My Basic Twitter Philosophy

Update (November 14, 2024 or 12 Cheshvan 5784):

1. If you unfollow me and I am following you, I will unfollow you in turn if I become aware that you have unfollowed me². Since I hold the philosophy that people online are a reflection of whom they are offline (including, as Curt Schilling pointed out, whom they would be offline if they could be that way offline), I have no time for you if you have no time for me, I have, as far as I recall, broken my unfollow-for-unfollow rule only twice, and that includes that I refollowed one person whom'd unfollowed me only because his work in his field is influential enough to merit for him a follow. I will also unfollow you if I recall that you followed me and then unfollowed me after I followed you, whether or not my recollection is correct.
2. If you abuse me in any way on Twitter—for example, if you twist my words (or similarly libel me) and/or engage in Anti-Semitic attacks—I will report and/or block you. ³
3. If you abuse others on Twitter, I will report and/or block you. ³
4. RTs are not endorsements unless the original tweet is favorited and/or the RTs are noted as endorsements of the original tweets. What RTs often are is FOIP (for only informational purposes).
5. While I do "unfollow for unfollow", I do not do "follow for follow"—I follow whom I want to follow, and I will follow those whom follow me if I find them worth following.
6. While and since I won't, and I really even can't, report every abusive instance and/or block every person whom's engaging in abuse, I will call out someone whom's being abusive if I feel (or at least hope) that I can reason with them. ³
7. I get Twitter notifications via text messages—and I don't have a smartphone¹, unlike some of these rich kids and others whom can afford smartphones. As soon as I get a chance to respond to and/or RT tweets, I'll respond to them; and be aware that I can see on my phone what abusive tweets you deleted and/or thought that you blocked from my view—and I will report and/or block you, and/or call you out. ³

Addendum [April 9, 2019/Aviv 3, 5779 (Before sunset)]: 

1. The Democrats & others who want to think that the Modern Right & the Alt Right are the same as well as try to demonize the Modern Right, ignore the #NeverTrump movement are only going to make the #NeverTrump movement fight harder against Trump's trying to destroy the GOP. In other words, their attempts to throw out revisionist tropes and thus give Trump what he wants haven't worked in the way that they wanted it to do so. If you're one of those revisionists and you're thinking about parroting out your revisionism as a response to my tweets, then, please keep away from me. On the flip side, if you're a Trumpite or one who dreads Clinton more than fears Yehovah, also please keep away from me if you're thinking about troping out your own revisionism in response to my tweets. 
2. On that note and a general note, common sense holds that one doesn't have to unnecessarily respond to something that he or she doesn't like. So, please, just don't respond to my tweets if you don't like them and have no reason to respond to them.

Addendum [November 4, 2019/Cheshvan 6, 5779 (Before sunset)]:

If you need a template to write to your Representative about indicting Trump instead of impeaching him:

"Rep. [Whomever]:

"By impeaching Trump, Congress would be handing him 25th Amendment rights and presidential legitimacy. The law (based on the law-from-the-bench principle regarding sitting presidents and indictment) says that one cannot indict a sitting president, but it doesn't say that one can't indict an illegitimate president. The assumption was always that and is that the sitting president had and has to be a legitimate one, since there is the principle behind the law as well as the law itself. Thus, please push for Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the House to acknowledge that Trump is not a legitimate president and thus should not be given impeachment rights, let alone 25th Amendment rights or presidential legitimacy.

"Thank you for your time and consideration of my request."

¹ Addendum: July 2, 2020/10 Tammuz 5780: I do have a smartphone now. It was a gift for Hanukkah, Christmas, and my 30th birthday; and I honestly resisted letting one anyone get me one and using one for a long time. What's not changed: I still block and/or report abusive tweeters.

²Addendum, same date: I realize that part of my problem is that I don't enforce my own unfollow-for-unfollow rule enough (sometimes because I'm unsure right away if someone followed me in the first place). To me, how one interacts with me online tells me how he or she would interact with me offline. In other words, I need to start meaning that I don't have time for anyone whom doesn't have time for me or wants me to have time for him or her. I will thus be enforcing my own rule more.

³ All of that fits my motto, "If you don't stand up to evil, evil will stand you down—and that is evil."

Originally On LinkedIn: Re Sexual Harassment In the Workplace As Manifested By Roger Ailes

Let's face that Roger Ailes sexually harassed Gretchen Carlson, and even an intellectually-honest layperson—including an intellectually-honest aspiring professional—can see that—and at least aspiring professionals can learn from this tragedy while they look to enter the workforce, which may sadly hold incidents of harassment in their futures.

