you saying this with reference to the fact that hakol beyad hashem, I would understand you. But you seem to saying that even leaving halacha out of it, it would be wrong to punish them. And on that I disagree. Whilst you make valid points about the impact on the abuser’s family, the reason we do not punish is because we know Hashem will. But from a ‘goyish’ point off view, were there no certain punishment in store, as we know there is, then certainly the abuser deserves to be punished.
Thank you very much for brightening up my day just that little bit more.
Your halachic arguments are, as far as I can tell, unimpeachable. There may be a few niggling points to add/detract, but by and large you have summed it up admirably.
On the moral issue I must take umbrage. From a purely moral standpoint, the abuser deserves to be punished (if we are certain they committed said abuse, of course). We simply believe that in today’s world we have neither the power to punish the abusers ourselves nor the right to give them over to the authorities. The reason we do not is because it is ossur and hakol beyad Hashem. Not because it would in some way impact their family. This argument would be fairer if the abuse in question was only a suspicion.
And once again I’ll reiterate my point, for the benefit of the erstwhile ZD and others, who appear to either not bother or are unable to read what they are responding to:
a hypothetical case. This is not every case, not even emblematic of many cases, but simply a single hypothetical what-if: A case where we are as certain as can be that the individual has committed abuse. That it not in question. They have, since the abuse occurred, become severely incapacitated, to the extent that there is no chance of them committing the abuse again. Unless you’re all suffering from an imagination bypass, you will understand this is possible. Rare, but possible. The only thing to be achieved here is revenge/closure, call it what you will. Halacha dictates this is simple: We may not report it to the authorities. If it makes it simpler, which it would seem is necessary, there is no mandatory reporting in this case. Can anybody honestly say, within the given parameters, that there is any justification for reporting in this instance. Yes or No? And if Yes, why?
The OP did also ask what should happen if the verified abuser is definitely not going to re-offend. The example given was if the abuser was incapacitated. So I would think this is obvious; In a situation where there is no question of them re-offending (Rare though they may be, but not impossible), it is certainly ossur. I can think of no exception. Of course, this is in a case where mandated reporting is not in effect. In a case where it is, I honestly don’t know. But I doubt anybody can argue with the above case and the conclusion.
Firstly, congratulations on a well placed reference. And secondly, thank you for making a reference I was able to find this time.
I know that there is a point to asking a clear Yes/No question, and that the failure to answer the, by my count, about ten direct questions, and the numerous times they have been referenced, present a failure on their part to hold up their side of the argument, technically admitting defeat. Changing the subject is an admission that one cannot stay topical and still defend their argument. I understand this, which is why I started asking such questions, simplistic though they may be. What I was wondering above is why I bother, seeing as they still act as they have some legitimacy in this debate despite not being deserving of it. Technically after the first question wasn’t answered I should have rested my case.
I did see that generalisation. ZD was making the point that he requires unfettered access, and that this applies to most people. My response was two-pronged. Firstly, I don’t believe him in that the options you suggested (Adblocker, whitelist, blacklist) would cause him significant monetary loss, and secondly, that even if he were in this magically unique position were the entire internet from YouTube to CNN to heaven-knows-what is absolutely necessary lest he lose precious money, the fact is that most people aren’t. That is a fact. A worker in a desk job, most industries, and therefore most working people, even if they require certain aspects, do not require everything. Not that I believe he is in that special position, as I said. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
And before ZD interjects with the numerous ways he does require the Internet, without let nor hindrance, even in the unlikely event that YouTube, to pick one example, is absolutely needed for technical questions, and there is absolutely no other way to receive this vital information, why can this not be done on a non-portable device in a public setting? The same applies to all these other ‘vital’ onlne services. Speaking to ZD directly, are you honestly saying that the entire internet must be completely open all the time? Yes or No? And whilst I’m at it, do you believe there are dangers online that people must be wary of even if they believe they can withstand them through willpower alone. Yes or No?
