Saturday, May 01, 2010

Lag BaOmer: targetting Obama and DovBear

Updated Disclaimer (see below)

Despite the heartfelt plea from Emuna Elon not to burn effigies of President Obama on Lag BaOmer, apparently there are reports that her call will go unheeded by fringe lunatics.

Shame on them.

That's seriously immature behavior and accomplishes nothing, if not a Chilul Hashem.

Apparently, Obama's not the only target this year.

Sent to me from Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet, the following pictures have been circling the web over the past few hours.






In several locations (reportedly in Ramat Beit Shemesh and Har Meron), people were observed burning copies of "DovBear on the Parsha".

Truly Sick.

Update: Since the language of this posting was obviously not clear enough for everyone, I guess I will have to clearly "SPELL IT OUT".

This blog does not condone the burning of books, full stop.

Burning the book of a JBlogosphere member is even worse. While I thought the comment "Truly Sick" was obvious enough to express my disgust with the burning of the "DovBear on the Parsha" book, reviewed and endorsed here by Rabbi E. Fink, and available for purchase here for only $20.99 (ships in 3-5 business days), apparently, it was not enough.

For the record, The Muqata does not endorse this book, nor was this advertisement paid for by anyone (I know I didn't receive any money for it)

If you think that publishing these photos means actually advocating the burning of books, I suggest you find a good psychotherapist.

Good Day.

The Muqata Management


Visiting Israel?Learn to Shoot at Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

100 comments:

YMedad said...

Wow, that's some helluva negative book review. They didn't have any other dry kindling available? Or is it friends of Dubbeleh trying to get him some publicity?

Anonymous said...

In several locations (reportedly in Ramat Beit Shemesh and Har Meron), people were observed burning copies of "DovBear on the Parsha".
Truly Sick.


What do you mean by that? That "DovBear on the Parsha" is "truly sick", or burning it is?

HZ said...

Is that Photoshop? I can't imagine that anyone in Israel cared about Doivie.

TikunOlam said...

Oh please. The ppl who bought the book are fans, not hater. Haters wldnt spend money on the book or hold on to it to burn. Had to be photoshop. Ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

I can't imagine someone went through the trouble of photoshopping four photos in sequence.

Lurker said...

I happen to know for a fact that these photos are real, and untouched.

Anonymous said...

Lurker, were you present at the burning?

Mark

E. Fink said...

This is SO not okay. I am mocheh the act and I am also mocheh your post.

Adding "truly sick" at the end does not make it right.

Anonymous said...

Time to vote Jameel off the island.

Rafi G. said...

Lurker - where did it happen?

BTW, the normal people who burn books they disapprove of likely don't even know about DB, so it must not have been because they oppose DB and consider him a heretic, but just for some "action" and to upset him.

Can you give us some background, Lurker?

Commenter Abbi said...

Hmm, I smell a publicity ploy on the part of DB. What better way to get people talking about your book then to set up a "burning"? Seriously, I can't believe you're all falling for this.

Anonymous said...

Abbi, if it's a publicity ploy, then some of the Israelis are in on it. It started when it was still Shabbat in the USA!

Mark

DovBear said...

Abbi, I'm a shomer shabbos who wasn't in Israel. I didn't burn my own book for attention.

What a truly mean thing to suggest.

And Jameel, I'm also mocheh this post (if that means really opposed to your giving this low life Nazi book burning wanna be this kind of publicity)

Shimon said...

Even if I were 99% sure that it was a marketing ploy (which i'm not, i'm actually quite certain it isn't) I don't think we can allow ourselves the luxury of not "falling for it". Irrespective of this particular curious incident what is going on in RBS is just plain scary. (see Rabbi Slifkin's post from just the other day)

AnOldPal said...

My first thoughts:
-People burnt the Rambams books too.
-There IS still torah in those books.
-The witches of salem were burnt because people feared their POWER.
-Joey from Friends kept a copy of "The Shinning" in the freezer because he was scared of it. That book owned him.
-To anyone who is burning the book: they fear the book, they fear dovbear, and dovbear has power over them.

dovbear would really have no power had his book collected dust in the back of an old library.

I dont see how dovbear hasn't won here and how those that did the burning set themselves up to be big losers.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

DovBear: I sent you a detailed letter with my rationale for posting this.

If you still want it deleted, its gone.

Anonymous said...

Photoshoped or real, (I don't see any images of the book actually burning) Seems like a fan of DB, not an opponent.

The book isn't printed unless you purchase it.

Lurker said...

Mark and Rafi G. -- No, I wasn't present at the burning. The person who photographed it does not want me to reveal his identity. I'm told that the people who burned the book at that location (according to reports, it happened in other places too) are rather dangerous, threatening types, with connections to some very powerful people who have been known to use violence against those who've dissed them in the past.

Lurker said...

E. Fink: This is SO not okay. I am mocheh the act and I am also mocheh your post.

So I take it, then, that you are opposed to informing the public of any bad things that people do. A peculiar attitude, to say the least...

DB: ...I'm also mocheh this post (if that means really opposed to your giving this low life Nazi book burning wanna be this kind of publicity)

So then I suppose you would have also opposed the world media reporting the Nazi book burnings?

And btw, if you don't mind my asking -- why is it OK for you to "give publicity" to stupid extremist low-lifes, but it's not OK for Jameel to do the same?

The Reform Baal Teshuvah said...

Jameel,

I want to thank you for posting this. Your framing makes it clear that you condemn the acts depicted, and if behavior like this is kept under wraps, it cannot receive the censure it deserves.

E. Fink said...

Lurker:

So I take it, then, that you are opposed to informing the public of any bad things that people do. A peculiar attitude, to say the least...

I *thought* that the J-bloggers were by and large a friendly community, not a "news service". If Jameel is running a news service, I apologize. If the j-blogs are, as I suspect, a marketplace of ideas and conversations, then this is an inappropriate conversation between friends.

Further, your use of "informing the public" carte blanche is a peculiar attitude as well.

DovBear said...

So then I suppose you would have also opposed the world media reporting the Nazi book burnings?