Everyone needs to note, for example, that:

1. Gretchen Carlson filed the lawsuit after she was terminated, and she finally felt free to speak up.
2. Roger Ailes has not pressed criminal-libel and fraud charges. He, however, did try to get the case moved from a New Jersey state court—neutral territory—to federal court—and he, having worked for Richard Nixon, has connections in the federal government.
3. Given that Gretchen Carlson wrote those notes asking for more airtime, one can bet that her contract was breached against her multiple times—e.g., that she was not getting the airtime that her contract stipulated.
4. One can also bet that praise for Ailes that she wrote in her 2015 book was blackmailed out of her.
5. Not only has Gretchen Carlson reached a point—so have six colleagues whom spoke to "The Blaze", with two publicly identifying themselves.
6. Only three ex colleagues have vocally spoken in favor of Roger Ailes and against Gretchen Carlson.
7. One has to now wonder why Alisyn Camerota really left Fox News—what did "more opportunity" really mean?

The victim shaming that Gretchen Carlson has endured, by the way, goes to prove that sexual harassment and other abuse against women is indeed still rampant in the workplace, and inexcusably rampant. In other words, is abuse against women in the workplace excusable since "it happens all the time"?

Good luck to the likes of Roger Ailes, though—Roger Ailes and his ilk will need luck when their careers are ended because of their mistreatments of women and their subsequent inabilities to recruit women as employees.

Even If I Wrote This Before, I'll Write It Again...

1. Whenever I hear "Pigs in a blanket; fry them like bacon!", I am reminded that we still called "pigs" and other slurs; and we face threats of Auschwitz again.
2. When "Black Lives [Really Don't] Matter" targets Jewish bastions and the bastions' vicinities—e.g., Ferguson in St. Louis' vicinity, Northwest Baltimore, where Park Heights is; Baton Rouge, and Dallas—I think of the pogroms, especially since kapo Glenn Greenwald blamed the Mossad for Ferguson (which makes Glenn Greenwald a kapo) and fellow Anti Semites of the "Black Lives [Really Don't] Matter" Movement—such as the Nation Of Islam and the Black Panthers—have joined "Black Lives [Really Don't] Matter".
3. If Black lives really mattered to them, where are they advocating for groups like the Lemba and Falasha? If they're going to parallel Israel:"Palestine" to the police:Black men, why don't go after the real trouble in Israel and its perpetuators: not the "occupation" of "Palestine" and "racist" Jews, but the chokehold of Agudat Yisra'el and Netanyahu on Israel? After all, many Lemba, Falasha who were supposed to make aliyah, and other Black Jews would like to go home; thanks—so would a lot of us Non-Black Jews!

I'd write more if I could (and trust that I wish that I could write more!). Nonetheless, I think that many will get—even if they don't like—my point.

Reilly Agrees With Her "Momma": Reilly Needs A "Poppa"

Reilly's "momma" asked Reilly if she would like a "poppa". If "Momma" should ever be able to find a "Poppa" for Reilly—and obviously, a man for herself—Reilly would prefer to call him...

1. "Tateh"—at least she indicated yesterday.
2. "Daddy", or...
3. "Poppa"

"Poppa" ended up winning out.

To All Philadelphia-Area And Other Christians, Catholic And Otherwise....

Someone needs to break down the controversy regarding Pope Francis And Bishop Chaput in a Biblical manner. Allow me, although I am imperfect, to do that. Thus, let's start with the first point—after all, first things come first:

"Francis didn’t create a church wide admission to Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics as some progressives had wanted. But in the April document, he suggested bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis in what could become a significant development in church practice."

Pope Francis is right, and Bishop Chaput is wrong. According to the Bible (and I'm using the NRSV for the benefit of Catholics here, since many would consider reading a Protestant translation to be heretical and I consider the NIV a heretical translation for good reason):

1. "He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”"
2. Look at how I linked "adultery" in Mark 10:11-12. The root of the word for adultery can also refer to idol worship—arguably, then (as I'd pondered before), adultery can be more than sexual—"lust" (per Matthew 5:27-28) can (as I stated, arguably) be, for example, a lust for power and control, or a lust for alcohol and/or drugs (not legally-prescribed and -used drugs, by the way). In other words, a spouse is technically cheating on the other spouse if he or she is abusive or refusing to be treated for alcoholism and/or drug addiction—he or she is putting his desire for power and control, or his or her craving for alcohol and drugs in the place of his or her spouse.
3. You don't need any understanding of Greek or a concordance to agree with Pope Francis that forbidding widowed spouses and Biblically-divorced divorcees to civilly remarry is wrong.

On the second point with the exception of the subpoint regarding civilly-remarried couples, Bishop Chaput is right:

"The Philadelphia guidelines say Catholics in same-sex partnerships, civilly remarried parishioners and unmarried couples living together should not be permitted to serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful, serve as lectors or dispense Communion."

