Rabbis said to use torture to secure divorces for women

[Jacob]

Agree that hostile doesn't really work.  More like patronizing, dismissive, dishonest.

[Malthus]

Agree that hostile doesn't really work.  More like patronizing, dismissive, dishonest.

Obviously, I don't agree with that characterization either. Where's your sense of proportion?

How about "mildly frustrated at inability of opponent to concede any point, even after having taken the trouble to repeat again and again actual evidence that was apparently not being read".

Shit, this in a thread where OvB was blatantly trolling the Canucks and where DG himself was making Jew cracks, with nary a peep out of you. Did I storm off in a huff about any of that? 

[PDH]

Fuck you.

[Admiral Yi]

How about

"you cracked under the pressure of fending off multiple posts simultaneously, and would like to de-escalate but have compounded the error by refusing to acknowledge it for so long and are now unable to do so?"

[PDH]

I liked my tack better.  It was mainly to post something in the thread but I think it conveyed the mindless idiotic attacks that are the bread and butter of this board.

[Admiral Yi]

I liked my tack better.

Yours was pretty good.

[Malthus]

How about

"you cracked under the pressure of fending off multiple posts simultaneously, and would like to de-escalate but have compounded the error by refusing to acknowledge it for so long and are now unable to do so?"

Nope. Try again.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, just as DG has.

[Jacob]

How about

"you cracked under the pressure of fending off multiple posts simultaneously, and would like to de-escalate but have compounded the error by refusing to acknowledge it for so long and are now unable to do so?"

You're completely off your rocker.

[Admiral Yi]

Nope. Try again.

You fucking try again.

[DGuller]

Agree that hostile doesn't really work.  More like patronizing, dismissive, dishonest.

That does work better.  I withdraw my accusation of hostility.

[Jacob]

Nope. Try again.

You fucking try again.

Why so hostile?

[Admiral Yi]

Why so hostile?

Tit for tat.

[Jacob]

Why so hostile?

Tit for tat.

Tits > tats.

IMO.

[Eddie Teach]

If the guy has a religious obligation to grant the "get", seems it should be the synagogue stepping in, not the courts. Just declare his marriage gotten and have done with it.

[grumbler]

If the guy has a religious obligation to grant the "get", seems it should be the synagogue stepping in, not the courts. Just declare his marriage gotten and have done with it. 

The reason that this is a better answer is that it allows someone qualified to determine whether someone has a religious obligation.  I'd argue that the court is absolutely not in the position of telling the husband what his religious obligations are, and while Malthus can argue that the obligation exists and that the guy is an asshole for not meeting the obligation, that begs the question of whether the obligation exists (given that the husband clearly doesn't believe that it does, as he isn't granting the get).

Let some religious authority decide religious dogma.