The world media identified the villains, named them and showed their faces. You and Jameel are not doing that. You've provided no names, and no faces, and instead given us hogwash about "dangerous people". I submit that if you're going to be a coward about unmasking the villains you're doing them a favor.

Also - and check your ego at the door please - this blog isn't the "world media" and Jameel wasn't "reporting". He was gossiping and, perhaps editorializing, but not reporting.

And btw, if you don't mind my asking -- why is it OK for you to "give publicity" to stupid extremist low-lifes, but it's not OK for Jameel to do the same?

Do you really need me to enumerate the differences? And here on the blogs you pretend to be a smart person. The short list:

(1) On my post, faces aren't concealed. You can see exactly who they are
(2) On my post the context is revealed. You know who shot the video, and where it was taken.
(3) The person being attacked was a public figure, not a personal friend. Do you think for a second I'd have run that video if the lunatics had their faces obscured and were insulting Jameel, or even you? Are you that morally and emotionally bankrupt that you think an attack by a clearly identified person on Obama that appeared on YouTube is identical to this? I'm as famous as Obama now, and Jameel and I don't have a relationship (or used to anyway) Have you lost your mind?

So I take it, then, that you are opposed to informing the public of any bad things that people do. A peculiar attitude, to say the least...


No stupid, he opposes the blase attitude and the post which lumps me with Clinton and says hehe look what happened to dumb dovie. He could have served as a character witness for me or the book. He could have said neither of us deserved that. He could have named the villain. He could have criticized him strongly and unequivocally. And I'll go even further and say that as a purported friend with whom Ive had dozens if not hundreds of friendly offline conversations not to mention a long time reader he SHOULD have done all those things.

But he didn't. HE did none of those things, and thats what E_Fink correctly finds offensive.
(and me too)

The back of the hill said...

I am flabbergasted.
Truly.

DovBear said...

Above should say Obama, obviously and not Clinton, and don't be flabergasted TBOTH, that's how the RW types roll.

Daniel said...

Perhaps DB should look inward and try to understand the rage of the book burners and ralize who is the real victim

Lurker said...

E. Fink: I *thought* that the J-bloggers were by and large a friendly community...

LOL. That's pretty funny coming from someone who hangs out at DB, that warm fuzzy bastion of love, where the "friendliness" is just oozing out of every post and comment thread. I can only presume that you're being facetious...

E. Fink: ...not a "news service". If Jameel is running a news service, I apologize.

I take it you don't read this blog very much. Check out his live-blogging of news events (e.g., this).

Lurker said...

DB: You've provided no names, and no faces, and instead given us hogwash about "dangerous people". I submit that if you're going to be a coward about unmasking the villains you're doing them a favor.

You're assuming without an evidence that I even know the identity of the book burners, and are attacking me without even bothering to ask whether I do. Pretty typical of you.

DB: No stupid, he opposes the blase attitude and the post which lumps me with Clinton and says hehe look what happened to dumb dovie... He could have criticized him strongly and unequivocally.

He called the behavior in question "a Chilul Hashem" and "Truly Sick". So in your book, that doesn't count as condemning it, huh? One might expect that you'd thank Jameel for coming to your defense and condemning what was done in such harsh terms. Instead, you attack him. You're an idiot.

DB: He could have served as a character witness for me or the book.

Ah, finally it all starts to come out: It isn't sufficient for others to merely condemn the burning of your book -- one must also proclaim how great a person you are and how wonderful your book is. Otherwise, for you, the condemnation is worthless.

And all this coming from the very person who just a moment before demanded that other people "check [their] ego at the door".

You're pathetic.

Lurker said...

DB: He could have served as a character witness for me or the book.

At this point, of course, there's certainly no need for anyone to provide character testimony about you: After coming out as you did with a sputtering, irrational attack on the very person who condemned the burning of your book (and even provided a link for people to buy it), I'd say that you've provided more than enough evidence about the nature of your character.

Commenter Abbi said...

Jameel, I think it's clear that ignoring DB is really the best policy. Even condemning alleged wrongs perpetrated against him is simply not worth it, since clearly his reading comprehension isn't up to snuff.

I suspect if this burning actually took place, it's more because he's so annoying than for anything that's actually in the book.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

E Fink: I report on all sorts of things, some news worthy, some less so.

My hoest intention was hardly to upset anyone (let alone DovBear).

If anything, this shows us what lunatics are out there, that they might even want to burn books.

I would not have put a direct link to purchasing DovBear's book had I posted this maliciously.

Furthermore, had I received similar photos of people burning R' Slifkin's books, Steinzaltz gemaras, Kehati mishna or the Torah Temima (for being the author of the banned Artscroll history book, "My Uncle the Netziv) I would have posted them as well - but probably not with links on how to order them.

Posting these photos makes fun of those burning the book, not the author of the book.

Posting links on how to BUY the book, shows defense to the author.

How this can turned into a diatribe against me, is beyond me.

Oh well. Personally, I believe the JBlogosphere shouldnt be hateful to its membership.

For the life of me, I can't see how posting this is hurtful towards DovBear.

Brad said...

DovBear: When you see your parsha book going up in flames:

Did you cry from seeing the holy words of Torah, going up in to shomayim in fire and flames?

Or was it your Mega-Ego getting singed by the Chareidim you wickedly taunt on a weekly basis?

If its the first, I would personally tell jameel to remove the photos.

If its the latter, then I'm happy he put them up.

DovBear said...

Where do you get the idea that I have a "mega-ego"? That's a canard, tossed around by my enemies, having no basis in reality and no grounds to support it. My ego is the same as any other bloggers.

And I didn't care as much about the burning as I did about the blase post, the absence of condemnation here and on other blogs (no poem Joe Settler?) and the general attitude among some that because it was DovBear the insufficiently Zionist liberal we really don't care, an attitude demonstrated in your own nasty comment Mr. Brad.