(Frankly, I don’t know why I bother leaving off with a Yes/No question. I, and others, have tried this before and not received an answer, despite it being about as clear as humanely possible. Ah well, maybe I’ll get lucky…)
It’s a pity I missed the last few hours, it looks like a lot was said. Reading through it, I basically agree with whatever yekke2 said. Although I do just have one query for zahavasdad. You appear to have once again changed tack and , no longer insinuating there’s nothing wrong with the internet, you claim that you not only need constant access that a regular pc wouldn’t provide, but that this access must be truly unfettered. No time restrictions, no whitelist, no blacklist, nothing. And you claim this is crucial to your business. Now, I’m not going to comment on what matters to you mote, your soul or some sales. I’m simply not going to believe you. There is no situation in the world where even the meanest protections are a hinderance. And besides, your supposedly unique position aside, most people can managa without the constant, unfettered access you require. So for most normal people, this is an issue, and a serious one that can be addressed by confronting the problem and educating people.
Hoisted on my own petard. But incidentally, I don’t recall ever mentioning grammar, at least not on this thread. But you’re right, I do value grammar, and attempt to conform to it best as I can. Unfortunately, I am far from perfect in this respect. So kudos to you for spotting it. But there is a world of difference between the occasional mistype, and certain posts that verge on unintelligible. And by the way, I am getting slightly confused as to the nature of the discussion on this particular thread. Firstly, others and I presented reasoned arguments against smart technology. This was responded to in a fashion that ignored almost all the main issues. Since reasoned debate appeared to be failing, I for one resorted to direct questions in the hope of eliciting a coherent reply that actually made sense, as, I assume, did you. You asked if the poster you were talking to had ever inadvertently seen anything online they would consider below their standards. As for me, I asked bluntly whether the other poster agreed there was an issue with unfettered internet use. I also wished to know why the presence of a separate issue in any way diminishes the first one. I am simply curious as to why none of these have received coherent responses that do not include needless extrapolation and that actually address the issue. Do you know?
Firstly, you still haven’t answered the direct question I posed above regarding whether one should own a smartphone. And all you have offered is pure, unadulterated pointless extrapolation. Yes, people are abused, yes, it’s wrong, yes, we could probably do more to combat it. And therefore?
Unfettered Internet is an issue by itself. We could argue about whether it is a bigger issue than the one you’ve mentioned till the cows come home. You’d be wrong, but I can’t see that fazing you, it hasn’t so far. But it is still and issue, and one that must be dealt with. You yourself have pointed out that Internet use is widespread. To any person possessing logical thought, this means not that we should roll over and ignore the problem as it mutates and continues to ruin people, but that we should do even more to combat it. And for once, actually explain why you believe the Internet is not an issue we must address, and not just bring up other issues you feel are worse, both because they’re not and because there being other issues doesn’t sort out this one. And we can sort out this one.
Sorry, I was scanning quickly and must have included your name by mistake. I agree with you about the grammar, if for nothing else that it made some of the opposing answers even less intelligible.
And now, having explained what I meant by gezeira, for my main riposte. Quite simply, you have not dealt with any of the serious issues. You have pointed out, correctly, that the internet is a useful delivery system of Torah (although I won’t comment on the examples you’ve chosen). This is true. But that does not weaken my point. Firstly, you can block the ‘regular’ internet and permit only Torah and business content. Problem solved. We haven’t gone back to the dark ages and we haven’t lost his resource. Secondly, the fact that Torah can be disseminated online is inconsequential when balanced against the dangers of the Internet. As in the example of the guy who justifies having a smartphone by pointing to his tanach app, it is better to not have the app and not have the phone. Happily, as per the first point, one can keep the Torah and block all else, so it doesn’t have to come to that.
Your second point is more troubling, hashkafa wise. You basically say that there is no issue with the Internet if one has the mental strength to avoid it’s dangers. This is, quite simply, completely wrong. As I pointed out above, the Gemora calls one who goes down a road that has immoral sites visible on it, even if one doesn’t look, is called a Rosha. Placing oneself in a matzav of nisoyon is ossur. Simple as that. The internet plainly falls into this category, both because of what one might see by accident and what one may be tempted to see/do. Filtering the internet strongly or only allowing essential apps is the simple answer to this, if one desperately needs the internet for work. It’s not a matter of simply trusting oneself, as halacha and true daas torah repeatedly tells us.
