Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
NC
“he made an observation that many others had made of the internet, ”Interesting, can you find one such mention online that predates Poe’s Law? I won’t ask you for “many” since I don’t want to hinder your moon colonizing ambitions, (If you are choosing between focusing on moon colonization vs coming up with clever theorems, I’d focus on the former)
How do you know that “Joseph” isn’t known by the people around him, whether in shul, the bar or wherever? If he reveals himself here it is all over, his friends watch us fight over his ideas, and even his identity. Ken M. comes to mind, he doesnt reveal himself as a troll on a given forum, that’s no fun.
And furthermore, how does Neville’e Theorem jive with “The Study of trolls: The Character Troll: Has a running theme/character that he/she plays and never deviates from.” According to the theorem, is there really no such thing?
KY
“I still don’t see any brilliance in it.”Like I said (twice, three times? )
“Of course If you don’t like it that is fine too”
It will be ok, don’t worry about it.Joseph
“ubiq: Correct me if I’m not following your line of thought/reasoning correctly. You’ve taken the following positions: 1. Most Chareidi men would vote against women’s suffrage today.”Perhaps “many” I’m not super sure about “most” but it is plausible
“2. Joseph claims he would vote against women’s suffrage today.”
True“3. You think there’s a 90% likelihood that Joseph is pulling everyone’s leg on this. (Or Poe’s law or trolling or whatever you want to call it.)”
true“4. You think there’s a 10% likelihood that Joseph is expressing an earnest opinion. In which case Poe/trolling doesn’t apply.”
My point is there is no way to know .“my question is do you think that having the sincere opinion that women’s suffrage was and is a bad idea is an “extremist” opinion. ”
Of course, I think most people who actually have that view (not you) would agree.“Then please define why you think it’s extremist”
Because it is well outside the overton window , ie it is a view that very few hold, this by definition makes it “extreme”
Even you know this as you let slip “But I also think that most of them wouldn’t admit this in a survey.” why wouldn’t they admit it in a survey ?“And if so, you by definition think most Chareidi men are extremists.”
I’m confused. Of course! Does anyone think otherwise (of course it depends with regard to what) but certainly with woman’s issues charediim, in general, (and in truth probably all Religous Jews) are pretty extreme. you don’t think not wanting pictures of women in a magazine, say one geared to women, is extreme? That doesnt make it wrong, it may be needed to counteract the tumah in the world so we go to extreme tznius t o fight of the extreme tumah or whatever, but I think most charedidim admit proudly that they have extremist views.
NC
Lol, believe it or not, I feel the same
I thought your post was excellentsorry I ruined it, I wish I could remove that word genius .
Joseph
It isn’t a stirah
I’m not sure why you don’t see the obvious answer, , would you object to my statement: “Most charedi men don’t spend this much time commenting on online forums” ?
Yet here you are…(I do grant that perhaps we are defining “charedi men” a bit differently. )
KY
Yes. You are most welcome.
Of course If you don’t like it that is fine too“Just in sheer numbers the democrats have more automatics then the republicans do”
Even if true, (and I’m not sure how you’ve reached that conclusion, arguably this election showed the opposite: Hillary was a more traditional Democratic candidate not much different than what democrats voted for in 2008, Trump was not a “Republican” candidate at all , He overturned many things traditionally thought of as Republican ideas, he opposes free trade, stands against “Family values” etc etc etc Yet many Republican voters voted for him because of the Letter next to his name, (and because they hate Hillary as RY points out))
But even if more Democrats are “more automatic” and really hate Hillary and only voted for her “because they align with democrat policy ” So what? that still undermines your theory that “Again my point is in the battle for winning the most diverse cross section of opinions in the country”
The bottom line is, More people in this country want the Democrat (candidate or ideas, it doesn’t matter) than the Republican one.
(As I pointed out, though you could argue that the above isn’t neccesarily true, since there is no way to know how a real popular vote would have gone, as the campaigns would be different, and perhaps more people who feel their votes don’t count, like NY republicans, would vote but that’s is not what you said)
“Now just sponsor the ads & arrange for the gedolim to unanimously sign a psak.”
not gonna hep. The Gedolim (that these communities follow) all said to vaccinate .
these people dont care about their kids, do you think they wil l care about mine?Ok so here is the nuance you think you have:
“It’s nuanced because it looks like a win but it gets broken down to
first of all it’s not a win because that’s not what decides the contest…,”that isnt a nuance that is something everyone with an elementary school civics lesson knows
” …and also even for what it seems to show, aka that she is popular, it’s not really showing.”