On this one, I don't even need to quote Tanakh (the Old Testament) or the New Testament. In terms of same-sex romantic relationships of any kind, both Tanakh and the New Testament unequivocally state that same-sex romantic partnerships of any kind—whether same-sex dating, same-sex civil unions, or same-sex marriages—are wrong. Both also state that fornication is wrong, and the case of the Samaritan woman demonstrates that fornication includes non-marital cohabitation that is sexual in nature—remember that she was living with a man to whom she was not married—and as I said, I really didn't need to use quotes: any Christian (Jewish or gentile, Catholic or Non Catholic) and many Non Christians (including many Anusim) are familiar with the prohibitions against homosexual activity and non-marital cohabitations of sexual natures.

(By the way, as I found out a long time ago and for example, my late paternal grandfather used to fall asleep in the back of the church while my paternal grandmother, my father, and my father's two siblings would sit for Mass—trust me when I say that Pop-Pop was a Anusi whom had no interest in Jesus, and I could both give other examples that I haven't given before and regive examples that I have given before. Incidentally, maybe it was actually Pop-Pop whom was more shomer kashrut when he was still alive.

(My point is, of course, that other Non Christians would know since even my Anusi grandfather—a Rushisher-Ungarisher Yid with a father from Lipsk in Suwalki Gubernia and a mother whose parents were from Budapeszt and Locse—knew, and at least his ancestors were well aware of what even the Talmud says about same-sex marriage, and they knew that Tanakh prohibited man-man and woman-woman same-sex romances.).

In conclusion, Score One for Pope Francis—case-by-case analysis per remarriages counts—and Score One for Bishop Chaput—same-sex romantic relationships and non-marital cohabitions of sexual natures are wrong. 

July 5, 1945: On This Day

1. 71 years ago, the USSR murdered resistance fighters in Augustów. Among them were Andrulewicz cousins of mine, as well as a Margiewicz cousin. Because we were and are Anusim and bnei-Anusim, their sides were never recognized as Jews until now. Also, the Holocaust was never recognized as having been in Russia beyond 1945—until the gulags were closed in 1960, Stalin's attempt at a "Final Solution" continued. May all of the more than 6 Million Jews whom were murdered in the Holocaust be counted as Holocaust victims.
2. Also on this day, Julia Fosko Rusnak blessedly died and did not have to see the horrid days coming. Granted that she died a horrible death, which involved surgical complications due to appendix-removal surgery. Still, she was taken from her own bed in the hospital:

"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart, and godly men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He entereth into peace, they rest in their beds, each one that walketh in his uprightness."

By the way, I know that my family gets mad at me for having found out and acknowledged what Andrew Rusnak and Mary Rusnak Gaydos did. Nonetheless, I can and will not change the past, and I have already made clear that I will not blame the Foczkos.

Originally On LinkedIn: Why I Have Nine Pending LinkedIn Invitations: Hint: I'm Not Here To Facebook

The theme of how LinkedIn has gone from a professional-networking forum to a social-media forum with even some cesspool parts has obviously become a recurring theme. I myself have been will be the first to admit that I've probably or even definitely contributed to that in part: i.e., I've likely posted more Facebookesque content and/or content in more of a Facebookesque way than I should have. 

I nonetheless have tried to keep LinkedIn a professional-networking forum on my end, and I've written that I hope that Microsoft's buyout of LinkedIn would affect LinkedIn to rebecome LinkedIn instead of another Facebook, Twitter, or WhatsApp or whatever other "What's that app?" social-media application. By the way, "application" is of course the term that most professionals are supposed to call an "app"—after all, a separation of standard language and colloquialisms/dialects/"slang" exists along with the separation of the professional and personal realms—unless one has to utilize slang terms in his or her field (e.g., if he or she is a general-demographics researcher with Pew or a TMZ reporter, or an analyst and a commentator), he or she might as well leave his or her colloquial way of speaking in his or her personal realm (e.g., at home)!

On that note, one ought to leave—or at least try to leave—his or her way of connecting with people in his or her personal realm—including in regard to how he or she uses social media—within his or her personal realm. For my part, I've either rejected LinkedIn invitations, held off on accepting LinkedIn invitations, and even removed LinkedIn connections; and I've even reported people whose LinkedIn profiles have looked suspicious. 

In conclusion, I suggest that my currently-backlogged connection inviters and others understand—especially if I did not make clear in many of my previous LinkedIn posts—that I'm here to professionally network, not open another social media account, and that I won't be reaching out to or accepting the reachings out of many people—and even on Facebook and other social-media forums that I do use, I don't reach out to or accept the reachings out of many people, even though I'm aspiring to be an analyst and a commentator whom needs to network as much as any other aspiring and professional analyst-commentator needs to network.

Incidentally, while I believe that "to network" is a professionally-acceptable infinitive, and the conjugations thereof are professionally acceptable, I want someone to correct me if my belief is erroneous.