Ubiq
I missed it.
Mind repeating it.
You offered to explain it.
The closest I could find is
“The quote is not about words or language. That is not at all the subject of the law. The law is about people.”

Frankly while that sounds like a good opening for an explanation, by itself it falls short.
Break it down and explain
What does it say about people, how does the addition of the emoticon change the equation.
What exactly is the nuance.
In other words, give substance.

Not lengthy expositions on Josef. Stick to the text a bit.

Then you started a different track.
Also good.
You say my answer clearly shows I missed the boat. Well that’s entirely possible and even probable, especially in this case where my position actually is starting as “I basically don’t get it ”
So the sensible and rational thing to do in a discussion is to say, no you totally got it wrong. X is what he means, and this is how you understand it into his words.
Don’t you see the genius, how he encapsulated this whole thought into these few pithy words!?!

That would be called explaining.

Saying “buddy you missed the point sorry have a nice day ” doesn’t sound like someone who is in the explaining mode.
Frankly to me it sounds like someone who has no clue what he is talking about, thought it sounded educated to call something genius because someone else called it genius, and is now stuck holding the bag.

I’m sorry if I’m being too hard on you. I don’t mean it personally.
Just I thought I was going to have a logical rational conversation /argument and it turned into another
“you know why you are wrong just admit it like a good boy ” type “conversation ”

It’s like sitting down to a great looking meal and finding out it’s all tofu

Nc
Ubiq was supposed to explain to me the nuanced details showing how Poe “s law shows genius.
I looked at the law and saw a simpletons hardly true statement but he claims it is genius.
His first attempt to explain it fell flat as it lacked that important component called explanation.
Since I wouldn’t concede, he asked if perhaps I’d do better with a give and take conversation. You know step by step for the simpletons like me.
So he asked a straightforward question to which I gave a straight forward answer.
At which point instead of continuing the conversation by either asking a follow up question or showing me how I was wrong, he just threw in the towel.
Now had he fully conceded, that would be logical honest and OK. But instead he proceeds to converse with Josef, in the same post, mind you, about the same topic, as if he hasn’t conceded!!!
There is some analogy to Alice in wonderland there but I never saw the movie nor read the book so I’m not sure exactly what it is

Ubiq ,
I’m still waiting for the clear explanation
In case you don’t remember where you offered it I’ll quote you to yourself
”
i’d be happy to explain to you the nuance that you clearly missed”

question: what is the subject of Poe’s law?

Is it language? or Extremists/extreme positions?
as written,
language/self-expression/communication of intent

When I wrote this
The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.
It should have said this

The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one CANNOT know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.
It was an auto-correct typo I didn’t catch.
Maybe that threw you off as to what I was saying?
I don’t see where I changed my own understanding of his statement
What I changed is that originally I viewed it as superfluous, then I realized it’s false

Tomim
That’s great!
Now he was actually a genius
Just read some of his books.
Not like this fool

What is exactly genius about his law?
Basically it states

The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.

The only genius there, is his ability to state the obvious in a way that makes people think he has said something smart.
Aka, he is a fools genius.

Unless of course you happen to agree with his insidious underlying point, namely, creationism is inherently and objectively foolish. Every thinking person knows that. And every normal poster means that. However one must be careful because though you think it’s blatantly obvious that your post supporting creationism is sarcasm and hyperbole, some fool gonna believe you. So take caution.
Then he is giving you good guidance.

Hence Josef’s assertion that he is only a genius if you support atheism.
I happen to disagree even with that. I think it would only make him a nice person for giving his minions good advice.

As it is though, there is nothing particularly bright in his ”law”
But only an utter fool is an atheist.
So I take full exception to your claim that he or his law are genius

Adocs
So you think Bernie Sanders has no chance?

How could you possibly ”notice” that it was blocked ?
Is there like a way to check if someone is blocked?
Like many others I read many of its comments.
Some were weird, some stupid, and most were juvenile.
But too many were outright insulting, and attacking, yidden, yidishkit, and distorting halacha, as well as poking fun at many of minhagay yisroel.
It did not belong being given a platform to spread its poison.
(as a comparison. There are many threads here where people really go at each other, including name calling, attacking minhagim and the like.
However the general feeling is that it is really a frank and open discussion with certain niceties removed due to the anonymity afforded by a screen name.
That’s in some sense a beautiful thing as well as anyone who gets involved is or should be aware of what they are getting into.
Like chabad shelucha .she knows good and well that she will be subjected to full frontal attacks. But she is basically saying that’s why I am here. Attack and I will explain. No holds barred and may the ”correctest ” one win)

But this vermin was in it for only one thing.
Fun.
Now that’s also great
Until you start using devorim shebikedusha for your fun.
Think about it.
David hamelech was punished for calling Torah a song.
And we can all understand that if said that with the utmost respect for Torah. But he was punished for the choice of words.

Can you imagine this maggot????
Good riddance

Kluger- I hate to spoil your fun but I am pretty sure he wrote this post in response to your last comment in the hopes of you saying exactly what you than sad

syag, I respect you, you know the game.

Thereby proving my other posts about this רשע
It’s all a game
Distort דברי חזל-הלכה-השקפה
Be מלעיג על דברי חכמים
Insult and malign large swaths of אחינו בני ישראל

And it’s all a game
To garner reaction
To see if ”it ” can correctly predict responses
נידון בצואה רותחת מפני שהוא צואה רותחת

So I take it you think it’s always OK to say a few chapters of tehillim .
Let’s take a page out of your book.
So you would say it even in the bathroom?
Even when your ”husband ” needs you
Even at the expense of helping a random person in need.
Even if it means keeping the light on while someone tries to sleep.
I think you just say teHillIm because it gets you out of doing the hard life work you really should be doing.
You wimp out of your responsibilities by opening a tehillim
How classic
You make fun of people for making a ”heicha kedusha ”
But then you wimp out of your own responsibility

How come three days ago is listed as less than two days ago?

