Another question about private supervision…

Thanks for answering.
Regarding 2, why doesn't it interest you?
Regarding 4, you didn't answer why you're answering but stated the fact that you do indeed do so…
Another point, I didn't see an easy way to find the answers on the site since there are no detailed chapter headings/search option.

Regarding 2, why would I be interested? What I think is what I think. Tags won't change that. Search here for the column “Am I an Epicurean”.
Regarding 4, I explained my policy. If you don't understand, then in your opinion it's not right to answer. You also didn't explain why I won't answer. So when I see a question I can try to answer it.
There is a very easy way. There is a Google search on the site, see the main page at the top left.

Regarding 2, see columns 63 and 74. I saved you the search.

The tagging matters because it also helps to understand whether your opinion is coherent because from what I understand you believe in the truth of Toshva”P and if you are defined according to its criteria as a heretic/Epicorus there will be contradictions and misunderstandings that I will have to resolve and maybe I will ask about it.
I did not ask to know what your policy is but why it is your policy and I have no method or opinion on the subject (if this was misunderstood from my message).
In any case, I will look into what you referred to, thanks for the technical explanation about the site.

Hello, I wanted to preface this by saying that if my style is blunt, I apologize, I am trying to ask in a matter-of-fact manner (and I hope I succeed) and as you wrote, you are not offended by the matter-of-factness.
Regarding column 74:
1. You claim that it is theoretically possible to cancel the prayer in private or parts of it because they contain a view of God's involvement in the world and you disagree with that.
The reason you gave is that since there is no prayer without intention, it is a dispute about facts that has implications for practical leadership and therefore there is legitimacy to cancel it in this way.
(The Shulchan Aruch, rules that one does not need to repeat the blessings in the event that one fails to direct - “because we are not so direct in prayer”. (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, 3rd paragraph b)
The Jerusalem Talmud tells of several Amoraim who said of themselves that they too have difficulty directing in prayer. (Yerushalmi, Blessings Chapter 2 Halacha 4), Is there a teaching/practice for canceling the prayer due to lack of intention?
Even if you disagree and say that your lack of intention stems from a different reason, this is an innovation and it is not possible by any scholarly argument to permit laws that are not in accordance with the rules of teaching and ruling (to the extent that the rabbinic law is great in wisdom and minyan).
2. You wrote “I am willing to drink wine from any Jew who sees the Torah as halachically binding”, do you rule On your own? After all, you previously claimed that one can only disagree factually but not change laws/customs.
3. A more general question, do you perceive the conduct and virtues of the Lord as the perception of the rabbinical consensus throughout history?
If not, how can one explain the fact that the Lord allows us to make so many mistakes and on the other hand, it is a mitzvah not to deviate?
Do you think there is no divine assistance to the sage in ruling and theological thought (I am talking about fundamental errors)?
If not, what is the point of giving true Torah and then allowing for error?
In addition, what is the value of a Toshvah according to this? After all, without a Toshvah, there is no application and understanding of a Toshvah?

Nothing here is blatant. Everything is excellent.

1. There is no connection between these two levels. When I do not believe in the content of the words, it is not the same as not intending. When I do not intend, there is an implicit intention. If I say the words, I probably meant them (like Stama Lishma). But if I do not believe in these words, there is no meaning in saying them.
There is no innovation here. This is a simple explanation, not a quibble. On much weaker explanations, extreme innovations in halakhah have been created. Incidentally, it also has its origin in the Yom Kippur when it comes to the great, heroic and terrible God, whom the Holy One, the Almighty, sealed truth and hates those who lie in Him and by virtue of this, parts of the Amidah prayer were abrogated. Incidentally, the Gracious One on the authority of Maimonides writes that there is another intention in prayer beyond all the commandments, and it is the intention of the words. This also stems from the same explanation.
And finally, I did not abrogate anything here, and therefore there is no need for a Bayad Geddo Levchakma and a minyan. I simply cannot abide by this regulation. We have not abolished the offering of sacrifices either. We simply cannot abide by it.

2. I tend to rule on my own. Absolutely. I also think that this is appropriate for anyone (who is sane) to do. This is not a change in laws or customs, but an interpretation of existing laws.

3. I already wrote to you that it is not. Although of course there are different opinions among the sages, and some did believe so (and an even larger number believed so without explicitly stating it). Therefore, the question about God is difficult according to everyone. Furthermore, all those who tend to give a theological interpretation of history (the Holocaust was because of Zionism or because of opposition to it), I wondered in the second book in the trilogy how God failed so badly in conveying the message.
In my opinion, God is not involved, and therefore he did not cause the failure and should not solve it. He also did not prevent the Holocaust, which in my opinion is a more difficult question.
I have often explained that there is value in autonomy, and that God expects us to act according to our understanding, even if it is wrong. This is probably no less important to Him than the truth. There are sources for this matter that predate me.

1. If you have an example of a more extreme innovation than the cancellation of prayer, which stems from an individual's instruction, I would be happy if you could give it to me.
Regarding what you say you did not cancel but you simply cannot perform it and compare it to sacrifices, the comparison is not clear to me, the reason there are no sacrifices is because of a lack of practical ability - there is no Temple, yet you can practically pray, you simply claim that it is not considered prayer since there is no intention, but despite this I have not found permission not to pray due to a lack of intention (and no matter for what reason).
(*The Rabbi of Brisk says that there are two laws of intention in prayer:

[a] one who stands in prayer before the Holy One [should think as if the “Shekhinah were against him”]. [b] the intention of interpreting the words [to understand what is being said].
Accordingly, the definition of intention is slightly different. In any case, even if you disagree with the definition of intention and this leads to a ruling that changes something so fundamental, if you want to change the rule of the Hana, why wouldn't you need a large court with wisdom and a minyan (as well, I would be happy to issue a similar ruling on a significant cancellation, based on a newness/explanation, in private by a rabbi).
2. Have you been ordained to the rabbinate?
Since this is so significant, one is supposed to proceed with caution, Have you consulted and discussed with great rabbis about this?
In addition, your interpretation changes the laws and customs and also differs from the author's intention.
3. If autonomy is important even at the expense of erasing the truth in its essence, why give Torah?
After all, we have no access to truth in this format?
(As for the ancient sources, that's true, they simply don't claim it so radically and thus they also give room for truth (and about them it is not possible to ask what I asked about you)).

Only regarding 1, the cancellation of parts of the prayer there was spot-on and was conducted in the format of a discussion between sages and not an individual's instruction without considering the opinions of the rest.

As mentioned, this is not bluntness, but it is definitely just stubbornness and confusion. So I'll stop here.