Also, I defy you to find chasidim "wickedly taunted on my blog on a weekly basis" You're obviously not a reader, as they are criticized, not taunted, and there's nothing wicked about it. Also, it happens far less than weekly. It doesn't even happen monthly. Twice a year maybe? And the criticism is almost always because they've done somethiong evil like beaten someone up on a bus. That's what you're defending now Mister Brad? Really nice. You're a credit to you parents and your religion.

DovBear said...

That's pretty funny coming from someone who hangs out at DB, that warm fuzzy bastion of love, where the "friendliness" is just oozing out of every post and comment thread. I can only presume that you're being facetious...

You hang out there, too.

DovBear said...

Perhaps DB should look inward and try to understand the rage of the book burners and ralize who is the real victim

I suppose the women beaten on the buses of RBS should do the same. Its their fault, for making the nice violent, crazy people so angry.

DovBear said...

He called the behavior in question "a Chilul Hashem"


He did not call it a chilul hashem, and if you want to see what a real condemnation looks like see this:

http://hadassahsabo.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/disgusted-2/

And note, she doesn't say anything especially nice about me, so your nasty remarks about my so-called ego once again appear groundless.

Really Lurker, your callous disingenuousness is one of the wonders of the world of bad manners.

Lurker said...

DB: You hang out there, too.

I was not criticizing E. Fink for hanging out there. (Or for his posts, which I generally enjoy and find very thought-stimulating.) I was just knocking the outlandish notion (implied by his comment) that there's anything "friendly" about the environment on your blog.

Lurker said...

Me: He called the behavior in question "a Chilul Hashem" and "Truly Sick".

DB: He did not call it a chilul hashem...

The post was about shameful behavior involving burning Obama effigies and your book on Lag B'Omer. To quote your very own words, "the post... lumps me with [Obama]". And Jameel explicitly called this behavior a "Chilul Hashem". It's right there in the post, regardless of your desire to ignore it. But Jameel didn't stop there -- he went on to describe the burning of your book as "Truly Sick". But for you, that's isn't a condemnation, either. No, in your twisted mind, "Truly Sick" is an expression of support.

DB: Really Lurker, your callous disingenuousness is one of the wonders of the world of bad manners.

It's pretty amusing to hear a rude, foul-mouthed creep like yourself pontificate about "bad manners". And your sick, pathetic attack upon a blogger who made it a point to condemn the burning of your book is simply beneath contempt.

Why don't you tell us now that Jameel never called it "Truly Sick"? Or that he didn't include a link for the purchase of your book? (Obviously, that too must be his way of expressing support for the burning.)

DovBear said...

And Jameel explicitly called this behavior a "Chilul Hashem".

He called the Obama burning a chillul hashem. not the book burning. Lurn how to read.

I also take issue with the idea that I attacked Jameel. As usual, you're stacking the deck, exaggerating, and setting up straw men. I disagreed with his editorial choice. I think he was wrong to run the photos, and that his post fell short of what Hadassah and the mekubel did in their anti-burning posts (and neither of them flattered my ego: another example of your lies) but I disagree that I atatcked him (What you're do next is grab some quotes from previous comments and characterize them as attacking. Then I'll explain why it was criticism, and not an "attack," then you'll get flustered and say something cruel, and around and around we'll go. Can we skip that this time?)

What's amusing is hearing a rude, foul-mouthed creep such as you, say those things about me. I occasionally curse in private, but never in public, and my posts aren't rude. You on the other hand are pathologically incapable of writing a single comment without oozing contempt and animosity. It drips off your every word, on every comment no matter which blog you're on. (and where by the way is your famous contempt and animosity for Brad and Daniel? What they said is without question absurd and ridiculous - ripe pickings for someone like you who gets off on being obnoxious - but you're so focused on me that you can't be bothered to rebuke them. Why is that?)

Brad said...

Jameel: What does DovBear hold over you that made you update your post?

It was obvious that you didn't advocate book burning.

At least you didn't remove the photos since they were the best part.

Commenter Abbi said...

Uh, you're holding up Haddassah the blogger who has no concept of appropriate boundaries and sounds like she hasn't graduated middle school yet as an example? Nice.

DovBear said...

Jameel, thank you for the update.

I never thought you supported book burning, and I never thought you were being unkind to me, here.

I just had some complaints about certain editorial choices you made, which I never thought were malicious, or the product of anything but rushed, later night posting.

I'm very sorry this thread got heated, and I've told you privately why I believe that happened.

As for Abbi, Daniel and Brad, well you're nasty people, and its a shame the hosts of this blog are too timid to call you out on your errors.

JoeSettler said...

I don't know why you mention my name,
As if I have some role or blame,

From the three people that bought your book,
Two I guess are off the hook,

So check your invoices for you to see.
Which is the one, from the three.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Timid? I'm sick of this thread and being defensive about a post which didnt require defending in the first place.

Let people rant all they want.

Brad said...

LOL. This is too funny.

Jameel posts, gets told off by DovBear and his friends like HSM who argue how down right awful it was to publish the photos.

Then, some defend Jameel.

Jameel then changes the post bowing to DovBear's pressure.

Then DovBear yells at Jameel for being too timid.

Will Jameel give in now as well?

Maybe Jameel will offer to buy copies of the DovBear book to offer his readers?

Jameeeeeeeeel.

You are exactly the same as Bibi. You cave into Obama/DovBear pressure.

Would you stop building in Jerusalem too?

Get a backbone.

JoeSettler said...

Radical's burn DovBear's book,
DovBear's world is completely shook.

More condemnation he does demand,
Even when it is on hand,

But the City Obama calls to split,
DovBear screams? Not a bit.


----

In the future, please don't bring me into your kool-aid style pro-Obama rantings or Jameel condemnations, or whatever that was where you strangely dragged my name into Obama's currently active plan to divide Jerusalem with someone who burned your book. I don't have to (read or) respond to every single post Jameel writes, and I don't have time to write a poem in response each time to you.

DovBear said...

Well, it didn't really shake my world (as indicated) but the rest of the poem is pretty cute.

It just that, Joe, you do appear on these threads a lot. Your absence on this particular one struck me as odd. If all you were was busy, and pre-occupied, well fine.