Again, 1) why do you assume that more Democrats automatically
vote for the democratic candidtae than republicans for the Republican?
and even if true, 2) why do yo uassume that they dont vote for the democrat because they like democratic policies, so yes they vote for the democrat whether it is hillary or a glass of water. they might not like HER per se, but they support her policies, which undermines your whole point ” in the battle for winning the most diverse cross section of opinions in the country, which is sort of the rationale behind the electoral college, trump won.”KY
“Frankly while that sounds like a good opening for an explanation, by itself it falls short.”
Yep, thats why I gave an example using Joseph. It wasn’t lengthy, its quite short. when you have some time read it,
Here is the money quote “Who is right? There is no way to know. NOT because their is a chisaron in language (which as you ve pointed out 1. isnt true, and 2. wouldnt be a chiddush at all. But because there are people with such crazy ideas out there that no matter how extreme he gets, we still couldnt be certain if he was being serious or not.”“Saying “buddy you missed the point sorry have a nice day ” doesn’t sound like someone who is in the explaining mode”
True . you arent in the understanding mode, I wrote an explanation, which I suspect you didnt read, since you thought it a “lengthy expositions on Josef.” I’m just using Joseph as an excellent example of Poe’s law“I’m sorry if I’m being too hard on you. I don’t mean it personally.”
Lol dont worry I am not taking it personally. you are just getting boring and repeating yourself, which In spite of what might be caimed, I don’t find enjoyableso having a discussion of:
The quote is about language
no it is about people
No it is about language
No it is about peopleJust doesnt sound fun to me
Sorry to let me downso in sum
The quote is about people, as I explained above, using Joseph as an example
If it is about langauge, then yes it is silly.“Ubiq you seem to have missed the nuanced point here”
Lol there is no nuanced point, as several posters pointed out
Furthermore, why does it matter that they would vote for any Democrat. Even if true that is because their opinion allies with Democrat ic policies.
In fact if anything this is Less true regarding Trump. Many voters who stand for “family values” support the military have deep religous conviction s etc all of which Trump is the antithesis of voted for him anyway.
Do their votes not count?You are deluding yourself if you think only Democratic voters automaticly vote democrat. But republicans strictly vote for candidate s whose policies they support.
And if if that absurd contention we’re true.
It wouldn’t matter one iota.“But some are screaming, no fair!!! More people wanted her. The system is messed up!!
To that I’m responding, not true. You don’t know that more people want HER because that huge lead is actually not from people who chose HER. they just chose d”So what? Are you suggesting that if the popular vote was what mattered then those new Yorkers and Californian s who didn’t v “choose HER. They just chose d.” Would have voted for Trump?
(I grant that it isn’t automatically true that if the popular vote mattered Hillary would have won, the campaigns would have been different, many new Yorker republicans voters who sat out would probably have voted changing the tally dramatic ly , are there more of these than Texan Democrats who sat out?) But this is not what you are saying
Easy there KY
“His first attempt to explain it fell flat as it lacked that important component called explanation.”
Nope, it fell flat because you are slower than I anticipated, which is fine, so I tried a simpler approach “step by step for the simpletons like me., as you put it .
“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.”
I don’t have a follow up question, you missed the whole subject of the line (in spite of my explaining it) I cant help you. (Moreover, we can disagree about the subject, that is ok I have no problem with that, I concede that according to your mistaken interpretation the law is a “simpletons hardly true statement”
“Josef, in the same post, mind you, about the same topic, as if he hasn’t conceded!!!”
I’m addressing a more interesting discussion, don’t take it personally you are still smart, keep trying and don’t give up . but I jus twant to avoid repeating myself over and over.
Our conversation isnt going to move. I’d rather move on to more interesting discussions like how Trump could win the popular vote if we discount millions of votes for whatever reason.Joseph
1) if only… Perhaps some felt that way but many did not. See Hitler’s willing executioners for more
2) I still don’t believe youinterestingly though I DO believe your last paragraph “As an aside and bonus, …” to be true
I can d o you one better,
Really Trumps’ election was unanimousJust need to remove the 65,845,063 votes for Hillary , remove any votes for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or anybody else for that matter.
and you are left with only 62,980,160 votes that count. EVERY single one of which was cast for his glorious Emperor of Mankind, oheiv Yisorel par excellence Donald Trump
Amazing stuff!