Charliehall and Yekke2:
What I was referring to is the one (and here I apologise for not finding the correct loshon or maareh mokom, I simply cannot be bothered) that says that one who walks in a place were they are likely to be exposed to immorality, even if they do not look, is called a rosha. This applies to the internet too. And many contemporary Gedolim call being alone with an internet enabled device yichud. I was not saying the ban is by itself a gezeirah, simply that it ties in to an existing one. So you may pick either of those.
I’m sorry to put it this way, but your argument thus far has contained no merit whatsoever. I’m unsure as to why I am crediting this with a response, just after I pointed out that bringing up a secondary, or even primary, issue does not affect the validity of the initial issue. Or to put it in simple terms, there can be more than one bad thing in the world at any one time. And obviously, the key issue, unfettered Internet and it’s uses and abuses, is being completely ignored and/or derided. So I’ll try and make this simple:
Should a person own a portable, internet enabled device that allows unnecessary, possibly problematic, Internet access? Yes or No?
I was just about to begin responding to Charlie when I took note of yekke2’s post. I cannot really think of anything to add. Yes, it’s great that you listened to shiurim (although it’s not as if shiurim are inaccessible through any other mean), and it’s obvious there are positive uses to certain technologies, but I fail to see as to why that should change anything. The negatives far outweigh the positives, and as such bringing them up is facetious, as Y2 has said. And besides, why not keep the positive content and block everything else?
It is sad that instead of changing their behavior to suit halacha (in this instance, a mefurash gezeira d’rabbonon,even apart from yichud), they try to subvert halacha to suit them. No Rav with any authority could advocate unfiltered, unnecessary, or unfettered internet use. Fact. I would be interested to hear the source of your ‘daat’.
Finances have been historically the #1 issue why people went OTD and will likely remain so.
Really? The opposing side of the argument seems to simply be to ignore the thrust of the argument and bring up needless side issues and claim they deserve greater attention. Case in point, bringing up abuse, financial issues, drug abuse, and pointing at them whilst saying that these are bigger problems than the internet. Firstly, they’re not. You are, quite simply, wrong. Enough has been said in this thread explaining clearly the problem with the Internet, and I do not need to go over it. But it certainly outstrips financial issues in importance. In today’s world, financial issues are a tiny factor in people going OTD. Secondly, it is possible for there to be more than one issue. Torah Jewry does not have to choose between addressing abuse or the Internet, it can deal with both.
One thing you have definitely never dealt with is the inescapable fact that unfettered (not just unfiltered) Internet use is an enormous issue facing Torah Jewry and all of us must address this. The fact that you have as yet refused to understand this is either down to apathy, ignorance, incapacity or denial. Honestly, I am unsure as to why I keep answering. The vast majority are in agreement, i.e. showjoe, yekke2 (Ahmedinijad? Are we in 2013?), wolfish, n977ll (well done, by the way), yybc, LG, barlev, chacha5, and mw13, whilst two or three posters keep rehashing non-arguments and refuse to properly engage by actually accounting for themselves properly. Maybe now can be an exception, and these points can actually be addressed?
mild edit . . . you’ll thank me one day
I would love to see the anti-smartphone leadership deal with real issues…
So the Internet isn’t a real issue? I completely fail to understand how you reach that conclusion. Daas Torah is unequivocal on this point. Unfettered Internet is probably the greatest danger facing Torah Jewry today, due to the various influences that are so readily accessible through it, and you refer to it as minor, or even inconsequential issue? I’m truly sorry to have to say this, but this is a prime example of the lack of respect for daas Torah people apply to this debate. Saying there are other issues should not divert us from the issue at hand. At leat before I thought you were saying this issue was impossible to address properly, which I disagreed with but at least isn’t contrary to what we know about the dangers of the Internet. Now you deride the entire anti-Internet ‘movement’ (or as we call it, daas torah) as focusing on the wrong thing, and at best attempt to diminish, at worst almost completely deny, the dangers of the Internet.