Brad, leave Jameel alone. He's his own man, with a good strong back bone, and what he does, he almost always does for good reasons. He didn't "capitulate" He did something nice for a friend. That's called "being a mench". He wasn't pressured by me, and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that he's weak, when you sit here enjoying his blog for free.

JoeSettler said...

I spent this morning writing a brilliant analysis of rightwing infighting (knowing that all parties mentioned read my posts), hoping that it will heal the rift and move us forward in our fight against Obama's plan to divide Jerusalem and stop settlements in the Land of Israel.

And I spent yesterday taking my kids to the various Lag Baomer activities (where no books were burned).

On Lag Baomer evening I stayed home and roasted marshmallows on my stove, because it was too windy on my hilltop, and I didn't want to listen to any more nasal intonations of 'Bar Yochai' than I was already hearing through the closed kitchen window.

And actually, I think I usually don't comment on Jameel's posts.

Brad said...

DovBear: Sorry dude, you've got Jameel whipped.

His "nice" update posting made you look like a whimpering idiot, and Jameel look like a quivering whus.

People obviously burned your book because they hate your politics, hate your weekly rantings toward Chareidim, and youre incessant pro-Obama spin control.

I would not personally burn your book, but this whole post is one silly fiasco.

ciao.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Brad: Get lost already. Move on. Get over it. This thread is dead.

See something more interesting like the Shomronim post going up at 6 AM, Israel time. (Already published, just waiting for 6 AM to go live).

DovBear said...

People obviously burned your book because they hate your politics, hate your weekly rantings toward Chareidim, and youre incessant pro-Obama spin control.


I don't care if you hate my politics, or dislike my defense of Obama in the face of RW lies and slanders, but your claim that rant against Charedim on a weekly basis is a lie, plain and simple.

Go to my blog, and see if you can find one post against charedim per week - or even per month. And when you fail, as of course you will, come back and tell us what a liar you are (we already know, but it will be nice to hear you admit it)

DovBear said...

Joe Lurker and Jameel are readers of my blog. I don't know if they come every day, but certainly they are there often enough to confirm that I don't "rant" against chasidim on a weekly, or even a monthly, basis.

I wonder why they haven't made this simple statement of fact. Could it be that they support the ravings of Brad? Don't know.... Gentlemen?

DovBear said...

People obviously burned your book because they hate your politics, hate your weekly rantings toward Chareidim, and youre incessant pro-Obama spin control.


Lurker, Jameel, Joe and other good readers of this thread. Do you agree with brad that disliking my politics and my (imaginary) rants are sufficient reason to burn a book? If that's not your view, if indeed you find this view as reprehensible as polite 21st century people are supposed to find it, I invite you to speak up. Your silence is both deafening and defining.

DovBear said...

People obviously burned your book because they hate your politics, hate your weekly rantings toward Chareidim, and youre incessant pro-Obama spin control.


Brad they burnt my book because they are viscous, violent, cowards, who are terrified of any idea that doesn't coincide with their own, or fit into some neat little box of their own definition. That's why people burn books. Or to put in shorthand, people burn books because they are bad people.

Commenter Abbi said...

Why is Jameel timid for not calling out my comments? Because I'm honest and don't faint from awe at every letter you type? Seriously, not everyone is going to love you. GET OVER IT.

You think you have the ego of the average blogger? You have seriously seriously underestimated its size. Right now it's blocking traffic on Route 4 and it's about to take over the GW Bridge. I'm calling in the National Guard soon to contain the situation.

Lurker said...

DB: Lurker, Jameel, Joe and other good readers of this thread. Do you agree with brad that disliking my politics and my (imaginary) rants are sufficient reason to burn a book? If that's not your view, if indeed you find this view as reprehensible as polite 21st century people are supposed to find it, I invite you to speak up. Your silence is both deafening and defining.

(1) No, I do not agree with any such thing. And that's because I don't approve of burning books, period. Not because I feel obliged to think "as polite 21st century people are supposed to". That would constitute groupthink and mindless submission to political correctness, a way of thinking that repulses me.

(2) Furthermore, I find it astounding that even after Jameel re-amplified his position in no uncertain terms in his Update, writing explicitly and unequivocally that "this blog does not condone the burning of books, full stop" -- you would still actually ask him if finds the burning of your book acceptable. After Jameel wrote that, the notion that you or anyone else could still say with a straight face that his "silence [sic] is both deafening and defining", simply boggles the mind.

I had thought that the Update would clarify any remaining questions you could possibly have on that point. Jameel not only stated his position on the burning, but added that he felt "disgust" for it.

Yet here you come back again and declare his "silence" to be "deafening and defining".

Clearly, there is nothing whatsoever that Jameel could possibly write that would convince you that he dispproves of the burning of your book.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jameel writers,
I am an occasional reader of the Muqata and an occasional commentor. I'm a bit left of center, though not too far, and I really read the blog because I know Jameel from childhood. I often don't agree with the blog politically, but I've always liked Jameel, so I click on the blog a few times a week.
Here's the problem with this whole conversation that seems to be lost in the debate, but is glaringly obvious while looking at this from the outside.
The pictures that were displayed. That tells the whole story. If I took this to court, I could easily win a case for slander of DB by the Muqata.
Why, you ask? Because they were obviously pics taken by someone who was in on the burning. The before and after shots, the focus on the book. The unimpeded view. Essentially, the Muqata published publicity shots for a book burning. There are no 2 ways about it.
Now, if the Muqata published who did the burning or where they got the pics, it could be argued that they were providing a public service against the burning, or helping to prosecute the offenders. but since that wasn't the content of the post, it is obvious that someone affiliated or at least associated with this blog was party to the burning. By not naming them , you are party to their offense, at least by American law standards. If this were a newspaper, you would most likely meet the criteria for slander, just by publishing eyewitness front row pics of a book burning without naming names. You're not protecting a confidential source. You're protecting a bigot, one you seem to know well. And legally, by standing by and posting the pics, you are providing him/her free publicity.
That is the proper context of this post, from a purely legal point of view.
Just thought you might want to know.
Oh, and Jameel later posting where you can buy the book? No bearing. Still mean spirited anger of the first level against DB by at least some of the Muqata contributers, if not all.
If I cared enough, I would initiate a boycott of this site.
But as I said, I really don't care that much.
Have a nice day.