(attempt #2)
KY
“as written, language/self-expression/communication of intent”In that case, yes it is a silly and uninspired quote.
joseph
“Poe’s Law does NOT apply to someone who sincerely believes in and expresses ”
correct. N o argument there“Now back to me. …Do you ubiq (or anyone else here) seriously doubt how I’ll vote on the issue?”
Yes! I am 90% sure you would vote to continue womans’ suffrage, but 10% thinks you may be serious. you are the literal personification of Poe’s law I’m almost certain you are parodying these positions (it is hard to believe your illogical “rayos” (see below) are meant to be real) yet some posters (not many) do take you seriously so I’m not 100% sure.
I’m curious how others would vote, So I started a thred for that“I’d bring as rayos the question of whether you’d consider the millions of people in the 40% of the voting population who opposed woman’s suffrage prior to its becoming the law of the land (in 1920) as all being millions of extremist people”
This is not a raya at all. Can I bring a raya from the fact that millions of Germans in 1940 that Gassing Jews is a great idea. that the policy of exterminating Jews isn’t “extreme” ?
Which brings us to another great internet law, namely Godwin’s law
KY
“as written, language/self-expression/communication of intent”In that case, yes the law is silly and uninspired
joseph
“Poe’s Law does NOT apply to someone who sincerely believes in ..”correct, I in no way am disputing that sentence.
though the point is there is no way to know what you believe“Now back to me. … Do you ubiq (or anyone else here) seriously doubt how I’ll vote on the issue?”
Yes! that is the point. I’m 90% sure you’d vote to continue Woman’s suffrage. but I’m not 100% sure. there is just no way to know from your post. I’m 90% sure you are parodying someone who believes that, but with no winky face, I’m just not sure and it is possible that you might actually mean it.
That is precisely my point, you are the embodiment of Poe’s law . You say your position is sincere but I (and many posters ) don’t believe you.
and this is PRECISLY why Poe’s law is so brilliant. There is no way to know. sure we can all guess and looking at the pattern of your posts, with “rayos” that make so little sense to anyone with a shred of thought (see below) I Find it astonishing that anyone thinks you are serious. Yet, many do and even I’m not 100% certain that you are kiddingI would be curious though to see other votes in your poll. perhaps a new thread?
your raya from 100 years ago is absurd. If if most people in Germany in th 40’s thought gassing Jews was ok, does that mean the position isn’t extreme?
Which brings us to another great internet law: Godwin’s law
“I’m not going to have a back and forth with you on this topic since you have a history of constantly spouting over and over again refuted points”
nope.
You just have trouble conceding when wrong (not something that I struggle with. )
I DO grant that have trouble expressing myself well, and perhaps that is why you think I am repeating myself. I’d be more than happy to explain and why any “refuted point” was not actually refuted, or to concede that it was .“Maybe that threw you off as to what I was saying?”
Nope, I got what you are saying. you elaborated quite well. I have no trouble understanding things in context, my posts too are often riddled with typos. It happens.
“I don’t see where I changed my own understanding of his statement”
you didn’t. Here is the sequence you misunderstood it (“Basically it states The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic”) Then realized, correctly, that your misunderstanding wasn’t true (“Besides that upon further reflection, what if wrote isn’t even true”)
Atthis point instead of reevaluating your understanding, you doubled down on your wrong, misinterpretation.“Thanks for your lengthy post.”
you are most welcome 🙂
” Doesn’t really explain anything though”
apologies.
Perhaps you do better with more of a give and take, approach:
question: what is the subject of Poe’s law?Is it language? or Extremists/extreme positions?
“Quote ”the rule clearly went a bit over your head,” Aka your too stupid to understand.”
Oh no, not at all! don’t be so hard on yourself, True it went over your head, but you can get it don’t give up! with a bit of perseverance you totally could understand it I have full faith in you, you are not stupid, you are a kluger yid I know it!
Are you not familiar with the adage “If at first you don’t succeed try try again ” (do you not understand that either?) Its not “if at first you don’t succeed give up you’re too stupid to understand” I in no way meant to imply that“Curious? Yes I’d like to know… I’ll sit back and wait for the master to explain”
Glad to oblige!