Reading through your previous post, your point basically seems to centre on the argument that since some/many people mightn’t/don’t listen, it is not worth making a stand on. Or to put it another way, since everyone’s anyway doing it, pick your battles and don’t fight it. Would you say the same thing if the issue at hand here was avoidah zorah, or in a less extreme example, chillul shabbos? If it is ossur, then it is ossur, and all efforts should be made to combat it. It’s not a matter of ‘picking your fights’. There is a chiyuv to not stand by. It’s as simple as that.
Sorry, but a car isn’t a significantly better comparison. Let me simply ask you one question, rather than do as I have done previously and outline my arguments clearly and at length in the hope of making myself absolutely clear, and for the majority of this to be ignored in favour of one soundbite; Why is there an issur of yichud, if the people involved feel there is no chance of any aveirah occurring?
Before delving into the intricacies of this debate, I would like to point out that even a cursory view of the various meforshim reveal numerous different interpretations of the way to treat the ‘Wicked Son’. These include many different interpretations of ‘blunt his teeth’, one of which I saw last night that took it to mean that we endeavour to excite his curiosity so that he will ask less scornfully, and be more receptive. This is just one of many examples of ways in which the entire chelek takes on an entirely different tone, in this instance meaning anything but being harsh. So whilst your query is still pertinent and a very interesting subject to look into, it’s worth reminding there’s more than one way to read it. So whilst there is plenty to talk about, assuming an haskafik standpoint is, at best difficult.
The moral of the story is so obvious I’m surprised nobody’s got it yet:
‘Punch people in the face if you don’t like them, and it’ll turn out for the best”.
You could technically use your hands to steal from someone or worse, but it’s not assur to have hands.
Reb Yid, I don’t care if, as per your subtitle, your post was ironic. It’s simply ridiculous. At best, it’s a poor joke, at worst it’s kefirah. I could argue that, according to your logic, there was no earthly reason to do any Pesach cleaning, or keep Shabbos as we know it, but that would be allowing myself to be dragged down to your level. I say this not to demean you in any way, and I am sorry if my language comes across as harsh, and I deliberatley toned it down, but that previous point can only be described as facetious.
Newbee, I think on this matter I have made myself perfectly clear. You are being, I’m sure unintentionally, quite vague about what we are talking about here. I have outlined above that the parameters are simple. If the phone has what we would call ‘internet access’, meaning it is possible to browse online relatively freely (and I mean with a filter, without it is even more obvious), and not just have only one email app and one finance app that work, then having a Torah app too, even if you feel you cannot be separated from it, is not a good reason to possess one. If we are talking about a simply phone that can only access email and finance, and you really need it, then your Torah app is simply a great bonus.
Or to put it this way: A phone with ‘internet access’, is a negative thing to have, and daas torah dictates that one should not possess such a device. Of course, there are a few exceptions, in a case where not having one would have a significant impact on ones livelihood. For the clear parameters, ask your LOR. In those exceptions, I find it hard to think of a single case where the need to browse the internet, access news, social media and video sites is necessary. Technically, for it to be justified for one to possess a smartphone, one must absolutely require one, which doesn’t apply to most people, and even in those few cases where it does, one should only give the phone the ability to access those few apps he needs, for example, email, finance, ebay, and some kosher apps besides, perhaps. So in this minority of cases, then the Torah app is praiseworthy. If the situation does not meet thee guidelines, better to get rid of the phone and the app.
You are correct in that the slightly ironic nature of my previous argument would have been clearer had I used an emoticon. But, on principle, as part of my ongoing CR campaign against blatant Americanisation, I refuse to use these text-speak abominations, except in exceptional circumstances. In my book, they are up there with ‘sidewalk’, American ‘Football’, and the ‘American English’ my computer seems so keen to offer me. Anyway, Happy April Fool’s!