DovBear said...

(1) No, I do not agree with any such thing. And that's because I don't approve of burning books, period. Not because I feel obliged to think "as polite 21st century people are supposed to". That would constitute groupthink and mindless submission to political correctness, a way of thinking that repulses me.

You took the quoted clause out of context, and changed its meaning as you well know. As I wrote it, the sentence doesn't mean "hate book burning BECAUSE 21st century people do", but "in the way that 21st century do", that is to say "hate it a lot."

But you knew that. Sigh

Furthermore, I find it astounding that even after Jameel re-amplified his position in no uncertain terms in his Update, writing explicitly and unequivocally that "this blog does not condone the burning of books, full stop" -- you would still actually ask him if finds the burning of your book acceptable

Did you miss where I wrote this? "
I never thought you supported book burning, and I never thought you were being unkind to me, here." I said it 7:41. You must have seen it... I guess being a jerk to me more exciting then giving me the benefit of the doubt... See, you read that comment from earlier, and because you're in touch with Jameel you know I thanked him privately for the update -- so you *knew* that I inadvertently lumped Jameel with you and Silent Joe --but b/ you're a jerk you couldn't resist feigning ignorance for the purpose of writing yet another nasty comment about me. Piece of work.

Abbi get bent. You have no grounds for saying I have an ego - none at all. You just specialize in being a bitch, for no good reason. Perhaps you're Lurker's sister.

DovBear said...


Hmm, I smell a publicity ploy on the part of DB. What better way to get people talking about your book then to set up a "burning"? Seriously, I can't believe you're all falling for this


Just wondering is you're yet ready to retract this stupid, nasty, hurtful, thoughtless, vindictive suggestion?

I also wonder where the bile comes from. Me and Lurker have a history, but I've never seen you before, so what gives? Why'd you lead with right hook, and then come after me with the old, ugly, groundless, "ego" canard?

Commenter Abbi said...

Canard? This thread is the only proof necessary of your metastasizing ego. Coming here and condemning Jameel because you didn't like the particular way he's condemned this book burning? Caring at all that some kooks burned your book 2000 miles away? Most adult people with normal-sized egos and a normal level self-esteem would laugh and move on with their day. Instead, you've turned this into one of the great tragedies of this decade, of course compounded by Jameel's not-good-enough condemnation.

Classic case of you can dish it out but you can't take it. Go back to your own cave where your groupies can lick your wounds and tell you how wonderful you are.

And btw, I don't have to retract anything simply because you're "wondering" when it's going to happen and then pile on a lot of negative adjectives. I have no idea what's behind this whole thing, but since we do live in the 21st century, it's not impossible that you called or emailed pple in Israel to arrange such a publicity stunt. That it occurred in Israel doesn't mean that it's impossible that you were involved.

Again, the fact that you're so hurt by this accusation says more about you than about me.

JoeSettler said...

Dear Mr. DovBear,

Clearly the only way to rectify this situation is biblical eye-for-an-eye style revenge.

Please open your laptop and browse to the Muqata blog.

You can optionally open a second tab and browse to the JoeSettler blog too for added measure.

Please find a burning dumpster and drop the laptop with the open Jameel page exposed and throw the offending laptop into the burning garbage bin.

If burning textual material offends your sensibilities, please take your laptop with the Muqata blog open on it and proceed to religiously take a hammer to the laptop and then dump said laptop with offending material on it into the nearest garbage bin.

Either option should effectively give you fair revenge for the improper condemnation you received on this blog.

Lurker said...

DB: Lurker, Jameel, Joe and other good readers of this thread. Do you agree with brad that disliking my politics and my (imaginary) rants are sufficient reason to burn a book? If that's not your view, if indeed you find this view as reprehensible as polite 21st century people are supposed to find it, I invite you to speak up. Your silence is both deafening and defining.

Me: ...I find it astounding that even after Jameel re-amplified his position in no uncertain terms in his Update, writing explicitly and unequivocally that "this blog does not condone the burning of books, full stop" -- you would still actually ask him if finds the burning of your book acceptable. After Jameel wrote that, the notion that you or anyone else could still say with a straight face that his "silence [sic] is both deafening and defining", simply boggles the mind.

DB: Did you miss where I wrote this? "I never thought you supported book burning..."

No, I didn't miss that at all. In fact, it's the very fact that you wrote that, and then shortly afterward asked Jameel whether he supports book burning -- declaring his "silence" to be "deafening and defining" -- that prompted my comment in the first place.

DB: See, you read that comment from earlier, and because you're in touch with Jameel you know I thanked him privately for the update...

Yes, I am in touch with him. That's how I know how amazed he was that after you acknowledged his Update, in which he restated for your benefit his position in the most starkly clear, unambiguous terms possible, you could turn around and accuse him of the same thing all over again.

DB: ...so you *knew* that I inadvertently lumped Jameel with you and Silent Joe...

No, I knew no such thing. Even in his original post, Jameel had already stated that he found the incident to be "Truly Sick". But that didn't deter you from roundly attacking him anyway. So why should I (or anyone else) be surprised that you would continue to attack him even after he loudly reiterated his position?

What's even more incredible is that you nonchalantly state that you "lumped Jameel" with people whom you're accusing of supporting book burning, as part of an attack on me, instead of as an admission of guilt. After Jameel bent over backwards to re-clarify his position for you in the most unequivocal possible manner, you write that his "silence" is "deafening and defining". Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry -- I mean you "lumped" him with people whom you accused of that.

A reasonable person might expect that if your "lumping" of Jameel was truly "inadvertent", then your first order of business would be to publicly and contritely apologize to him for it. But you've done no such thing. Instead, you flail about, attacking and insulting others.

Shame on you.

Fred said...

