tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post4896737759285810334..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Review of the Enigma of the Biblical Shafan, pt ii: What else did Dr. Betech conceal from his readers?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-88012368687360691312013-08-04T23:04:00.079-04:002013-08-04T23:04:00.079-04:00Then everyone will understand why you have refused...<i>Then everyone will understand why you have refused so many times to substantiate your non-demonstrated accussation.</i><br /><br />I think that everyone understands why you repeat questions that have been directly answered many times.David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-54375980968077630872013-08-04T11:34:50.981-04:002013-08-04T11:34:50.981-04:00B"H
David
You wrote:
...I can't help if ...B"H<br />David<br /><br />You wrote:<br />...I can't help if you can't read and understand your own writing. <br /><br />IB:<br />So just please answer the following:<br /><br />1. IB wrote that NS is x in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br />2. IB wrote that NS is y in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br />3. IB wrote that NS is z in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br /><br />Then everyone will understand why you have refused so many times to substantiate your non-demonstrated accussation.Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-47052040801437417732013-08-04T00:17:53.596-04:002013-08-04T00:17:53.596-04:00Thank you for your very late response.
I responde...<i>Thank you for your very late response.</i><br /><br />I responded a long time ago. I merely added unecessary additional specficity here to help avoid you confusing the readers.<br /><br /><i>It is obvious why you were unwilling to try to substantiate your three accusations against me.</i><br /><br />It is obvious why you don't actually respond: you actually did say those things and most likely still believe them. Instead you make general comments like "I don't know what you are talking about". <br /><br />And again, I made not one single accusation against anyone. I pointed out what you wrote.<br /><br /><i>I followed your five links and could not find where I wrote what you attributed to me, so please substantiate your accusations or retract them.</i><br /><br />I can't help if you can't read and understand your own writing.David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-33872159212058561092013-08-02T20:05:35.510-04:002013-08-02T20:05:35.510-04:00B”H
Dear David
Thank you for your very late respo...B”H <br />Dear David<br />Thank you for your very late response.<br /><br />It is obvious why you were unwilling to try to substantiate your three accusations against me.<br /><br />I followed your five links and could not find where I wrote what you attributed to me, so please substantiate your accusations or retract them.Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67501146504646866262013-08-02T15:27:02.118-04:002013-08-02T15:27:02.118-04:00So just please answer the following:
1. IB wrote ...<i>So just please answer the following:<br /><br />1. IB wrote that NS is x in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br />2. IB wrote that NS is y in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br />3. IB wrote that NS is z in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”</i><br /><br />For the record, in blog post <a href="http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2013/03/bh-lacking-in-derech-eretz-and-in.html" rel="nofollow">Lacking in derech eretz and in knowledge</a><br /><br />1. IB wrote that NS is an Apikores in the following sentences (in the above mentioned link):<br /><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/18WYea7" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/18WYea7</a><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/18WYzty" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/18WYzty</a><br /><br />2. IB wrote that NS is an Avaryan in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link):<br /><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/18WYE0b" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/18WYE0b</a><br /><br />3. IB wrote that NS is an Shakran in the following sentences (in the above mentioned link):<br /><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/18WYKVF" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/18WYKVF</a><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/18WYWEm" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/18WYWEm</a>David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-35070423815774595162013-07-20T23:05:33.031-04:002013-07-20T23:05:33.031-04:00Dr. Betech put the following comment on his blog:
...Dr. Betech put the following comment on his blog:<br /><br /><i>To our dear readers<br />Alechem HaShalom!<br /><br />I am forced to inform you that I am not planning to answer the comments of David Ohsie, since unfortunately he has accused me elsewhere of something I am denying.<br /><br />He has refrained from substantiating his accusation or retracting it even when repeatedly requested.<br /><br />I am still interested in an intellectual interchange about the contents of the shafan book when the circumstances promote communication with those who are willing to take full responsibility for what they write. <br /><br />Shabbat Shalom.<br /></i><br /><br />I responded there with the exact quotations from his blog (I don't want to reproduce them here and spread those shameful comments farther than his blog.) He first responded "David Ohsie´s quotations are out of context."<br /><br />However, then then again refused to deny that they meant what they obviously mean.<br /><br />Finally, my comment and his response was deleted from his blog, leaving only his comment reproduced above.David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67071692694574826162013-07-20T11:03:38.797-04:002013-07-20T11:03:38.797-04:00apikores means apricot?apikores means apricot?SPACEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05422724355730756799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-2114931310820527642013-07-19T11:29:34.619-04:002013-07-19T11:29:34.619-04:00Dr. Betech how can you say this when you helped en...Dr. Betech how can you say this when you helped engineer the ban on R Slifkin's books? Doesn't that "minor incident" sort of assume you consider him an apikores? Yoninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-78202680909690890312013-07-19T11:13:10.387-04:002013-07-19T11:13:10.387-04:00David:
All the unrelated points you have mentione...<i>David:<br /><br />All the unrelated points you have mentioned in your last comment will be ignored.<br /><br />Thank you for your detailed answer, where you finally at least acknowledge that you have not substantiated two of your three accusations.<br /><br />Indeed, you have not even one.<br /><br />I am sorry, but as you accused me here you have to demonstrate your accusation here or retract it here.<br /><br />So just please answer the following:<br /><br />1. IB wrote that NS is x in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br />2. IB wrote that NS is y in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br />3. IB wrote that NS is z in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br /></i><br /><br />You just repeated yourself and completely ignored what I wrote, so just read my previous comment for my response.David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-66821396145164850452013-07-19T11:04:24.852-04:002013-07-19T11:04:24.852-04:00B”H
David:
All the unrelated points you have ment...B”H<br />David:<br /><br />All the unrelated points you have mentioned in your last comment will be ignored.<br /><br />Thank you for your detailed answer, where you finally at least acknowledge that you have not substantiated two of your three accusations.<br /><br />Indeed, you have not even one.<br /><br />I am sorry, but as you accused me here you have to demonstrate your accusation here or retract it here.<br /><br />So just please answer the following:<br /><br />1. IB wrote that NS is x in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br />2. IB wrote that NS is y in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”<br />3. IB wrote that NS is z in the following sentence (in the above mentioned link): “…”Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-19215047979711026252013-07-19T10:51:50.347-04:002013-07-19T10:51:50.347-04:00note btw that part of it the esteemed pediatrician...note btw that part of it the esteemed pediatrician misunderstanding what Rabbi Slifkin wrote. that is, R'NS wrote about parshat Noach that <i>"Sorry to shock you, but I don't believe in a <b>global</b> flood, either!"</i> and Dr. Betech ignored the word "global" and seized on this to write <i>"as everyone knows, you have publicly acknowledged that you do not believe in a basic Chapter of the written Torah"</i>.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-44428682784573205092013-07-19T10:43:37.210-04:002013-07-19T10:43:37.210-04:00You wrote:
Asked and answered.
IB:
If that would...<i>You wrote:<br />Asked and answered. <br /><br />IB:<br />If that would be the case, then just summarize and write:<br /><br />1. IB wrote that NS is x in the following sentence: …<br />2. IB wrote that NS is y in the following sentence: …<br />3. IB wrote that NS is z in the following sentence: …<br /></i><br /><br />While I don't think that it is necessary given the obvious correlation, I did what you asked for one of the three, but you keep insisting that I didn't. Therefore, so I don't see the profit in pursuing the other two any further as the correlation is obvious. Also, as I mentioned many times, I will only do it by reference on this blog. <br /><br />If you want direct quotes, we need to move the discussion back to your blog.<br /><br />BTW, if you really don't think those things about R. Slifkin and you think that I'm misreading your blog (always possible despite the clear language), why not just state something like the following in your name. It is not your obligation to do so, but it would clear up your position rather quickly:<br /><br />"I hereby declare my belief that Rabbi Natan Slifkin is not an apostate of any sort and is a firm believer in the Torah; that he follows Halacha in his actions; and that he has not been dishonest in his arguments with me, in his books or in his blog postings".David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-86378958552989828762013-07-19T09:51:54.558-04:002013-07-19T09:51:54.558-04:00B”H
David
You wrote:
Asked and answered.