It’s not what you do use it for, it’s what you could use it for. If you’re saying that all this phone can possibly access is a finance app, emails and this Torah app you speak of (and you have no other option but to have them with you on the move), and all other news (YWN accepted), video, social, and internet apps are barred and cannot be accessed in any circumstances, then you’re right there isn’t any obvious problem. But if your point is that you choose to only use certain apps that do not pose a problem, but the phone can technically access them, then it’s like saying you’re pottur from yichud, many melachos, not eating chometz from tomorrow morning, and virtually all Pesach cleaning, but to name a few. Need I go on?
What, do you mean, a story with no moral? I think the moral in that bus story is painfully obvious.
I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but I think most Rabbonim would agree that it is poshut. If it would be possible to get by without a portable smart device, they should not keep one, i.e. anybody for whom it is not absolutely necessary to have to access their emails and the like whilst on the move. I think it’s fair to say that most people’s jobs at most require them to have a regular phone, and access to a non-portable device such as a computer. Can it honestly be said for all frum yidden who possess such a device that they could not manage without it, or at least without all the features it offers (such as a phone that can access emails but not video)?
This is an unfortunate issue I have often encountered in the CR, as well as frum society in general. It is not that people aren’t cognizant of the dangers. It is just that they are meikel when it comes to themselves. If people were this lenient when it came to, say, Pesach cleaning, then all it would consist of would be wiping down the kitchen surfaces briefly with a damp cloth. And there is no question as to which is more important. People who would otherwise, rightly, hang on every word their Rav says, feel free to deride Talmidei Chachomim daas torah, and I quote, as “out of touch”, and “when the rabbonim called for the ban, I suspect it was based on what people told them rather than first-hand experience”. This is a ridiculous attitude to take with matters of kedusha, and the worst part is this is prevalent in our community. A bedieved in a matzav of extreme tzoirech has become a lechatchila for many people.
I was trying not to be too confrontational, and therefore stopped short of just saying that app was worthless. But I see your point. If this app is your sole justification for owning a smartphone, and I would like to hear how newbee answers this, then it is certainly not a good reason to own one. It is possible that he needs it for business, which I am not condoning but is an entirely different debate. And on other threads, I have seen, and agreed with, many opinions that say that it is difficult to justify. But if he already owns one, and has a valid reason, then should he not put such an app on it?
Incorrect. It’s ossur for everybody.
I have a 100% searchable tanach+Rashi+shas on my smartphone. I use it all the time. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to stay in yeshiva all day surrounded by sforim.
Not that I’m claiming to have a direct line to G-d, but if this is your entire justification for having a smartphone then I’m sure He’d rather you got rid of it. But if that’s just a side point, and entirely unrelated to your personal reasons, or indeed justifications, for having a smartphone, then kol hakovod for at least using it for a worthy cause.
The tone of my previous post was deliberately unnecessarily confrontational not because I genuinely care about the different dates, but because I don’t. If you read through the point I am always careful when addressing the other poster, and only speak in a slightly harsh tone (which is debatable) when referring to a fairly innocuous point. Hence, the post is therefore a better read. It’s not that I care about 4/1/15. I really couldn’t care less if I spent a month trying. What I do enjoy is arguing about it.
Were that the case then you might have a valid point. But firstly, putting oneself through a lot of agmas nefesh to do an unecessary task negates the positives here. I can think of numerous examples when undue trouble was gone to to do a completely useless task as far as chometz is concerned. And of plenty of cases when the motivation was mainly spring cleaning. The issurim are baal yeroah and baal yemotzeh. Cleaning a table which is used for chometz is good. Upending an entire room simply for the purpose of re-arranging it is not. What I’m questioning here is the lack of knowledge applied to the task, the motivation of many, who want a perfectly clean house, as opposed to a chometz free one, and those who put others to unecessary trouble to achieve the above aims. Technically, very little is needed to be done. A thorough search, and a good clean of areas chometz is eaten in. This shouldn’t take more than a few hours altogether. A bit further than that, i.e. lifnim meshuras hadin, is still far less than most put themselves through. Not that I’ve got anything against spring cleaning. But at least be honest about what’s for G-d’s sake and what’s not.
