Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes. A lot of guys do smoke, so you need to decide whether you are willing to marry a smoker. But I don’t think you can assume there is any difference between a guy who promises to stop, and a guy who promises not to stop. They will both not stop until they die of lung cancer.
I would certainly not believe he was going to stop. So the real question is if you are willing to marry a smoker.
I would not marry a smoker.
I think someone must ask a rav any question where they think it is a question of what G-d wants them to do, and they are not sure themselves. (How do you know if you are sure? If you are afraid your rav will disagree, then you are unsure.)
Things which are not a question of what G-d wants, but just questions of what you want, can be asked to your therapist. But if you like to ask your rav because you think he is wise–go for it.
S?
Saw?
i dont understand this hock
I used to understand this hock. But then 80 came back.
How come nobody liked my joke?
I’ll repeat it: ICOG where ICOT is.
adams: I’m going to advise to you retain what credibility you have by not posting on this thread.
Just write: I take back everything I have said on this thread, and will go talk about shomer nigiah on the other thread.
squeak wins as usual.
Sheep without a spleen.
Many people hold you are allowed to shave every friday during sefira, provided that there is a ???? that you are still doing aveilus, which seems to mean that you are shaving less frequently than you usually do during the year. (I don’t have time to find the mareh mekomos right now, but you can look it up).
But if you don’t follow that, then you shouldn’t.
I’ve also heard people hold you can shave on friday when it is also rosh chodesh. And I also don’t have time to look that up. But I don’t think I’ve heard of friday which is erev rosh chodesh. But you can look that up.
So we just need to put “off the derech” in the title?
I think we are not so different.
I am not mod 80. I do know him, not personally but we have emailed. One of my good friends knows him personally.
Sam: shkoyach. You now get to join my club on the CR of people who will say they were incorrect about something. It is a pretty exclusive club. And one of the other members is a retard.
Popa wrote
“I am sorry you were fooled.”
Am not sure who the YOU in that sentence refers to.
If it refers to me, I wasn’t.
I assume you mean to say the tense is wrong, and it should read: “I am sorry you are fooled.”
A mod ought to change Mod 80’s subtitle to Not Popa to avoid this kind of confusion in the future.
Ok, I’ll change it.
Should I also change yours so that it says “not the czar”?
in my previous post, I acknowledged that I know numerous women and girls
So do you know only one, or do you know many? I’m getting all confused.
I am incorrigible. I don’t even know what the means, but I probably am that.
I’m going to keep making a joke out of this. Every other post or so. And the ones between I’ll be serious and point out how it really should be apparent that it was a joke.
I’m sorry your were fooled.
PBA: I thought Mekomos Hamechusim was also Muttar by Ishto Niddah. They’re not? I guess I could be wrong but I thought that was Muttar from the same S’vara as Yichud is. (And no, I’m not married.)
Nope, see the mechaber 7 in the link I put above.
HEY HOW COME NO ONE MADE A WHERES BLUEPRINTS THREAD
OH THE SHAME
We knew you were still lurking. And were apparently correct.
It wasn’t a joke. I am mod 80, and mod 80 is me. I made the popa account after a few years to post some of my more controversial stuff, and after a while I just started to like the personality I had created.
I stopped posting as 80 recently, after I got in a fight with myself where I kept blocking myself for saying inappropriate things. (the stoning the chazan with esrogim incident.) I got so annoyed with myself, that I left. But my popa personality wasn’t upset, so (s)he stayed.
This is also not a joke; it’s for real. I don’t have issues.
squeak:
3. I got that. I had assumed there must be some purpose to making the entire payment at kindergarten, instead of yearly. I supposed it was to give the school the time value of money. Which in turn made no sense.
In any event, I agree with you, that it makes no sense, and might only make sense if the purpose was to spread it over 30 years.
fed ben fed: Why not, it’s a good a thread as any for this.
Another brother of mine who reads but doesn’t often post, alerted me to the pischei teshuva there, who asks this question, and does not answer.
?) ????? ?? ??? ????? – ?”? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?”? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?”? ???’ ??????? ?? ?”? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??”? ?????? ?? ?”? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???”? ?? ????? ????? ??”? ?? ??????? ??”?:
Sam: I’m wondering whether to analogize it to looking at ?????? ??????? which is assur, or to mekomos hamegulim which is muttar.
I only looked at the one you linked (link the other one, please), but I don’t see what you are citing to. It doesn’t talk about ishto nidda.
soliek got mad and left after I suggested that being a moser is assur. Or more accurately, after I continued to make a joke of it when he complained.
Aries has been AWOL for a while.
ICOG where ICOT is.
Also, they can stop molesting kids. That is a sure way to lower OTD rates, since it is very high among molested kids.
Huh? Lakewood parents generally all pay tuition, while Flatbush, Boro Park, Chicago and LA parents don’t? I don’t believe this is accurate.
In lakewood there is nobody to shift the cost to.
