tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post1178127393314365710..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: The problem with Dr. Betech's book: ...joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-50919793334188816462013-07-08T00:32:19.511-04:002013-07-08T00:32:19.511-04:00there is plenty of time for that. and there are ot...there is plenty of time for that. and there are others who are already doing that.<br /><br />i think an analysis of your <b>methodology</b> would be a rather useful contribution to the discussion. <br /><br />and once i am revealing what i believe to be a dishonest presentation, a dan-lekaf-zechut approach would be to not assign you the worst of motives. that you are not a 'monster', but misguided in your zeal towards what you think are positive results.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-41452822197225507912013-07-08T00:18:50.772-04:002013-07-08T00:18:50.772-04:00B"H
Rabbi Waxman
You wrote:
I do think that,...B"H<br />Rabbi Waxman<br /><br />You wrote:<br />I do think that, like many misguided people who do bad things, he thinks that he is doing right. <br /><br />IB:<br />Instead of thinking about what I think, I kindly invite you to try to refute what I wrote in the book.<br />ThanksDr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6044506163632906462013-07-08T00:13:25.459-04:002013-07-08T00:13:25.459-04:00argh! and 'that he is engaging in trickery to ...argh! and 'that he is engaging in trickery to do so' did not mean the going around to Gedolim, though that WAS one sided. an editing error. i meant the subsequent book, blogposts, comments, and so on, involved such trickery.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-64403112164498842402013-07-08T00:13:05.193-04:002013-07-08T00:13:05.193-04:00Ok now I do have to admit I misunderstood. Sorry a...Ok now I do have to admit I misunderstood. Sorry about that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-29150621931994793002013-07-08T00:10:33.191-04:002013-07-08T00:10:33.191-04:00sorry about that; this was messed up by the timing...sorry about that; this was messed up by the timing. the "you" in "to which you are responding" was Dr. Betech, not YA.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-75203235173525728862013-07-08T00:09:10.589-04:002013-07-08T00:09:10.589-04:00"joshwaxman said...
please note i delete..."joshwaxman said...<br /><br /> please note i deleted the comment above, to which you are responding."<br /><br />I know. That is what I was responding to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-33936873099739155852013-07-08T00:06:32.209-04:002013-07-08T00:06:32.209-04:00You too Dr. Betech.You too Dr. Betech.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-51014284530287079642013-07-08T00:06:00.513-04:002013-07-08T00:06:00.513-04:00please note i deleted the comment above, to which ...please note i deleted the comment above, to which you are responding.<br /><br />the context was as follows:<br /><i>I am not trying to show that Dr. Betech is some kind of monster. <br /><br />I *do* think that Dr. Betech committed a rather heinous act when he went around convincing various Gedolim to ban Rabbi Slifkin's books. I do think that, like many misguided people who do bad things, he thinks that he is doing right. <br /><br />And, separate from that, I do think that he is engaging in trickery to do so, and that he believes it appropriate to engage in such trickery. And I think it appropriate to point out such trickery where it occurs; that the book is dishonest, and not a fair portrayal of both sides.</i><br /><br />I consider Dr. Betech's debating tactics to be a form of trickery. And I think he knows that he is engaging in debating tactics.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-75992313914053686572013-07-08T00:05:08.288-04:002013-07-08T00:05:08.288-04:00Ok. Just for the record I was against the ban. Als...Ok. Just for the record I was against the ban. Also I was not passing judgment on Dr. Betech in general. I don't know the whole thing. I only sometimes visit these blogs. Look Rabbi Hatzlacha Rabbah and I am not angry and we should all unite and forgive and everything. God bless you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-54851898103980056432013-07-08T00:01:53.989-04:002013-07-08T00:01:53.989-04:00B"H
Rabbi Waxman
You wrote:
I do think that ...B"H<br />Rabbi Waxman<br /><br />You wrote:<br />I do think that he is engaging in trickery to do so, and that he believes it appropriate to engage in such trickery<br /><br />IB:<br />To both false accusations, my answer is no.Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-8497364688447802592013-07-07T23:58:05.023-04:002013-07-07T23:58:05.023-04:00forget this. i just deleted my comment.forget this. i just deleted my comment.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-58692102721873585872013-07-07T23:31:48.038-04:002013-07-07T23:31:48.038-04:00"nor does pointing to zooarchaeologist who co..."nor does pointing to zooarchaeologist who considers herself, but not others, a zooarchaeologist specifically "my background is in archaeology, rather than zoology" mean that archaeozoologists do not engage in zoology."<br /><br />I did not say that. But engaging in something is notv the same or else her background would be zoology. Further properly speaking she is an archaeozoologist. She said that. <br /><br />"to the reader:<br />i hope you can see that engaging on each and every one of the points YA raised would be an exercise in frustration. i don't have the bandwidth for it. to cite zach: i do not think it fruitful in attempting an intelligent discussion with him on such matters. It is doomed to failure"<br /><br />Just because you say something doesn't make it true. What's true is that you are being babyish. Stop being vindictive. My goodness you want to show that Dr. Betech is some monster and here you act boorish and petty with no redeeming qualities. You are supposed to be a rabbi? Is vindictiveness allowed. Stop making a fool of yourself. You want to apologize fine. You don't fine but stop being an insulter. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-78261766410464535992013-07-07T23:18:21.334-04:002013-07-07T23:18:21.334-04:00i certainly don't want to admit that i am wron...i certainly don't want to admit that i am wrong when i am not. that you persist in arguing does not mean that i am wrong.<br /><br />nor does pointing to zooarchaeologist who considers <b>herself</b>, but not others, a zooarchaeologist specifically "my background is in archaeology, rather than zoology" mean that archaeozoologists do not engage in zoology.<br /><br />i am sorry that you misunderstood my meaning. that is too bad.<br /><br />to the reader:<br />i hope you can see that engaging on each and every one of the points YA raised would be an exercise in frustration. i don't have the bandwidth for it. to cite zach: i do not <i>think it fruitful in attempting an intelligent discussion with him on such matters. It is doomed to failure</i>joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-50825908963122254282013-07-07T23:08:45.738-04:002013-07-07T23:08:45.738-04:00Talk about not wanting to admit you were wrong. En...Talk about not wanting to admit you were wrong. Enough. I said Hatzlacha Rabbah. Accept it and that's that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-19176117373786390192013-07-07T23:02:53.459-04:002013-07-07T23:02:53.459-04:00Habitats can be changed. You can't make up you...Habitats can be changed. You can't make up your own definition. You don't say we can examine the properties of your pizza so pizza is a part of science. It is either right or wrong. You claim Dr. Betech has innuendo and special meanings. Look at yourself. Stop being petty and vindictive. Your reading comprehension insult is only that so you are not gaining anything. Further an archaeozoologist is not a zoologist. www.archaeozoology.co.ukAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-14561955717236960282013-07-07T22:42:13.959-04:002013-07-07T22:42:13.959-04:00i was not addressing you.
but yes, it was innuend...i was not addressing you.<br /><br />but yes, it was innuendo.<br /><br />to the rest:<br />yes, when i referred above to zoology, i do believe that archae-<b>zoology</b> can fall under that term. as well as their analysing of animal skeletons to make such determinations and classifications, based on their "properties", and deciding in which habitats animals resided, and in which "region" animal life resides. that YA has difficulties with reading comprehension and did not understand what I meant... well, that is OK for him. but it does not mean that I was "wrong". it means that he misunderstood my intent, throughout.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-65951844300166092472013-07-07T22:26:16.410-04:002013-07-07T22:26:16.410-04:00The answer is no. Whether an animal lives or lived...The answer is no. Whether an animal lives or lived in a certain place is archaeology not zoology any more than any other branch of biology is including where an animal lived. I could list where animals live all around the world and I have not been talking biology. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zoology<br /><br />"Definition of ZOOLOGY<br />1<br />: a branch of biology concerned with the classification and the properties and vital phenomena of animals<br />2<br />a : animal life (as of a region) : fauna<br />b : the properties and vital phenomena exhibited by an animal, animal type, or group"<br /><br />You talk about innuendo. I was wishing well to not have pettiness and here you want to become petty? Please enough already. Hatzlacha Rabbah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-23702722410456388372013-07-07T20:36:01.006-04:002013-07-07T20:36:01.006-04:00Thank you for the well wishes.
In the meantime, i...Thank you for the well wishes.<br /><br />In the meantime, if anyone ELSE has points they want clarified, e.g. whether archae-zoologists, in determining where an animal lived, are engaging in zoology, please feel free to ask away!joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-47597812408180067682013-07-07T19:52:30.659-04:002013-07-07T19:52:30.659-04:00Hatzlacha Rabbah again.Hatzlacha Rabbah again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-55888492107936206662013-07-07T19:37:26.854-04:002013-07-07T19:37:26.854-04:00I am done talking to you here. Sorry.I am done talking to you here. Sorry.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-22463352868359008512013-07-07T19:23:40.890-04:002013-07-07T19:23:40.890-04:00"joshwaxman said...
"You make the a..."joshwaxman said...<br /><br /> "You make the accusation you back it up or else I don't want to hear it."<br /><br /> I don't care what you want to hear. I did back it up."<br /><br />Not to me. Maybe to someone else.<br /> <br />""Why don't ask him what he meant or wait and see in his new edition?"<br /> <br /> Firstly, do you think it is only THIS ONE POINT that is problematic? I gave this as a single example of his GENERAL approach. As I wrote, there is a second portion of this post, which documents another example, this time in terms of hyraxes. Fixing this one item is not going to fix anything."<br /><br />I was talking about here. I don't make claims about other places.<br /><br /> "Secondly, given my experience in the past in which Dr. Betech has been deliberately vague, many times, (e.g. "I could not find them.") I am not going to engage in back and forth in attempt to clarify. I am not going to play that game, and I do not owe him that. If he wants to be vague, then he can be vague, and does not get the benefit of the doubt. Especially if in the same comment he began his attack on Rabbi Slifkin and in a later comment insinuated that it was only my perception that his book was deficient in this regard."<br /><br />If you want to know facts find out. Meanwhile you ascribed motivations to him without proof as I said. <br /><br /> ""Yes I know but he was more specifically saying"<br /> So you read something into his words and then attacked him for it, in a way that just LOOKED like a misread of zach's words ('doomed')." <br /><br />You are misreading me. He was trying to shut up discussion with him. I was pointing out that Dr. Betech can hold his own as far as intelligent conversation he is not doomed whether or not actual doom was wished upon him. That's what I was thinking. You come along and infer I am saying Zach was saying he will be doomed. You inferred. The best I can say is he was inferring doom as far as intelligent articulation. You confused the issue and then I put it in your terms. You infer and then attack for me supposedly inferring.<br /><br />"Interesting, especially since this is not the first time in the past few days I have seen you do something like this ('motivation')."<br /><br />Yeah how? Motivation I spoke of not being included to make a circular argument. You know you say Dr. Betech referred to something and didn't say what and said it is sinister. You do exactly that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-53323398940679932092013-07-07T18:22:09.848-04:002013-07-07T18:22:09.848-04:00"You make the accusation you back it up or el..."You make the accusation you back it up or else I don't want to hear it."<br /><br />I don't care what you want to hear. I did back it up.<br /><br />"Why don't ask him what he meant or wait and see in his new edition?"<br />Firstly, do you think it is only THIS ONE POINT that is problematic? I gave this as a single example of his GENERAL approach. As I wrote, there is a second portion of this post, which documents another example, this time in terms of hyraxes. Fixing this one item is not going to fix anything.<br /><br />Secondly, given my experience in the past in which Dr. Betech has been <b>deliberately vague</b>, many times, (e.g. "I could not find them.") I am not going to engage in back and forth in attempt to clarify. I am not going to play that game, and I do not owe him that. If he wants to be vague, then he can be vague, and does <b>not</b> get the benefit of the doubt. Especially if in the same comment he began his attack on Rabbi Slifkin and in a later comment insinuated that it was only my perception that his book was deficient in this regard.<br /><br />"Yes I know but he was more specifically saying"<br />So you read something into his words and then attacked him for it, in a way that just LOOKED like a misread of zach's words ('doomed'). Interesting, especially since this is not the first time in the past few days I have seen you do something like this ('motivation').joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34072781468275912902013-07-07T13:26:55.756-04:002013-07-07T13:26:55.756-04:00"I won't engage in a back and forth with ..."I won't engage in a back and forth with you at this time. It is getting annoying."<br /><br />Yes you are getting annoying by your inclination to make an insinuation concerning an admission that you have points about his book as being no admission.<br /><br />"But don't take my shtika for hodaah."<br /><br />Why should I? <br /><br />"I don't take Dr. Betech's vague acknowledgement as admission of error. Was he acknowledging that he was being deliberately misleading in his book, or that it could have been written more clearly? Given his comment in Thursday, July 04, 2013 4:57:00 PM, it does not seem to be the former."<br /><br />You make the accusation you back it up or else I don't want to hear it. I am not interested in posturing nonsense. Rather than address his arguments you make accusations that don't change the truth or falsehood of his arguments. He wasn't vague. He said you were right and you don't want to hear that. So you bend and twist pitifully to try and make an admission into none and then also distract with talking of admission of guilt and saying he is not saying that.<br /><br />He admitted you were right about something. You denied he admitted anything. Why don't ask him what he meant or wait and see in his new edition? You just are biased. You want fairness for your side but not for Dr. Betech. <br /><br />"However, in terms of your last statement, this unfortunately speaks to what others have said about your reading comprehension and incoherence."<br /><br />Oh come on. Rabbi Slifkin says both and you expressed agreement with the comprehension and now that there was an incoherent statement. That's exactly two people on record and two people who are not unbiased.<br /><br /><br />"Zach was saying that the attempt to have a intelligent conversation with Dr. Betech was doomed to failure. He never said Dr. Betech was doomed. He was saying that my attempt was doomed."<br /><br />Yes I know but he was more specifically saying that any intelligent conversation with him was doomed. I was thinking in terms of him describing Dr. Betech as someone who is doomed as far any intelligent conversation making.<br /><br />"Blogger joshwaxman said...<br /><br /> "First of all we are talking about the issue of maale Gerah aren't we because that was what I was referring to"<br /><br /> No, it was about whether archaezoologists say that rabbits lived in ancient Israel and its vicinity. Which is where people have said that Dr. Betech has not admitted error. Have you been following the relevant threads?"<br /><br />If saying where an animal lives or lived is zoology you are right otherwise you are wrong.<br /><br />You twist and turn someones words for your own gain and then you complain that supposedly someone is writing to mislead. Have a good day anyway. Hatzlacha Rabbah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-25737478415604091842013-07-07T10:48:23.680-04:002013-07-07T10:48:23.680-04:00"First of all we are talking about the issue ...<i>"First of all we are talking about the issue of maale Gerah aren't we because that was what I was referring to"</i><br /><br />No, it was about whether archaezoologists say that rabbits lived in ancient Israel and its vicinity. Which is where people have said that Dr. Betech has not admitted error. Have you been following the relevant threads?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90251900702612644492013-07-07T10:43:02.447-04:002013-07-07T10:43:02.447-04:00YA:
I won't engage in a back and forth with y...YA:<br /><br />I won't engage in a back and forth with you at this time. It is getting annoying. But don't take my shtika for hodaah. I don't take Dr. Betech's vague acknowledgement as admission of error. Was he acknowledging that he was being deliberately misleading in his book, or that it could have been written more clearly? Given his comment in Thursday, July 04, 2013 4:57:00 PM, it does not seem to be the former.<br /><br />However, in terms of your last statement, this unfortunately speaks to what others have said about your reading comprehension and incoherence.<br /><br />Zach said:<br /><i> I'm surprised that you think it fruitful in attempting an intelligent discussion with him on such matters. It is doomed to failure as has been seen numerous times in the past.</i><br /><br />You just said:<br /><i>As far as having an intelligent conversation with him he was asserting Dr. Betech is doomed. That's what I was referring to. That's doomed enough career wise.</i><br /><br />Zach was saying that the <b>attempt</b> to have a intelligent conversation with Dr. Betech was doomed to failure. He never said Dr. Betech was doomed. He was saying that my attempt was doomed.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.com