Comments on: “Maimonides got it wrong”

By: Otto Waldmann

Otto Waldmann — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:46:28 +0000

In reply to Liat Nagar. Dear Liat, I am as good as my interlocutors above whom reigns the eager eye of the shepherd coated in the skin of a merciless editorial jackal ( belonging to the Henricus Hyenus family ) .

By: Liat Nagar

Liat Nagar — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:40:50 +0000

So well articulated, Otto. You cover all the complexities and nuances. I tended to focus on the very different understanding someone like Malcolm Turnbull would come to on such a topic.

By: Otto Waldmann

Otto Waldmann — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:32:39 +0000

Whoever understands and practices the mitzvah of contributing to the strength of our community does the right thing, although considerations of which type of donation – anonymous or otherwise- could be a serious topic.

I tend to agree that it is more useful to know the names of the donors, even if some elements of vanity may creep into it. The most important thing is that the community itself ( themselves) assure that the vanity that may come with the donation does not affect the quality of personalised, unwanted, excess of authority…
At least both types are accepted, acceptable… ( would be nuts to refuse….)

By: Liat Nagar

Liat Nagar — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 07:47:24 +0000

We should welcome Malcolm Turnbull’s call for transparency in relation to those donating funds, if in regard to politics. And that’s what he is used to. The humility involved in donating anonymously, with no personal agenda as motivation in mind, is something he would not be accustomed to.

By: Gordon Buchalter

Gordon Buchalter — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:11:53 +0000

Donor anonymity still gets first prize and the highest honour for me.

By: Serge Liberman

Serge Liberman — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:20:30 +0000

Donor anonymity is neither worthier nor lesser than acknowledgement. This is wholly a matter of personal preference.

At the core is the donation itself, regardless of who it came from.