Nu. And so what? Also avraham avinu.
popa bar abba,
To answer your question; the costs of a child from k-12 (which is thirteen years) generally for most yeshivas will probably cost the parents a lot more then 80k.
We can proceed with this discussion with the assumption that I understand the securities market.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your suggestion was that the parents borrow all the money upfront, and then pay it back with interest over 13 years. You think it will benefit the schools more than the amount the borrow, since the schools will have the time value of the money all that time (of course they will, and it will be coming from the parents).
Your idea boils down to three points:
1. Making parents borrow the money on the market, to place the responsibility on them.
2. Combining them into securities so that the ones with better ability to borrow will effectively subsidize the ones with lesser ability to borrow. (I guess your purpose here is to hide the subsidy.)
3. Giving the schools all the money upfront, so that they can charge less because they will get the time value of the money.
Point 1 makes sense only if you think the problem is parents avoiding their duty, and not that parents simply don’t have the ability.
Point 2 makes no sense, since you are simply shifting the subsidy from one way to another.
Point 3 makes no sense at all, and is what I was attacking before. There is no reason to give the creditors a piece of the action, by borrowing from them at higher rates than the school itself could borrow.
Squeak thought you meant they should borrow on a 30 year loan, which would sort of make sense, since then you’d spread the cost of education past when your kids leave school. This would make sense if you think that parents get more ability to pay later in life. I am not convinced this is true.
I have my opinions, but you should be speaking to experts at this point.
When I say experts, I mean therapists. You can ask your rav to recommend one.
Avhaben, marry her.
That is a good solution. Of course, it will only help for most of the month. (Am I correct about that? It isn’t bfeirush in the shulchan aruch by harchakas nidda.)
I think the better solution is to kill her.
Yes, it does. It is assault. Assault is when someone makes you feel threatened. Making someone feel threatened is assault.
Regardless, it doesn’t even have to be that the guy would be liable for assault for you to be allowed to shoot him.
Suppose that they are filming a movie, and through some mistake which is absolutely nobody’s fault, you end up wandering around the set, when this guy comes running up at you with a big (fake) machete screaming he is going to kill you (he thinks you are an extra, and that is the scene). So you pull out your .45 and shoot him dead.
Is he liable for assualt (under my case where it was nobody’s fault)? Nope.
Are you liable for killing him? Nope.
Nope, nope, nope.
In every state in this country you are allowed to attack someone who is making you feel threatened, if a reasonable person in that situation would feel threatened.
My point was that you made a blanket statement, that women are crazy and twisted, and I responded that the only lady I know is my junior high principal.
If it’s the only lady you know, then of course it is the only crazy one you know.
hee hee
popa: The question was about “feel threatened”, not actually threatened. Your example is of an actual threat.
Not really. Actual threat would be if he was actually planning to shoot you. But in my case, the guy may have been making a joke.
The point is you are allowed to defend yourself if you feel threatened and a reasonable person would feel threatened.
We probably agree, and in any event what I just wrote is correct.
And this thread is getting dumber and dumber, as people make up more and more facts about the story which they cannot possibly know.
You can legally attack someone, in any state, just because you feel threatened by her, even if she didn’t do anything to you?
Well, as I noted above, it is an objective standard that a reasonable person would have to feel threatened.
Why does that surprise you?
Imagine a guy comes to you with a gun and aims it at you, and says he will kill you. But has done nothing to you. Shouldn’t you be allowed to shoot him first?
I think all divorces are the fault of people not knowing how to read a passuk in koheles, and also popa’s fault for quoting it as such intentionally.
Come now, I can’t be at fault for all the divorces!
I could be deluding myself, but I never thought of myself, my friends, nor many other delightful women of my acquaintance as “twisted” or “crazy” in any sense of the word. Except my junior high principal, but I digress.
You don’t digress. That is precisely the point. Your junior high principal was twisted and crazy.
This makes no sense.
That would mean the parents borrow 80k upfront, and pay interest on 80k for the term of the loan. What is the purpose of that?
Feeling threatened is NOT a justification to attack someone.
Morally, or legally?
Legally, feeling threatened is a justification to attack someone in every state in the country. Assuming you feel sufficiently threatened under the law in that state, and there are no other ways for you to defend yourself in some states.
Yitta Halberstam would approve.
apushatayid: Do the math again, and look at the quote.
So if Zimmerman was justified in attacking Martin because he felt threatened, wouldn’t Martin be justified in attacking Zimmerman because HE felt threatned? Woudln’t you feel threatned if a strange man was following you?
I thought we had well established that we don’t know what happened, so no opinion can possibly be correct.
In any event, the answer to your question is that luckily, the law has an objective standard, so that it needs to be that a reasonable observer would think you were justified in feeling threatened.
Rabanim who deal in gittin say “beware of a divorced guy”.
Big deal. Rabbanim who deal in eruvin say beware of falling trees.