DovBear: Where do you get the idea that I have a "mega-ego"? That's a canard, tossed around by my enemies, having no basis in reality and no grounds to support it. My ego is the same as any other bloggers.

I've never looked at DovBear's blog in my life, and I've never seen a single thing written by him before reading this thread, so I have no prior notions about him. All I can say is that to this reader, he comes off as an majorly nasty, self-important stuffed shirt, with the most pumped-up, monster-sized ego in the universe.

Shimon said...

As usual, when the mud starts flying no one comes out looking good...

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Dear Anonymous Childhood friend -

For the record, the link to buy DovBear's book was in the original posting BEFORE the Update.

As for your allegations of intentional slander, I have said and reiterated that I do not condone book burning, least of all DovBear's book.

I receive all sorts of stuff to post from all over the place. Most of the time people write, "no hat-tip needed, I don't want it known where this stuff came from."

Regardless, everyone should abandon this comment thread, and check out the Samaritan Passover post at the top of the blog.

Much more interesting, IMHO.

--Jameel

Anonymous said...

Dear Jameel,
I guess I wasn't clear.
If you publish pictures of a book burning that are taken by the actual book burner, you are an "accessory after the fact." You are aiding and abetting the "crime" by publicizing the act in a primary sense.
It would be the equivalent of the New York Times publishing a series of photos of the building of the Times Square bomb that were photographed by the bomber as he was building it. If the police requested the photographer's name, they would be required to produce it, as per the landmark decision Sullivan v. New York Times.
Reporting the book burning is one thing. Disseminating photos in a way that publicizes the act (exactly what the book burner would have wanted) is another.
Understand, I'm not inserting my opinion. I'm just telling you the way it is.
I guess it's nice to be anonymous.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

[part 1]

Dear Anonymous 4:38 PM.

I guess I'm not fully up to speed on the USA Legal code or perhaps I don't understand your analysis of it.

You wrote in your first comment (assuming you are the same anonymous childhood friend of mine with politics to the left of mine), that "If I took this to court, I could easily win a case for slander of DB by the Muqata."

I looked up the legal definition of "Slander" and found it to read as follows:

Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

The basic elements of a claim of slander include;

1. a defamatory statement;
2. published to third parties; and
3. which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Slander is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. If the slander unjustly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages. For other types of slander you generally must prove some actual damage to be able to recover.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

[part 2]

Having read that, I fail to understand how someone burning a book falls under that category, nor do I see how publishing photos of someone burning a book is an accessory to slander (with, or without revealing the source of the photographer).

Of course, by publishing these photos, that doesn't mean I advocate book burning.

Additional interesting book burning tidbits that I found include:

- In 1956, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration supervised the burning of several tons of psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich's controversial works espousing his controversial theories of "orgone" sex energy.

- And incidents of book burning continue into the 21st century. In 2001, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter children's books were branded as "satanic" and burned in a bonfire at a church in Alamagordo, New Mexico. In 2003, Harry Potter books were also burned in a church bonfire in Greenville, Michigan. In both cases, the clergy stated that they had never read these books.

The BBC also reported: A bonfire of Harry Potter books have been burnt on a bonfire in New Mexico, by people accusing the fictional boy wizard of being the devil.

JK Rowling's novels were burnt alongside other items considered to be the work of the devil, including horror books by Stephen King, ouija boards and AC/DC records.

Eminem CDs and copies of Disney's Snow White film were thrown in a dustbin.
.

So is the burning of these objects, slander, or is it the reporting of the burning of these objects, without stating WHO photographed them, "slander?"

Slander, like Libel, requires malicious intent.

When Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine for "libel" -- he had to prove intent to damage. Since he could not prove intent, he was only awarded, one dollar.

In this case, [though there is no libel, no slander, and no defamation] its obviously NOT a case of intent, let alone malicious intent, since I clearly:

- denounced the book burning,
- included a link to buy the book,
- updated my post with an even clearer denunciation of the book burning,
- basically provided a free ad for DovBear book

Regardless, I would never slander DovBear.

Intentionally, or not.

Regards! Drop me an email sometime if you wish to catch up on old times.

--Jameel

Lurker said...

To the "Anonymous" childhood friend of Jameel [snicker, guffaw]:

You obviously haven't got a shred of a clue what the crime of "libel" entails under the law.

Why don't you ask SM, he'll explain to you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Batya from Queens said...

I don't understand why the Anonymous commenter claims to be a friend of Jameel, knows him from childhood, and then advocates a boycott of the Muqata blog?

Doesn't sound like a friend to me.

Lurker said...

Batya from Queens: I don't understand why the Anonymous commenter claims to be a friend of Jameel, knows him from childhood, and then advocates a boycott of the Muqata blog?

I can hazard a pretty good guess...

DovBear said...

Classic case of you can dish it out but you can't take it. Go back to your own cave where your groupies can lick your wounds and tell you how wonderful you are.

Groupies at my own cave? You really should stop by some time. On a typical day, you'll find Lurker there being his obnoxious self, along with Chaim Bray, Garnel Ironheart, Dov Kramer and several others who don't like me or what I have to say. At my blog, my wounds aren't licked, they're opened, and do you know why? Because unlike so many RW blogs I invite, nay encourage, dissent, allow people who disagree with me to guest post (including Lurker, who had guest posted multiple times!), with no holds barred, and I do not delete comments.

If I have such a fragile ego, why do I allow people to use my own blog and my threads to attack me?

I also want to clear up a misconception. I was never mad at Jameel for [whatever] I merely thought he exercised bad editorial judgement, and if Lurker hadn't stormed in with his bad attitude and cruel remarks, J and I would have settled things calmly between ourselves, like the friends we are.

Abbi, your reputation for viciousness is well known among the bloggers, and I'm here to tell you that it doesn't do you justice. You're much worse in person.

Nosson Gestetner said...

I'll never understand flaming people on the internet - it's so pointless! Everyone on this thread had a very clear position with regard to everyone else and none of you are going to convince any of the other participants otherwise.

