B”H
Lacking in derech eretz
and in knowledge
This post is the
continuation of the previous
1)
If someone sent a
letter by electronic means, how long is it reasonable to wait until it is acceptable
to say: I did not receive an answer?
Of course it is
relative, but I have Natan Slifkin’s own criteria, i.e. two days (January 29, 2013 at 7:06 PM)
So I will use the same
one.
After hundreds of
comments in NS’s rationalist blogspot, I sent the following:
B”H
Dear Natan,
My latest questions that you have not answered are:
IB: 17.1 My insistence that you have to provide the source is based on common sense (whoever presents a piece of information, has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it) and in what I wrote above on 7.1 IB
And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie.
IB: Do you agree or disagree with the following:
Whoever presents a piece of information has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it.
If you disagree, please explain why.
IB 19.1 … If you think they are incompatible please explain why.
IB 20.1 ... Please tell me where you wrote in your book your definition of maalegera
IB 21.1 Could you please give me your definition of “compatible”?
Are you planning to answer the unanswered questions?
The latter could be summarized in my posts dated:
February 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM (20.1 IB)
February 2, 2013 at 1:44 AM
February 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM (first and second part)
February 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM (first and second part)
February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM
February 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM
February 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM
February 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM (first and second part)
March 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM (first and second part)
March 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM
March 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:28 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Dear Natan:
Are you planning to answer all the unanswered questions?
Dear Natan,
My latest questions that you have not answered are:
IB: 17.1 My insistence that you have to provide the source is based on common sense (whoever presents a piece of information, has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it) and in what I wrote above on 7.1 IB
And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie.
IB: Do you agree or disagree with the following:
Whoever presents a piece of information has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it.
If you disagree, please explain why.
IB 19.1 … If you think they are incompatible please explain why.
IB 20.1 ... Please tell me where you wrote in your book your definition of maale
IB 21.1 Could you please give me your definition of “compatible”?
Are you planning to answer the unanswered questions?
The latter could be summarized in my posts dated:
February 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM (20.1 IB)
February 2, 2013 at 1:44 AM
February 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM (first and second part)
February 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM (first and second part)
February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM
February 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM
February 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM
February 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM (first and second part)
March 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM (first and second part)
March 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM
March 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:28 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Dear Natan:
Are you planning to answer all the unanswered questions?
More than two days
after that, I did not receive any answer from Natan Slifkin, so it seems that
he is not ready to provide answers to my challenges against the letter he sent
Dialogue Magazine in response to my article on the Biblical shafan =
rabbit.
2)
A few days ago, in
response to one of NS’s comments, I wrote an answer that I am now expanding
with additional bracketed recent developments:
IB:
13.1 There is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, about thirty leading Great Talmidei Chachamim already signed letters disqualifying the religious contents of your books.
On the other hand, meanwhile you have not published letters of support of leading Great Talmidei Chachamim.
Additionally, there is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, you have publicly acknowledged that you do not believe in a basic Chapter of the written Torah, as you wrote:
“Sorry to shock you, but I don't believe in a global flood, either!...”
February 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM
13.1 There is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, about thirty leading Great Talmidei Chachamim already signed letters disqualifying the religious contents of your books.
On the other hand, meanwhile you have not published letters of support of leading Great Talmidei Chachamim.
Additionally, there is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, you have publicly acknowledged that you do not believe in a basic Chapter of the written Torah, as you wrote:
“Sorry to shock you, but I don't believe in a global flood, either!...”
February 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM
[Additionally, there is no need now that I would try to
operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, you have publicly
shared your pictures eating locust which reveal your hallachic standards...]
[Additionally, there is no need now that I would try to
operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows you have not
answered the following public challenge:
Anyhow, the entire conversation with xxx and
Natan Slifkin is fruitless until we determine one fundamental point – do you
believe that Torah study contributes to the security and the economic wellbeing
of the Jewish people?
If your answer is no, I would like to know
how you explain the Gemara in Sanhedrin which seems to declare you Apikorsim. We can then move forward.]
Now, I am operating in the framework of an academic approach because people probably do not know that even your publications in zoology-related-issues, are not easy to support in light of modern zoology (as written in the front cover of your hyrax book).
Incidentally, an additional facet is becoming public, that instead of intellectually defending your two books on the hyrax, and defending what you wrote in your recent letter to Dialogue Magazine, you are evading and making false accusations against an academic opponent.
Now, I am operating in the framework of an academic approach because people probably do not know that even your publications in zoology-related-issues, are not easy to support in light of modern zoology (as written in the front cover of your hyrax book).
Incidentally, an additional facet is becoming public, that instead of intellectually defending your two books on the hyrax, and defending what you wrote in your recent letter to Dialogue Magazine, you are evading and making false accusations against an academic opponent.
3)
Recently, when NS’s
locust-eating was publicly challenged, NS wrote the following:
... It's just a
pity that almost every time I am attacked from the right, my opponents
reveal themselves to be somewhat lacking in derech eretz (aside from lacking in
knowledge).
“lacking in derech eretz”
If the
reader is interested, he could check the lack of derech eretz of NS’s writings
the same dates in his rationalist blogspot...
“lacking in knowledge”
Let me present three
examples of lacking in zoological knowledge by the “zoo-rabbi”
as evident from NS’s letter to Dialogue magazine and the subsequent comments
thread:
a)
NS
wrote:
“But rabbits do not, and did not, live in Eretz Yisrael or anywhere nearby.”
IB:
This
is not true.
b)
NS
wrote:
“With
the hare and rabbit, interpreting ma’aleh gerah as caecotrophy requires
going against all classical interpretations of ma’aleh gerah.”
IB:
This
is not true.
c)
NS
wrote:
“Some zoologists, however, have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small
quantities of food for remastication...”
NS
wrote:
“Well,
you can find the names of two zoologists in my book, and I could add two or
three others...”
IB
published many days ago:
Please
provide me the page number of your book where the zoologists have observed that
hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication, and
please add the two or three others that you are offering me.
IB:
NS is
still refusing to give the page number on his book where the names of the two
zoologists that said what he claims they said are written.
This
seems to be another evasive strategy to cover NS’s lie.
PS
Nevertheless,
I am still willing B”H to continue this interchange with Natan Slifkin (the author
of the letter to Dialogue Magazine) immediately after he publishes the names of
“the two zoologist appearing in his book” and answers the unanswered questions.