“So far I laid out a reasoned logical point by point …”
No you didnt. you misunderstood the law, as you sort of realized in your follow up post.
You originally said “The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.”which is of course nonsense, as you correctly realized later. Sadly, though instead of taking that opportunity t rethink your mistaken understanding , you doubled down on your wrong interpretation.
The quote is not about words or language. That is not at all the subject of the law. The law is about people.
As Yeserbius correctly understood. “@joseph is the personification of Poe’s law. Most people here can’t tell that he’s trolling in 99% of his comments.” In other words Joseph ie a person, is an example of Poe’s law, its not his writing that is the example.For example take his recent post “Women’s suffrage must end” Does he really believe that? There is no real way to know, some take him very seriously, some assume he is joking.
Who is right? There is no way to know. NOT because their is a chisaron in language (which as you ve pointed out 1. isnt true, and 2. wouldnt be a chiddush at all. But because there are people with such crazy ideas out there that no matter how extreme he gets, we still couldnt be certain if he was being serious or not.Undo cheirem derabeinu gershom?
Be allowed to hit your wife?
Be allowed to keep your wife imprisoned in your home
Be allowed to feed her just enough to survive ?Who knows if he actually believes this stuff, furthermore, he may not even have SAID all these examples, but many would believe me if I said he did
He could get as extreme as possible combining all the above, into one post (as i I believe men should be allowed to marry multiple wives keeping them all locked up at home feeding them the bare minimum amount to eat) and many would STILL believe he believes thatAgain, not because of a chissaron in “the written word” in fact it can equally apply in real life if joseph said these things.
“Your response has been ”I guess your too stupid to understand. ””
I double checked my post, I’m not sure where I said (or even implied ) that .
But lets focus on one misunderstood line at a time“So I take full exception to your claim that he or his law are genius”
nu nu
“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.”So I’m guessing you don’t really care about what is genius about his law, and frankly I don’t really care if you like it or not. its quite all right if you think its the stupidest thing ever said It is ok too if you are as deeply troubled as poor NC by this silly conversation
that said, the rule clearly went a bit over your head, and if you really care i’d be happy to explain to you the nuance that you clearly missed
Fair enough
He probably isn’t a genius, though I think this law (at least the way it is commonly used) is geniousnes.I’m sorry for alarming you, there there it will be OK. Sleep well
(also I wouldn’t say I “respect” him, I know nothing about him other than this one adage which I think is brilliant)NC
Are you saying an anti creationist can’t be a genius?
*he
Joseph
I don’t
And Poe was a genius. Most of your posts’s only value is to further prove his law correct.google is your friend
The original was “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.”
It has since been expanded to include any “extreme view”
NC
excellent list
“what I would call it when someone just has offensive/annoying views, but there’s no deception involved… That’s called NOT TROLLING.”Though you are forgetting Poe’s law , it isnt neccesarily driven by a “hardcore, college-liberal-snowflake mentality”
Uncle Ben
“Perhaps Rebecca is looking for the traditional Hilula bonfire as opposed to the modern day parade innovation?”
serious question, how old does a practice have to be for it to transition from “modern… innovation” to “traditional”
” as well as the major manual recount jointly conducted by the major mainstream media showed that Bush won.”
Again, i’m not sure what recount you are reffering to. There was recount done by The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. This was funded by : the AP CNN, WSJ, NYT WaPO the LA Times, , Chicago Tribune and some others.
The yfound “no matter what standard is used, after a recount of all uncounted votes, Gore would have been the victor.” (quote from wikipedia end of page on “2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida”)
now again, Gore did not request a statewide recount, and had the recount of the contested counties not been interrupted then bush would have won , so it isnt quite right to sya the supreme court handed bush the election.
however it is also wrong to say ““Every Florida count, official and unofficial, showed a Bush victory””
NC
“People conclude that creamers like this are only dairy equipment when this is, in fact, real dairy.”1) So thye look at the label, the OU (who is the one telling them itis kosher) tells them it is dairy, but some goyish lable maker tells them it is “non-dairy” and they decide to take some sort of palginan approach and rely on the OU that it is kosher but not dairy, and this iis the OU’s fault?
2) Ok so they take this palginan approach, now what? what is your concern exactly?
“Every Florida count, official and unofficial, showed a Bush victory”
Like most of your posts this one is simply false
A study was done in the months after the election and while bush would’ve won the recount of the questioned counties. Gore would have won a statewide recount (which granted he never asked for)
See “Tanner, Robert and Sharon L. Crenson. “Florida Review Shows Narrowest Margin The Associated Press, 11 Nov 2001.”
“This deal will very soon lead the World into WWIII.”
Lol! The deal was abandoned by the current President, any war that may result is because the deal was abandoned
“And it will be a nuclear war”
Netanyahu said in 2012 That Iran is “six months away from a bomb” It is now over 6 years later Even if Iran gets a bomb today. Obama got us 6 years of extra life on Earth without a nuclear Iran (unless Netanyahu was lying)
amazing! Obama zal er zein gezunt in shtark gave us all 6 years! wow easily the best president!As to the President who will, in your view, get us into WW3 by having abandoned the deal, well that wasn’t Obama, guess who it was?
“So pro-vaxxers, and anti-vaxxers, why not leave each other alone…”
Because the anti-vaxxers /pro diseasers won’t leave us alone.
If people don’t want to vaxx and want to stay away from the rest of us, you’d have a point. Don’t come to our shuls, schools, stores etc. fine have your self a gran old measles party and who knows if your real lucky maybe you can have a smallpox party too. But as you say leave the rest of us alone.
Plus there is also the poor innocent kids ….
Jam
“It is important to know that women suffrage came together with the feminist movement …… The founding mothers of feminism such as Betty Friedan…”thanks for the fascinating history lesson
Aye, women in the US got the right to vote in 1920 (after calling for it for decades) and Friedan was born in 1921?
nu nu ah kashe oif ah maisae
as you say “This is a complex topic.”
Joseph
“I already explained above why frum women voting is not a stira to the frum opposition to women’s suffrage.”no you dint and thats not what I asked.
I’ll walk you through it
you started w/ a pretend position that you dont actually believe “Women’s Suffrage Must End” and brought the following to pretend to back it up “Rav Avraham Kook as well as Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld as well as all the Gedolim were opposed to granting women suffrage.”
Phil pointed out “A full century after suffrage was granted, you will not find a posek… or telling women they can’t vote.” (I removed the part not relevant to this point )
you replied “Can you provide any contemporary poskim who rule that toeiva marriage must be illegal? Why would a posek today rule that, which is obvious, when no government will be taking their direction from poskim. Same with women’s suffrage. ”
I pointed out that this in no way addresses Phil’s question.
It may address why there is no call to reverse the general right of woman to vote. (which was only half of phi;’s response)
But it does not at all answer why you can not cite a single Rav who tells women today not to vote.
Your comparison to toeiva marriage falls apart quickly, as while many dont rally against it, no Rav says well now that it is the rule it is ok to get marriedeleh mai tiyuvta d’joseph tiyuvta
Joseph
“Of course they still oppose it, just as much as before, …”but for the individual who asks what would the y ay,,,
by toeiva marriage?
by women voting?“Can you provide any contemporary poskim who rule that toeiva marriage must be illegal? Why would a posek today rule that, which is obvious, when no government will be taking their direction from poskim. Same with women’s suffrage.”
Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that any contemporary posek would want toeiva marriage to be illegal, but once the government rules it legal, then it is ok for an individual to get toeiva married?
Otherwise what is the connection to women’s suffrage?
“With only men voting we’d have had Republicans in charge ”
thats an argument to end men’s right to vote
A few questions:
1) Does the ou say ou-d ?
2) you say “a case of “Lifnei Iver Lo Sitain Michshol””
What “michshol” concerns you?simple, They realized they were wrong.
The question is on those woh repeat the same anti-zionist arguments from 70+ years ago. How do they stick to such a bizzare shitah that is clearly been proven wrong
Rebbetzin
“they only don’t do so very PUBLICLY, ”
Lol
why not? Is one of the sheva mitzvos not to eat human meat publicly? which one?You say “the “30 mitzvos” are what the goyim “took upon themselves” and are not from HKBH.”
who are they from? Are they being praised for it or is at waste of their time? Is the fact that the ydont sell human meat publicly a good thing, or is it a pointless deprivation of a delicious source of protein? (or as you described it “ok”)The second mitzvah listed there is “. ואחת שאין שוקלין בשר המת במקולין”
Too bad they didint know the Rebbetzin’s psak that human meat is “ok” to eat
one that comes to mind, is the Rosh brought in Mechaber by netilas yedayim leseudah that the most choshuv should go last
rebyid that is a different version
The Wikipedia page on “echad mi yodea” has both
““pure am haaratzos”: is there pure and impure am haaratzos?”