Jameel - Has published these, as he publishes everything else that comes his way. Everyone agrees you're a swell guy.
DovBear - You are so makpid on your kavod. You don't like anyone on this thread, except (questionable) Jameel and eFink.
Abbi - You don't like Dovbear. Dovbear doesn't like you.
Lurker - See Above.
JoeSettler - See above.

No one here has convinced anyone of anything. So what was the point?

Another long-lost friend of Jameel said...

Nosson Gestetner: I'll never understand flaming people on the internet - it's so pointless!

You stinking bastard! How dare you support the burning of DovBear's book?!

I didn't hear you condemn it, and your silence is deafening and defining.

If I cared enough, I would try to get you prosecuted for libel.

Lucky for you that I don't care.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Hi All -

In a private conversation, DovBear has assured me he is absolutely not the anonymous "childhood friend" who has accused me of libel by publishing photos on this blog.

DovBear clearly wrote he didn't think I maliciously posted these photos, so it would make no sense for him to be accusing me of libel, which requires malicious intent. It makes makes no sense anyway from a legal perspective anyway, but that's irrelevant.

Therefore, I urge you all to stop assuming its DovBear.

And that means you too, Lurker!

Sheesh - why cant you all read the Samaritan passover post. Its far more interesting.

'night all!

--Jameel

Nosson Gestetner said...

@ Friend who replied to me - good satire of this thread.
@ Jameel - I read it and it's riveting, but not so discussion worthy! But I'll comment to be yotze :)

Anonymous said...

Jameel, I liked your brief summary of book burning. Was thet meant to show that it's normal behavior? Or acceptable?
Of course burning books is perfectly legal and protected under the law.
But from a Jewish perspective, it is scurilous.
As you may know, The RAN" wrote a book on teshuva just to atone for the sin he committed when he allowed the burning of the Moreh Nevuchim. That burning of the Rambam's book eventually led to mass burning of the Talmud all over Europe.
By strict legal standards, there is no libel involved, but by Jewish standards I can think of nothing worse. And to me, as a shomer mitzvot, that's libel.
And again, showing pictures of the burning that are provided by the burner is tasteless, if not embarrassing, to say the least. You empower the burner.
You know, I stated that I was an old friend of Jameel, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with him. I offered my former history more to explain why I would read a blog where such fantastic chilul Hashem could go on in the comment section on a regular basis and no one stops it. My association is the only reason I come back to read again. I feel a connection.
And you can be an old friend and still know that something is wrong and protest against it.
Truth be told, I've never read Dov Bear. But your weird accusation that he wrote my comments just makes you all look like idiots.
Can't you just check my computer signature on my posts to lay that weird accusation to rest?

A loyal reader said...

In deference to the request that Jameel made above, I want to remind everyone not to assume that the above comment (from the anonymous "old friend of Jameel" at 11:31 PM) was written by DovBear. Jameel is the owner of this blog, after all, and we ought to show some respect for his wishes. So as hard as it may be, everyone please stop thinking that DovBear wrote that, right now!

Yes, Lurker, even you.

Lurker said...

To the "loyal reader":

Not to worry -- I am doing everything in my power to somehow refrain from thinking that.

The back of the hill said...

Jameel, please remove this comment string.

Other than yourself and Dovbear, and one or two others, there is nothing but lashon hara here.
Vicious, foulmouthed, lashon hara.

Brad, Abbi, Fred - if the shoe fits.

The Bray of Fundie said...

the fire burns on consuming all in its wake.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Dear "Anonymous Old Friend of Jameel who is using a different IP address than that of DovBear."

Your last comment leaves me even more puzzled that the previous 2.

First you say outright my posting photographs of someone burning DovBear's would lead to a legal win against me in court, based on slander.

"If I took this to court, I could easily win a case for slander of DB by the Muqata."

You also suggest a boycott of the Muqata blog, which is of course, your prerogative, but doesn't hold up to the reasons you provided.

You then accuse me of being an accessory to book burning.

If you publish pictures of a book burning that are taken by the actual book burner, you are an "accessory after the fact."

You remind us all that these legal accusations (which would "clearly" win in court) are all hard, cold "facts," and not G-d forbid, your opinion.

Understand, I'm not inserting my opinion. I'm just telling you the way it is.

I then provided legal definitions for "slander" as well as the necessary legal components to win a court case, and showed how my posting of these photographs could in no way be misconstrued to be considered libel.

And then you comment again and backpedal, "By strict legal standards, there is no libel involved..."

I don't understand? This wasn't an open and shut case?

So you extend your mussar message:

"...but by Jewish standards I can think of nothing worse. And to me, as a shomer mitzvot, that's libel."

Libel from a Jewish Standard? Lashon Hara? How is this Lashon Hara?

This blog in general tries to avoid lashon hara.

Public Service Announcements for the sake of the community's safety and welfare is not lashon hara.

Therefore, posted stories about people like R' Motti Elon...or the Burka lady...or photos of a burning a book, are important, news items, for the community to see who is living in their midst, and that they should be avoided.

It is not embarrassing to DovBear to see his book being burned by a bunch of loonies. It is embarrassing to the burners. Do you think the loonies burning Harry Potter books are empowered for having publicly burned those books? Your average person just looked at them and said, "what a bunch of loonies"... I doubt JK Rowlings lost any sleep over it -- it probably made her chuckle.

As I have written previously -- feel free to drop me an email privately so we can catch up on old times. I'm sorry you haven't done so already.

Regards from Israel,

Jameel

tafka pp said...

Dammit, Joe- I've been arguing with you for years and you never once wrote me a poem!!

Jameel's new friend said...

*Insert angry obnoxious comment*
*Insert witty quip at a commenter*

To be yotze not having deafening and defining silence, book burning is wrong.

NG

HSaboMilner said...

Jameel - can you close the comment thread? this repeated back and forth isn't constructive.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

HSM: Sorry :(

There's no way in blogger to do that. (How I wish blogger had that option).

Fred said...

BOTH: Jameel, please remove this comment string.

That's rich. In a comment thread on a post that condemned book burning, you come along and advocate censorship.