IB:
I...B”H<br />David <br /><br />You wrote:<br />Asked and answered. <br /><br />IB:<br />If that would be the case, then just summarize and write:<br /><br />1. IB wrote that NS is x in the following sentence: …<br />2. IB wrote that NS is y in the following sentence: …<br />3. IB wrote that NS is z in the following sentence: …<br /><br />Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-38503199872803948182013-07-19T09:08:43.771-04:002013-07-19T09:08:43.771-04:00You have to prove that I wrote in the above linked...<i>You have to prove that I wrote in the above linked article the three things you are attributing to me or retract from them.</i><br /><br />Asked and answered.David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-2462312779140276272013-07-19T02:12:38.635-04:002013-07-19T02:12:38.635-04:00B”H
David
I do not have to back up my statement si...B”H<br />David<br />I do not have to back up my statement since I did not state anything.<br />You published an accusation against me, attributing me what I have not written.<br />You have to prove that I wrote in the above linked article the three things you are attributing to me or retract from them.<br />Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-45740713532323893082013-07-19T01:17:43.418-04:002013-07-19T01:17:43.418-04:00Thank you, R. Waxman, and apologies for filling up...Thank you, R. Waxman, and apologies for filling up your blog comment section with this drivel.<br /><br />Dr. Betech, I've made an obviously true statement and then backed it up. You assert the contrary, but do not back up your statement, so there is nothing to respond to. I agree 100% that is my obligation to respond to any actual arguments that you make. You just haven't made any yet.David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-28325256214802881452013-07-19T00:34:36.555-04:002013-07-19T00:34:36.555-04:00take it as a compliment or not, but people have a ...take it as a compliment or not, but people have a very difficult time proving things to you. this might be because you are always right; or it might be because you engage in debating tactics; or because it is proving things TO YOU.<br /><br />meanwhile, the feeling that those who have had the dubious privilege of arguing with with you is NOT that they have been proven wrong.<br /><br />when someone then says “…I won't respond to those any more”, it is not an admission of being incorrect. as you well know. which makes your call for teshuva in response part of your rhetorical bag of tricks.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-38740833896626414972013-07-19T00:27:22.989-04:002013-07-19T00:27:22.989-04:00B”H
David
You are free to initiate as many new iss...B”H<br />David<br />You are free to initiate as many new issues as you want, but that does not exonerate you from the responsibility of substantiating the accusation you wrote against me or retracting it.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />… I'm not even sure why the statement bothers you since your post is completely public.<br /><br />IB:<br />What bothers me is that your accusation is not true.<br /><br />I have not written –as you claim– that: “R. Slifkin is an Apikores, Avaryan and Shakran”<br /><br />You wrote:<br />If you can show even a reasonable doubt that I made a mistake, then I will retract from this forum and all other forums. So far you have said nothing further of substance.<br /><br />IB:<br />I do not have to substantiate nothing since I did not state anything.<br />You published an accusation against me, attributing me what I have not written.<br /><br />You have to prove that I wrote in the above linked article the three things you are attributing to me or retract from them.<br />Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-91900262067774784692013-07-19T00:11:13.879-04:002013-07-19T00:11:13.879-04:00I understand you are tire, nevertheless that does ...<i>I understand you are tire, nevertheless that does not exonerate you from the responsibility of substantiating the accusation you wrote against me or retracting it.</i><br /><br />I made the statement (not accusation) and backed it up, although no backing was actually necessary, because the statement that you made speaks for itself. I'm not even sure why the statement bothers you since your post is completely public. Why not simply embrace it unless you have changed your mind.<br /><br />If you can show even a reasonable doubt that I made a mistake, then I will retract from this forum and all other forums. So far you have said nothing further of substance.<br /><br />Here is something simple that you can do to prove me wrong in one sentence. Make the following statement in your own name.<br /><br />"I hereby declare my belief that Rabbi Natan Slifkin is not an apostate of any sort and is a firm believer in the Torah; that he follows Halacha in his actions; and that he has not been dishonest in his arguments with me, in his books or in his blog postings".<br /><br /><i>Since you wrote “…I won't respond to those any more.” <br />Please verify what is expected from you according to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 606:1</i><br /><br />OK, here goes:<br /><br />Dr. Betech, in accordance with SA OC 606:1, I would suggest that you remove/edit your post, ask R. Slifkin for M'chilah and address him from now on as Rabbi/Rav Slifkin. It would also help if you asked forgiveness for your role in having his books "banned".David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59465911753516316032013-07-18T23:31:32.185-04:002013-07-18T23:31:32.185-04:00B”H
