A matter-of-fact reference to talkbacks. (Tom as a proverb)
Hi.
I follow you from time to time and I noticed that the more tolerant the rabbi is, the more short-tempered he is, it’s hard to get angry and hard to please.
I am mainly referring to the talkbackers who raise important points that the rabbi seems to ignore, because they touch on sensitive points.
For example, a talkbacker named Tam , I noticed that his arguments are usually substantive (despite the provocative scent that emanates from them). And he doesn’t receive a substantive response, mostly getting scolded for the wording or other cosmetic errors.
Thank you in advance.
I didn’t understand the initial argument. In any case, if I’m generally tolerant and there’s an exception, it’s worth checking out the exception. Believe me, I don’t know the above, and I only act towards him according to what is expected from his appearances here. I haven’t seen almost any substantive arguments from him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
This answer has caused me a huge problem, since the site is addressed to everyone, both men and women, and I wonder why even when a woman asks, it says "ask" like this: "Ayelet asked" and now I ask carefully and thoroughly.
In the field,
Liptaim Yasak answers present things.
By the way, the woman's belly between her teeth: TAG-“pure truth”.
In the field, very beautiful.
Although, in my opinion, it's really complete, because I too have read his ramblings from time to time and the style of writing seems different.
Maybe it's a friend or something like that..
To date, I haven't delved into the depth of your vision of the TAG.
What he means by TAG is that there is a tag on the question called ‘pure truth’, and anyone asking a question for the first time will not use such passive-aggressive language.
It is clear that this is Tam trying to hide. After all, the wording is exactly what Tam himself would like to write – to claim that he makes an excellent, profound, and innovative claim, and that he is opposed because he is supposedly ‘provocating’ (which is really not bad in my opinion either), and that all the answers do not answer what he asks but are perceived as trivial matters. These are the recurring motifs in Tam's treatment of himself and his responders, and it is unlikely that someone random would invest such an effort to be impressed by Tam's thousands of long messages and determine that they are ‘good’, and to be impressed like that by the answers, and in short, to be mistaken in exactly the same colossal errors of perception of Tam himself. What's the problem with the theory that it's not over? And is he suspicious of you for being so strict about a permanent, gender-conforming nickname? It's entirely plausible and obvious that he did want to ask this question, and managed to understand that he would get a more refined answer (or an answer at all) if he pretended to be someone else, and it's even easier for a woman to distance his testimony. In short, I don't think there's any need for a face.
The different style of phrasing seems, at least to my eyes, to be sweating from effort, but I cannot rule out that I saw the sweat from the reflections of my heart.
To be honest, I didn't imagine that my words needed to be studied, since in my opinion they scream to the heart of heaven.
After all, according to the false play that Tam tried to present here, there is a woman/girl who came to ask the rabbi why such and such arguments are not addressed.
If that were the case, it would be reasonable to assume that the questioner is neutral, has nothing to do with Tam, she saw his words, which are like the brightness of the sky, and she wondered how it happened that Rabbi Michi didn't spend his time on trees and stones.
But our friend, in his great wisdom, labeled the question, and even with ”pure truth”. That is, don't make the mistake of thinking that I am objective, that I am asking innocently, that I am a member of the Tamim sect (which includes only one member, of course), and that I protest against ignoring Tam's words, which are nothing but pure truth!
Tam is not a parable as Hatam wrote in the title of the question, he is the one being parabled, and neither is the other, there is no parable at all!
(And all this is before the letter of the law, since indeed the smell of Tam emanates from every form of phrasing, and from the argument itself, as he wrote in the field).
Therefore, the words of the one who wrote that Hatam made a mistake in choosing his nickname are correct, it would have been more accurate for him to be called: “He who does not know how to ask”.
After we are clear with such conclusive evidence, the righteous will come, admitting that they caught him in his shame and depravity.
Greetings, Razy Razy.
when the cat’s away, the mice might play
It’s unbelievable how much hatred blinds and distorts the eyes of the jealous
Such an obsession would just calm down people and be quick!!
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