BOTH: Other than yourself and Dovbear, and one or two others, there is nothing but lashon hara here.
Vicious, foulmouthed, lashon hara.
Brad, Abbi, Fred - if the shoe fits.


That has got to be the most DB-ish thing I've ever seen you write. Did he have to twist your arm to get you to post that for him, or did you do it out of the kindness of your heart? Davka from you, I would have expected better.

So, everyone here is speaking "vicious, foulmouthed, lashon hara", but DB isn't? You must be kidding. Here are a just few choice selections from DB's comments above:

* "...get bent... You just specialize in being a bitch, for no good reason. Perhaps you're Lurker's sister."

* "...your reputation for viciousness is well known among the bloggers, and I'm here to tell you that it doesn't do you justice. You're much worse in person."

* "...your callous disingenuousness is one of the wonders of the world of bad manners."

* "You... are pathologically incapable of writing a single comment without oozing contempt and animosity... you who gets off on being obnoxious..."

* "Jameel
[sic]... Do you agree with brad that disliking my politics and my (imaginary) rants are sufficient reason to burn a book? ... Your silence is both deafening and defining."

* "...you're a jerk you couldn't resist feigning ignorance... Piece of work."


By accusing everyone else of "vicious, foulmouthed, lashon hara", and in the same sentence, laughably exonerating DB of the same, you've completely decimated any credibility you might have had.

Anonymous said...

Fred: Don't hold back, tell us what you REALLY think.

The Bray of Fundie said...

my take here:

http://innate-differences.blogspot.com/2010/05/baiting-bear-trap.html

The back of the hill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The back of the hill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The back of the hill said...

The back of the hill said...
Fred, you wouldn't by any chance by the anonymous commenter who called me "a pseudo intellectual douche bag" on a different blog, would you?

;-D

What motivated my comment here was distress at seeing two people whom I like and appreciate both get involved in a spitfest over what is probably the most negative thing towards a blogger that I have as yet seen in the very narrow part of the bloggosphere I inhabit (or: 'infest').
Both of them are pro-Israel, both of them are good people. Both are ehrlich.

And both of them have better things to do than hiss and yowl like angry kittens. So, come to think of it, do you.

Quote: "That has got to be the most DB-ish thing I've ever seen you write."
From which I deduce that you have read most of my blog.
You don't know how much that pleases me. Sometimes I get the feeling that I'm just a grumpy Dutchman talking to myself in public and frightening children.

The back of the hill said...

Yes, I rewrote that comment. Finger slippage like you wouldn't believe.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lurker said...

To "Anonymous Old Friend of Jameel who post comments from a different IP address than that of DovBear":

Your most recent post removed any doubts I had that were left about you.

Even if you imagined that posting what you did somehow proves something about who you claim to be (it does not), you could easily have done it by sending a private email to Jameel. The fact that you wrote what you did publicly speaks volumes about your shameful moral values and your rank hypocrisy.

Enough already, nobody here really cares about your desperate insistence that you are not DovBear (or, conversely, DovBear's desperate insistence that he is not him).

Some of us are not particularly burdened by the need to spend our time scratching our heads trying to figure out who you are...

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

To "Anonymous Old Friend of Jameel who post comments from a different IP address than that of DovBear"

I'm sorry I had to delete your comment, but posting "outting/private" information on the blog is forbidden.

Regardless, I suggest you re-read the update I posted in the text of the post.

Update: Since the language of this posting was obviously not clear enough for everyone, I guess I will have to clearly "SPELL IT OUT".

This blog does not condone the burning of books, full stop.

Burning the book of a JBlogosphere member is even worse. While I thought the comment "Truly Sick" was obvious enough to express my disgust with the burning of the "DovBear on the Parsha" book, reviewed and endorsed here by Rabbi E. Fink, and available for purchase here for only $20.99 (ships in 3-5 business days), apparently, it was not enough.

For the record, The Muqata does not endorse this book, nor was this advertisement paid for by anyone (I know I didn't receive any money for it)

If you think that publishing these photos means actually advocating the burning of books, I suggest you find a good psychotherapist.

Good Day.

The Muqata Management


I'm sorry you feel that that "empowers" the book burners.

DovBear said...

I'm here again, against my better judgment, to plead with all of you to believe that I have not posted on this thread with any name other than DovBear. I don't know any private information about Jameel, and if I did I wouldn't dream of posting it here. I am not the person calling himself an old friend of Jameel, and I feel frustrated and powerless that there seems to be no way to prove it conclusively.

Please believe me.

Also, Fred: BOTH is his own man, and he and I have not been in communication about this post. Whatever he wrote came from his own head and heart.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

For the record:

I honestly do not believe that DovBear is the "anonymous childhood friend"

Yet whoever it is, its rather poor form to try and publicly "out" a blogger.

Anonymous said...

I apologize if my comments seemed like they were outing a blogger. My intention was the opposite. I posted an obscure fact about Jameel's street from childhood and 2 letters of a sibling's name. If that outs him, then you must truly have people scouring the internet for clues to your identity.
Again, you misunderstood my intentions. I merely wanted to settle this odd debate about who I was. I thought that would put it to rest for Jameel, and he could clarify it to his readers. It never occurred to me that conspiracy theorists could then say "Oh, Dovbear has found out personal details about Jameel..."
Again, my apologies.

Anonymous said...

Jameel, can I ask you a question?
Do you honestly believe that someone who doesn't already know who you are could have figured out your identity from what I posted?
Also, if I was trying to "out" you, don't you think it would have been easy for me to do?
I guess I don't know internet anonymous blogger etiquette, but obviously outing you is something I wasn't attempting to do.
I would suggest this, regarding your comment section. You have always been a relatively reasonable person, but the comments you choose not to expurgate vs. the ones you do choose to remove say a lot about where you are today.
As an old rebbe of mine (and yours) used to say: If you hang out in a fish market, you're going to come out smelling like fish."

Anonymous said...

Comment #100.

Woo hoo!

Search the Muqata

Loading...

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails