Ok so this smart ass editor of the blog Pravda Ne'eman with a J.D. degree, who calls himself J.D., has defamed me by trying to say on their blog that I am motivated by being rejected by an orthodox girl by quoting that post I made about the girl who was pissy with me. I was never even interested in that girl.
Before that he speaks about putting "links to my blog on other people's blogs as if it was a cardinal sin of blogging so to speak, which is ridiculous. This wierd woman put a link to her blog on my blog and I didn't cry like a little bitch the way J.D. did in his post.
After that JD mentions my blog when I said "WE [ORTHODOX JEWS] ARE NOT TOO STRICT! THE TALMUD IS ONLY 5,422 PAGES LONG!!!" And when JD tried to make it like the talmud's size is no big deal by trying to compare it to American law, JD makes the logical error of comparing a legal code in a religion that's meant to regulate every aspect of a person's life to a legal code in a free society.
Then J.D. said, "First of all, it is worth noting that SJ seems to feel that such trivialities as spelling, grammar and punctuation are for the birds. Fine. But he also seems to feel similarly about clear thinking and reasoning," and a commentor on the thread in JD's blog said referring to me, "he uses language and grammar that is reasonably sophisticated."
It seems that J.D. is a snob who feels that anything that is not written New York Times quality is automatically not worth reading. Since my blog is just my opinion I don't feel a need to proofread every last punctuation mark. Further, its not even a professional blog, its just my opinion and I do feel that I make my point articulately enough.
Another point is that J.D. bashed me for saying "Let us presume that God intended Judaism to be a Judaism that the majority of jews can follow with minimum difficulty. Let us presume that God intended Judaism to be a Judaism that the majority of jews can follow with minimum difficulty. any more difficulty beyond the minimum would be self flagellation and self flagellation is retarded." Well what kind of religion do you want, one that only a minimum of Jews can do with a maximum of difficulty?
So to conclude this post allow me to say what in fact motivates me to blog, the insane rules that orthodox judaism has, and the lack of being able to disagree in orthodox judaism and still be apart of the community. If orthodox judaism succeeds in being the only possible sect of judaism out there, the jewish people will be a fascist state in the midst of a free country. I am not on a mission to save the jews from self inflicted fascism, but merely to voice my opinion and ridicule all the crap that's going on.
So by the way, mr. faggot religious lawyer, i expect my apology for your defamation of me in your blog (of course none is going to come). I think I pretty much established in my previous post that the only thing worse than a sleezy lawyer is a sleezy orthodox lawyer.
22 comments:
let's compromise
you're both whiny, self-absorbed and obnoxious
This is hilarious! You complain of defamation and demand an apology while simultaneously defaming someone else. I am guessing that you're defense for this is the highly logical, "well, he started it!" defense.
ok doughboy so how did I defame j.d.?
let's see if u can make a coherent argument, which in this case you can't because there isn't one.
Do you actually believe that? You called him "a little bitch," "snob," "faggot," and "sleezy [sic]."
Defamation means (according to dictionary.com)
1.a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
2.an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
I think you did a good job of fulfilling definition number two.
doughboy you are a moron.
doughboy you are a moron.
the more i read the more i believe you cannot be more then 10 years old. You responses to people who make you look bad or prove you wrong is to insult them by calling them names. Very mature
(Cue the FB name calling)
So I guess that calling people immature is the one name calling that is "mature" huh factual bull crap? XD
factual bull crap - what a delightfully inventive play on words!
Thanks
dude he was being sarcastic
I have a funny feeling that that he is you.
> I am motivated by being rejected by an orthodox girl by quoting that post I made about the girl who was pissy with me. I was never even interested in that girl.
I called it! Yes! I knew it!
What was her name?
BTW I wouldn't broadcast that you're not a teenager. Seems that people thinking you are is the only reason they're paying attention to you. If you've over 20, you have no excuse for your attitude.
>> If you've over 20, you have no excuse for your attitude.
Firstly my exact age is not your business.
Secondly, the USA protects one's right to criticize religion. This isn't yeshiva bais garnel ironheart where you get to control the discussion.
I didn't say anything about controlling the discussion. I said you need to control your attitude. It's a subtle difference clearly wasted on your micturating intellect.
so if you want to insist how my attitude should be, that means you want some kind of control over the discussion.
and btw, i can use sat words too.
> so if you want to insist how my attitude should be, that means you want some kind of control over the discussion.
The two are not connected at all. The content of the discussion is totally separate from the attitude one has about it.
And I don't want to insist on how your attitude should be. I am aimply making a suggestion.
> and btw, i can use sat words too.
Yes, but I can use them in coherent sentence free of childish insults.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a wall to go talk to...
>> I am aimply making a suggestion.
ok Garnel, enlighten me with your talmudic genius. (try to avoid discussions about alleged evil spirits)
what attitude should I take? XD
>> "micturating intellect" is just a childish insult with a sat word.
Hmmm, oh sorry about that. The wall was making a good point, and politely too. What was that you said?
Oh, right, attitude. How about: "Well, sir, clearly I don't agree with you. I believe you're wrong." Sounds a lot better than telling someone to Fornicate Under Consent of the King.
wow now where did I tell someone "Fornicate Under Consent of the King?" Garnel, do you need pills?
Your words, dude, not mine:
> So, unless you have some insight to bring to the table, fuck off.
Now take what I said about fornicating and put the four capital letters together... there's a good boy. It's a lot of letters but I think you can do it and there! What word did you come up with?
SJ,
I still don't understand the "the logical error of comparing a legal code in a religion that's meant to regulate every aspect of a person's life to a legal code in a free society."
I know I'm not the brightest tool in the drawer, but I would really appreciate it if you answered my question about this that I posted on Pravda Ne'eman. My question is, a priori, which document would one expect to be the longer one?
p.s. Aside from the controversy with Pravda Ne'eman, which is what attracted my attention to your blog, you have some really interesting and insightful stuff on your blog. Keep up the good work (minus the bashing other people's blogs bit)!
Post a Comment