The fundemental desire of every Jew is to bring praise to the name of God.
I am overwhelmingly pleased about this Jew who switched desecration to praise.
This quote from the second letter by the RY seems to have no connection to the first letter. The first letter was not a call on the YR's part to bring a Jew back to praising God, nor a call to show the store owner the correct derech to follow to avoid desecration. It was plain and simple a call to boycott, to not patronize the store. If that was the intent of the first letter, and even that self-annointed arbiter of all that is true and proper, the Defrocked Bray of Fundie, can not disagree that it was so, then where in the second letter is there a call or even plain simple statement that the CB leit should go back to shopping in the store? Because the second letter lacks this call to action it is quite plausible to take a negative connotation of the words used and see the letter as "gloating" or "boastful" or a touch of malicious glee. The first rule in writing, particularly when communication is desired between two or more parties, is not to ask what you want to say but to ask "How will the reader take my words, both denotatively and connotatively?"
Ayelet dear, I don't rant in Adar. Why get a "tad" worked up? As the song says "We didn't start the fire." CB caused this tempest in a teapot and let it boil over to the general community. They didn't end it well. And I believe in "the emperor is naked" activism. You tell someone when they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes that it isn't working and won't work. If not, then we have no one to blame but ourselves if "First they came for the wig store owner" turns into "And then they came for me."
As a note, DB's translation is not quite accurate and makes the letter sound worse than it is. That said, the gist of the letter is the same.
ReplyDeleteThe fundemental desire of every Jew is to bring praise to the name of God.
ReplyDeleteI am overwhelmingly pleased about this Jew who switched desecration to praise.
This quote from the second letter by the RY seems to have no connection to the first letter. The first letter was not a call on the YR's part to bring a Jew back to praising God, nor a call to show the store owner the correct derech to follow to avoid desecration. It was plain and simple a call to boycott, to not patronize the store. If that was the intent of the first letter, and even that self-annointed arbiter of all that is true and proper, the Defrocked Bray of Fundie, can not disagree that it was so, then where in the second letter is there a call or even plain simple statement that the CB leit should go back to shopping in the store?
Because the second letter lacks this call to action it is quite plausible to take a negative connotation of the words used and see the letter as "gloating" or "boastful" or a touch of malicious glee.
The first rule in writing, particularly when communication is desired between two or more parties, is not to ask what you want to say but to ask "How will the reader take my words, both denotatively and connotatively?"
ProfK: puh-lease. Do you imagine you're making sense with your rantings? Save your breath for better uses. You're getting a tad worked up over...what?
ReplyDeleteAyelet dear, I don't rant in Adar. Why get a "tad" worked up? As the song says "We didn't start the fire." CB caused this tempest in a teapot and let it boil over to the general community. They didn't end it well. And I believe in "the emperor is naked" activism. You tell someone when they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes that it isn't working and won't work. If not, then we have no one to blame but ourselves if "First they came for the wig store owner" turns into "And then they came for me."
ReplyDelete