David
I understand you are tire, nevertheless ...B”H<br />David<br />I understand you are tire, nevertheless that does not exonerate you from the responsibility of substantiating the accusation you wrote against me or retracting it.<br /><br />I have to acknowledge that your http://bit.ly/1avSvFj is very creative; nevertheless it does no prove your case.<br /><br />I have not written –as you claim– that: “R. Slifkin is an Apikores, Avaryan and Shakran”<br /><br />Since you wrote “…I won't respond to those any more.” <br />Please verify what is expected from you according to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 606:1<br />Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67054223048035158422013-07-18T20:30:39.381-04:002013-07-18T20:30:39.381-04:00Sorry, the circles are getting tiring. Here is th...Sorry, the circles are getting tiring. Here is the final summary:<br /><br />1) I recalled to you here that you called R. Slifkin an Apikores (apostate), Avaryan (sinner) and Shakran (liar) on your blog. This is not an accusation, but simply a report of what you wrote quite openly. I have no other knowledge. I do not "retract" what I recalled to you.<br /><br />2) I won't quote your words here and propagate your shameful statements. If you want quotations, it will only be on your blog. However quotations are not needed because I produced a precise reference to your blog.<br /><br />3) The first sentence in your blog post with the word "believe" is of the form S1, S2 is a correct definition, and S3 follows from S1 and S2.<br /><br />S1: X doesn't believe in some part of the Torah<br />S2: If X doesn't believe in some part of the Torah, then X is an Apikores (apostate)<br />S3: X is an Apikores (apostate)<br /><br />Since you wrote S1 about R. Slifkin, you are asserting that he is an Apikores (apostate).<br /><br />Here is a google search to help you find what you wrote in case you have forgotten:<br /><br />http://bit.ly/1avSvFj<br /><br />4) Once again, you write gobs of words with no actual argument inside. I won't respond to those any more.David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-21551245592781223782013-07-18T20:01:45.242-04:002013-07-18T20:01:45.242-04:00juda:
no, and i had never heard that. i was only ...juda:<br /><br />no, and i had never heard that. i was only presenting a hypothetical, with Dr. Betech assuming the same role as elsewhere.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-45915372747423051262013-07-18T18:20:32.953-04:002013-07-18T18:20:32.953-04:00B”H
David
You wrote:
I've substantiated my st...B”H<br />David<br /><br />You wrote:<br />I've substantiated my statements (which are not accusations).<br /><br />IB:<br />This is indeed a partial retraction, but not enough yet.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />…I'm not going to quote your language in this forum. Ask in the other one. <br /><br />IB:<br />You decided to accuse me publicly here, now you have to substantiate your accusation here or retract it here.Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-9163907838889132942013-07-18T18:03:26.489-04:002013-07-18T18:03:26.489-04:00IB:
I understand your unwillingness to propagate s...<i>IB:<br />I understand your unwillingness to propagate some shameful statements, nevertheless that does not exonerate you from the responsibility of substantiating the accusation you wrote against me.<br /><br />You decided to accuse me publicly here, now you have to substantiate your accusation here or retract it here.</i><br /><br />You are repeating yourself. I've substantiated my statements (which are not accusations). You have the precise sentence referred to which I won't repeat in this forum. I'm not going to quote your language in this forum. Ask in the other one.David Ohsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254812299720876449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6708044938213671402013-07-18T16:55:43.780-04:002013-07-18T16:55:43.780-04:00B”H
David
You wrote:
I'm not going to quote y...B”H<br />David<br /><br />You wrote:<br />I'm not going to quote your shameful statements here and thereby propagate them.<br /><br /><br />IB:<br />I understand your unwillingness to propagate some shameful statements, nevertheless that does not exonerate you from the responsibility of substantiating the accusation you wrote against me.<br /><br />You decided to accuse me publicly here, now you have to substantiate your accusation here or retract it here.<br />Dr. Isaac Betechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17378845941377831107noreply@blogger.com