Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (32749)	6/20/2002 4:01:05 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So the same people who disliked the "axis of evil" language should dislike the "war on terrorism" language. I think "War on Terrorism" is acceptable, and is what people expect to hear. I think they are combining it with "American National Interests", in the "Home Defense" positions. The concept that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is what your author was putting across. This is certainly a valid point, it is just that we discuss it here endlessly. I think the administration has to stay "on message" with the "War on Terrorism". It has to be "find them, and capture or kill them."

To: tekboy who wrote (32749)	6/20/2002 4:05:42 AM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

good arguments, tb. Pilpul indeed according to what I found: :o) Pilpul, which means "pepper" in Hebrew, was an accepted Talmudic study technique even during the time of the Amoraim, and it has continued to this day. Those engaged in pilpul are intensely aware of every nuance of talmudic language in order to make clever, insightful distinctions in the legal arguments presented. These distinctions can appear to be highly convoluted In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries pilpul became an art form for talmudic scholars. It was their way of showing their legal brilliance. The Tosafists had been involved in similar examinations of the Talmud. In the late 17th century, pilpul became the fad in Polish yeshivot. Students strove to show their knowledge and cleverness even at the cost of changing the intention of the Talmud and the meaning of the text. Students began with the assumption that, like the Torah, every word of the Talmud held its own significance. There could be no redundancy and certainly not contradictions in the text. They therefore used tremendously convoluted (albeit creative and sometimes brilliant) logical arguments to resolve all apparent contradictions and repetitions jewishgates.org --fl@bingo.com