I’m sorry, but you’re point does not stand up to scrutiny. As I said, April 1st and 1st April are as ubiquitous as each other. Therefore, we can discount both of them as valid reasons to base a numerical date system on. Or to put it another way, since April 1st is not significantly more common than 1st April, if at all, they are equal in that regard and require a different reason to differentiate between them. This is scrutiny and your point has, unforunately, failed it. I have provided two actual reasons above, firstly to put the more important information first, secondly to put them in ascending order. And whilst your very kind to fargin the British mehalech, the crux of my argument is not whether my way works equally, but that my way makes more sense and is superior in every respect to the American way. Thank you, and Happy April Fool’s Day (5 minutes to go where I am).
And what would you say to the equally incontrovertible logic that it’s the first of April and therefore 1/4. And why, in looking for a logical answer, do you ignore the fact that if you have system, you place the most relevant information first, followed by the next most relevant and then the next most relevant. When people look up the date the definitely know what year it is, they invariably know the month, and the information they generally need to know is the day within said month. So making that information second priority is pure unadulterated stupidity. And add to that the simple fact that it makes the most sense to display it in ascending order, because, you know, maths?
4th January 2014
Yekke2 made a good point. You shouldn’t have made it so abundantly clear that this was an April Fool’s, and watched as the vitriol poured in. You should have then argued your point further, putting in the occasional excellent one-liners in the OP, but in a subtler manner, on the now headlining thread for at least a page, and then, as the argument reaches it’s peak and people are on the verge of collapsing from sheer outrage, reveal the nature of the thread.
And of course it’s 1/4/2014. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever in the American insistence on placing the month before the day. If there is one justification that stands up to scrutiny I’d like to hear it. I mean, for years I thought there had been a terrorist attack on the 9th of November
Anticipating a possible forthcoming example of the errors of one’s ways does not excuse one from then committing that same error. As for the comment you referred to in your excellent story, it was particularly interesting for me that that was the example included, as it was rather out of character for me to make a personal philosophical view in a public forum, and that was only because I felt it was a necessary response to a rather damaged world view, if I can put it that way. I generally attempt to be argumentative (by which I mean intellectual, but calling it that would be couching my actions in vague, pretentious cushions of deceit) and occasionally amusing, for other’s benefit. To be told that my only amusing contribution was virtually the only one I meant in a purely serious manner is, to put it mildly, interesting. And as far as your next point is concerned, it is only correct to be gracious when another has brightened your day, even by the tiniest amount. And were the pond I was referring to the English Channel, the sentence would have concluded with the words, “MDR, impressionnant!”
This is an issue that has bothered me for a while. The terms ‘strictly’ or ‘ultra’, when prefacing the word orthodox, is misleading at best and offensive at worst. For several reasons. Firstly, because the term ultra denotes a negative extreme. The only other uses of the word when referring to people is for the most violent of football hooligans. So when describing what is simply a religious group, from a secular standpoint is offensive. This is because it is not simply a descriptive term, but it indicates a behaviour that is extreme, not just when compared to the so-called Jewish norm, but when compared to what an irreligious person would call ‘normal human behaviour’. Calling an entire group ultras indicates that they behave in an abnormally extreme manner. And even if you don’t accept this point, even saying that we are extreme when compared with ‘other jews’ is implying that there is normal Judaism and extreme Judaism, as opposed to there simply being different viewpoints. The fact that this term is still used widely in the secular media is ridiculous and offensive.
I can only apologise for the lack of thought that went into the above question. I simply found it amusing that of all my activity on this forum in the preceding week, that one sentence was picked up upon. Congratulations on your achievement and the thoroughness that went into this monumental work of fiction. Perhaps that was laying it on a bit thick. It was a hilarious story, and I enjoyed it very much. Or, as those from the other side of the pond might exclaim, “Lol, it was awesome!”
Good job, that was brilliant. Now, this may come across as obtuse, but am I Voldermort?
I think both terms can be used