Yes some times it is adulterated with a bit of lomdus, not in this case.
“because I never encountered “pure” am haaratzus, ”
Wait no longer:
“The Rashba and the Ritvah opine,like the Ramban, that it is permitted to eat human meat.”That line was pure am haaratzos they do not hold it is permitted to eat human meat.
“I’m waiting for Ubiq to reply. If he doesn’t, then I will.”
I’m not sure what i am supposed to reply to.Kluger yid addressed a question to me , but It should be addressed to the rebetzin. It is similar to the question I asked 4 times that has yet to be answered
Here it is for the 5th time ” “A goy being meanes an unmarried woman. Are you ok with that too?””as to your silly last comment , youve lost the train of conversation, let me sort you ut a bit
you said “You mix up d’oraysa (which they hold there is no issur min haTorah) with d’rabbonon. You also mix up the d’rabbonon for a Jew with a goy” No I mixed up no such thing, and no, and no rishon holds eating human meat is “permitted”We are not discussing if their is a technical issur and whether it is deoryasa or derababon. The question is if it is “ok” You said that as long as there isnt a technical issur then it was automatically ok.
THIs is what we are now discussing, this led me to my question here it is again: “A goy being meanes an unmarried woman. Are you ok with that too?”
while you are at it, you can answer Kluger yid’s question too, specifically is it “ok” “Jew who is meanes a divorced Jewess”?tzvai lichois fin sapir shtein, geshriben hut zei, der aibeshter alaein
drei uvois zenen bei inz du, Avruhum Yitzchak Yaakoiv zichroimum livrachu
fir imahos zenen bei inz du, Suru Rivka Ruchul in Laiuh
Finef zenen di chimishim, Bereishis shemois vayikra bamidbar devurim
zexs zene di mishnayoid zrooim moiaid nushim nezikin kudshim taharosJoseph
“ubiq: Milhouse and I have refuted your point in the other thread.”Lol no you haven’t. It isnt “my point” it is how the sale is typically organized, as several posters over the years have explained.
You didnt “refute” anything you just repeated the same misinformation year after year.
Millhouse claims his rav does it differently. assuming he remembers correctly. His is an exception, as that is not typically how done.As to a safek jew is likely a safek derabanan.
If he died after pesach, is in coma or ran away you dont have any problem as has been explained to Joseph year after year in the “buying chometz back” thread.
If he dies during pesach that might be a problem, though again not an insurmountable one. T is likely comparable to Joseph’s subscribe and save which is a beferish din as to what to do. Though I’m not sure about the land sold to the guy which contains hefker chometz
“What is the status of all the chometz that was never sold?”
Remains muttar, as this is an onus gamar.
” Do I have a chiyuv to worry that maybe the rov will mess up on the mechira. Similar to a Kohen Gadol that we prepare a back up for his avoda on Yom Kippur?”
No
I always mean Kuvid Kedishas R’ Simcha beenim Honigkvetcher shlita the Farikter Rebbe
ccb45
“If the cat is busy with the mouse, you dog why get involved? So: the dog was wrong, the stick was right,”
I’ve heard that story, but I don’t understand it.
If you say anybody getting involved in another dispute is wrong then the dog , fire ,water , cow , shochet ,t, malach hamoves , and HKB”H are all “wrong,” “why get involved”??Millhouse overseen it too and checked with a few rabbonim.
All said there was no “buying back”I can only guess different rabbonim have different procedures?
Though how dies your fav ensure that all sellers want their chametz back? What if Joseph sold with your rav and doesn’t want it back?
NC
Your first statement : “He gives you a down payment and then you repossess it when he fails to pay the full amount after Pesach. ” was spot on.
I believe there is a typo in your second though “The concept of the goy saying “I’m keeping the chometz” is basically a fantasy dreamt up by people who don’t understand how it works.”
As you correctly point out i your first statement if the goy were to pay the full amount after PEsach he would get to keep the chometz.
The “fantasy dreamt up by people who don’t understand how it works. is the reverse “thinking of not buying the chometz back from the goy” which as you correctly point out is hogwash, as thee is no “buying back”