Participant

maybe arguing that it is a monopoly is a better idea…

maybe. that won’t help if the competition is another bunch of liberal quacks. it also can’t be argued until someone tries competing.

I don’t really see the excuse for monopoly laws when applied to a useless business, i.e. social media.

I’m also nostalgic for childhood nighttimes.

an oath would help (somewhat) for a concrete plan. “unity” fluff can be interpreted however you want –see other posters’ claim that Biden did work toward unity, although they couldn’t explain how.

woah you don’t remember that you stated my question was non sensible and didn’t make sense and then you have the chutzpah to say I lost track of this thread.

I know you kept on preaching to me . I was completely aware. I was, for the most part not commenting on it, save to point out that most or all possibilities why someone wouldn’t respond I stated myself already. I didn’t think any of them would apply in this case and I therefore stated my subsequent suspicions.

what I have been addressing is something wrong that you said which you refuse to maturely discuss because “it’s not the point” of your sermon and you’d rather I pay attention to all the reasons someone might not respond (iow, my op) and how immature it is to start a thread about this. I understand your frustration that I’m not gobbling up your musar and begging you to become my mashgiach, but please don’t lie about something you repeatedly said just because it’s “not the point”, don’t accuse me of losing track of the conversation because I ignored your fiery speech, and please please please keep track of what you said.

I’m not going to respond to my not answering your question since I trust even you, with an ounce of effort, could figure out how you’re doing. if you’re unwilling to put in the effort, even a r’ preida like myself is excused.

Edited

sorry ubriq my advice regarding you opening a thread was a bit premature. aaq didn’t write why he hadn’t responded to me. if it was because he hadn’t seen my response then you shouldn’t open such a thread–after all, your theories were all that he saw them but still didn’t answer. I was the one in my op who mentioned sometimes posters don’t see posts– an option I didn’t think was the case here.

if he says he saw my post but deemed it silly/irrelevant/non sensible then you can proceed with such a thread if you’d like. (assuming of course that someone said it as fact and not mere suspicion.)

liar again. you made a few unequivocal points. first and foremost, you asserted that my post had no relevance. second and on was even if it was relevant maybe aaq had I different reason for not replying and even if not this thread is uncalled for blah blah blah.

so now that you admit my post may have had relevance, back up, say “ok, I was an idiot and I now realize it had relevance.” after you admit that maybe you were wrong–emphasis on those 3 words–you can get back on your soap box.

oh, and learn the definition to ‘suspect’.
and reread the op.

“I think the question had no shaichus”
I know. so you’re offering an opinion right there about my post, which not knowing what I’m assuming the answer is, you have no clue whether or not it’s relevant.

but I don’t really buy that you don’t know the answer. I didn’t ask why aaq switched — I asked why you think he switched.
let’s rephrase it. why 1 may refer to a rabbi as a rav, but would refer to a turban-clad rabbi as a haham. what would be the most plausible explanation for such behavior?

listen to this:
me: I suspect aaq didn’t answer my question because the answer will prove his hypocrisy.
edited poster: perfect example. I think the question had no shaychus.
me: well what do you think the answer is?
edited: I have no idea.

but perfect example of the one who knows the answer not answering but not because he’s escaping the truth.

quite a long post ubiq I’m not sure if there’s a word which isn’t either false or illogical but let’s keep things concise–I know long posts can confuse you.

the root of your mistake is that my question to aaq–albeit extremely sensible–is irrelevant to the thread and hence aaq has no reason to answer it.

being as how you don’t understand the relevance of my question, you could have simply said that my question didn’t prove anything.

I’m almost certain I know the answer to my question. if I’d be 100% certain I wouldn’t have phrased it as a question but as a statement. the answer I think aaq will give (if he answers) pertains directly to the topic at hand. let’s ask you–what would you assume is the reason for aaq’s switch?

“I think your comment makes absolutely no sense”
which? the question for aaq? how can a question not make sense? the one I made here? how can it possibly not have shaychus.

“AAQ doesn’t owe you anything”
uh…duh? there’s a reason this discussion is not taking place in b”d.

“not every comment deserves a response”
thanks so much for repeating what I already said.
having said that, if pointing out someone violates their own preaching is considered silly by aaq then I can’t fathom why
he frequents the coffee room. probably about half the comments boil down to something like this.

“if that makes you think you got him”
not answering a very simple question with nothing to lose when the answer has a 99.9% chance of showing the preacher’s hypocrisy is as clear an indication as they get that he’s fluff of baloney.

you certainly didn’t owe me any response so what prompted you to flaunt your stupidity yet again?

I’m sick and tired of edited who don’t possess an ounce of reading comprehension. this thread was started to scoff one thing and one thing only: Biden’s meaningless fluff which means nothing if not less than that. this was not a discussion as to whether or not unity is good, not a discussion as to whether to compromise for the sake of unity, not a discussion as to Biden vs. trump regarding6unity or eos or anything.

“Joe Biden at least makes an effort to reach out and treat them with respect.” this lie sums up what this thread is bout. Biden blabbed about it but did not.