FOR THE AMBIANCE

Neville
Don’t be fooled for a moment
As I posted before
RGP is far from a תלמוד חכם
It is a person with a decent Torah computer search engine and a rudimentary understanding of Hebrew.
Coupled with a few controversies they have picked up on over the years.
And I’ll prove it to you. (not to rgp you can’t prove that person anything)
Why choose to attack not staying up on the second night of shavuos which requires convincing people that there is even a reason to do so, when he could have much more easily pointed out that most people don’t stay up all night after the seder ,something explicitly brought down, nor does a great portion of klal yisroel stay up all night הושענא רבא also something with a much greater. Basis.

The answer is quite simple
Rgp searched ‘staying up second night shavuos’ and ran with that.
Didn’t have the mental faculties to realize or didn’t even have the knowledge that there are nights much more clearly brought to stay up, to ask from there
Rgp is not a תלמיד חכם
Rgp is a לץ, שוטה, מלעיג על דברי חכמים, ובעל מחלוקת

Rabbi Chaim is a great talmid but he is not a posek and never claimed or tried to be one
What????
He paskens tens of thousands of shealos
Are you nuts?

Just curious. Let’s say they take treats you don’t want them to have.
You just ignore that negative behavior and it magically goes away?

RGP
As I commented earlier
It’s important to understand not just to have a good search engine.
Do you know what it means אין מורידין למי שלא נתמלא זקנו ????
It’s talking about the AGE of the ש”ץ
See the מ”ב and ביאור הלכה where you yourself pulled quotes from!!
ו- אין ממנים אלא מי שנתמלא זקנו כו’ אבל באקראי *** משהביא שתי שערות יוכל לירד***
ביאור הלכה – באמצע דברו – ”כשאנו יודעים לפי ענין המקום שבכל השנה לא יזדמן להם ש”ץ קבוע שנתמלא זקנו לכן מותר לענות *** לבן י”ג *** אפילו בקבע
How on earth did ”a 13 year old ” become the counter balance to someone with a beard???
He should have said , if you know you won’t be able to get someone with a beard you can take someone without!!
But no. The point is it’s not כבוד הציבור to have a young whippersnapper be the ש”ץ but In a desperate situation you can do it.
More.
That’s all the talk about רמב”ם ופריסת שמע because a קטן can be פורס על שמע so the רמבם points out that that does not extend at all to becoming a ש”ץ for which it’s not enough to just be 13.
More
שו”ע סעיף ח
מי שאינו בעל זקן, כל שניכר בו שהגיע לכלל שנים שראו להתמלאות זקנו, נתמלא זקנו קרינן ביה. הילכך בן כ שנה אע”פ שאין לו זקן ממנים אותו

ובסעיף כ מדבר בענין הסריס
So it’s clear we not talking about a סריס .
We are clearly being told that as long as he is of age that most people have beards and he is not a סריס it’s fully OK to appoint him even though he does not have a beard.
רמ”א -וכן אם היה לו זקן אפילו מעט -קרינן ביה נתמלא זקנו אם הוא מבן יח ולמעלה

Again the focus on AGE

and seemingly one who shaves, as long as the stubble is evident (as it is with almost anyone who doesn’t use cream or a razor) ,according to the רמ”א is perfectly fine

More
מחבר סעיף י
יש ללמוד זכות על מקומות שנונים שהקטנים יורדים לפני התיבה להתפלל במוצאי שבת כו

Again issue is קטן

More
In סימן תקעט he does not mention a word about a beard
Presumably because he said someone with small children, so that already shows he is not a קטן
And one more
סימן תקפא סעיף א רמ”א
וידקדקו לחזור אחר ש”ץ היותר הגון והיותר גדול כו’ושיהא בן שלושים שנה גם שיהא נשוי
Noplace mentioning a word about a beard while listing everything to look for for a ש”ץ for ימים נוראים but strangely coming up with a thirty year old being a מעלה.
Except when you realize that all along זקנו מגודל was an age threshold and for ימים נוראים we look for someone older. It all makes sense.

היצא מכל הנ”ל
Noplace in שו”ע does it say someone without a beard can’t Daven by the amud.

I beg the mods
Please let this post through
I sent a lot of time on it because you have someone masquerading as a תלמוד חכם who really has no idea what he is talking about. He just pulls quotes from a search engine and is ממש making a mockery of תורתינו הקדושה והטהורה

As I said before
Troll all you want. Enjoy yourself
It’s fun and harmless
Until you start to misrepresent the רבש”ע ‘ס תורה

Can someone just answer the following
The gemora krisus either 6b or 7b, according to the second pshat in rashi says that Aaron haCohen trimmed his beard
.
What do we do with that?

Yungerman
Where exactly does the ”Torah ” forbid shaving?

In truth, most people that I have spoken to, end up learning less on the first day of shavuos because they learn about four hours at night and end up sleeping all day
So really we should not even stay up the first night. (like r elyashiv didn’t) However being as the custom for ages has been to stay up, we dare not abolish it.
But הבו דלא לוסיף עליה!! שלא יצא שכרו בהפסדו
To convince people otherwise without regard for the tremendous ביטול תורה that will most likely result, takes a real לץ וקל דעת like our resident goldenpicker

Actually that specific one would indicate that it is OK to eat. Just they only sold it privately