I have just had an exchange with Rabbi Oliver regarding my moderation of comments. I will simply post the exchange and hear the responses. The question is simply whether all negative comments about the Lubavitcher Rebbe have to be suppressed or is it sufficient for me to edit out the obnoxious comments but post the remaining comment to show both that someone has strong feelings about the matter and two that I will block obnoxious comments. If it is generally felt that it is better to block the entire comment as Rabbi Oliver is demanding - I will implement that policy. On the other hand if editing out the obnoxious comments is acceptable than I will maintain the current policy.
================Rabbi Oliver wrote:
"he wanted absolute power"?! That wasn't edited out. The whole tone of the letter is the exact opposite of respectful dialogue and mutual understanding that you say the blog is intended to promote. I'd appreciate it if you'd write a blog post making this clear, just as you did (several times!) complaining about what you believed to be Herschel's inappropriate language.
2008/8/27 Daniel Eidensohn
I edited out the obnoxious words and made sure that it was obvious that I edited the comment. I think it is more respectful to post an edited comment than to block it entirely. Other comments that I could not edit I have blocked.
However if I get a few more letters like yours I will agree to block them altogether.
--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Yehoishophot Oliverwrote:
From: Yehoishophot Oliver
Subject: Re: [Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity] New comment on Chabad - Respects non-Chabad gedolim?.
To: yadmoshe@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 3:40 PM
B"H
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,
Why do you allow such posts through at all? This is nothing but blatant lies and disgrace of a great Tzaddik and talmid chochom. I thought you respected the Rebbe and wanted to do something to reduce sinas chinom, not increase it?
2008/8/27 Anonymous
Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "Chabad - Respects non-Chabad gedolim?":
>>A total lie. The Rebbe was tolerant of the approach of others, and always encouraged them in their derech, saying nahara, nahara upashtei.
YOu have been caught already on twisintg the truth, and here you are clearly lying. The Rebbe clearly expressed that those who did not learn Tanya are missing something upstairs. That is intolerance toward other people. [edit]
>>What totally twisted nonsense.
I know, what the Rebbe said was totally [edited] And you are twisting the above passage too, as we will show.
>>Actually, the Rebbe had full respect for the custom of other groups to sleep in sukkah, and never ever dismissed it, ch"v.
This was not the issue. The issue was the Rebbe's incredible [edited] toward those who thought he was wrong--calling them, for example, messengers of the Satan, and, in another instance, accusing the gadol hador of not wearing kosher tefillin.
>>He always said about all other groups' minhogim: "nahara, nahara upashtei." On that occasion the Rebbe was upset at those who sought (and still seek) to DISCREDIT the Rebbeim of Chabad for following the minhag not to sleep in sukkah, as if they are violating Shulchan Aruch ch"v, when they have their halachic reasons for this custom.
The halachic dispensation for not sleeping in a sukkah and the so called minhag not to sleep in one are two completely different things. One is enshrined by halacha and the other is shtus, hevel, and was never supported by anyone.
>>The Rebbe pointed out then that Litvishe gedolim throughout the generations had peaceful, friendly interactions with the Rebbeim of Chabad, and certainly never spoke against them in this way, and that those who promote this question are simply introducing flames of machlokes for no reason!
The rebbe [edited] had nothing to do with any charedi group. And the friendly interactions with chabad stopped because the rebbe refused to have anything to with them, ostensibly because he wanted absolute power.
No one is allowed to criticize Chabad. This is how they are replacing Judaism.
ReplyDeletePlease be careful in any decision you make to edit comments. I'd hate to see this blog turn into another "don't say anything we don't like" blog like Cross Currents.
ReplyDeleteIt seems, however, from the pieces you've posts that Rav Oliver feels that any attempt to prove an anti-Chabad point is a terrible offense against his sect. From what I've seen in the comments, no one is swearing, making up outrageous accusations or speaking in a derogatory fashion about Chabad.
But, this being the internet age, they are providing information that Chabad's PR department would prefer people not hear about. And one purpose of a blog is the open sharing of information, not the presentation of a single opinion without room for dissent. Unless you want to disable the comments option.
It is obviously a difficult problem. As a commentor who has had some of his comments edited, I am not unbiased on the issue.
ReplyDeleteMy personal feeling is that, unless the comment truly has no redeeming qualities, it should be posted with editing to remove the obnoxious elements.
I don't have time right now to explain my reasons at length.
Where was Ariel or Mr. Oliver when Chabad was slaughtering Rav Shach on this blog? Where was their demand for Gedolei yisroel then? The answer is, this is not about Kavod Hatorah--but Kavod for their Rebbe. And Kavod for their Rebbe does not obligate others to not say it like it is. After all, Mr. Olver himself heralded the rebbe as a man of truth who said what was "true," (!!!) even if it was not nice, about the Chazon Ish, of all people. Anonomous made an especially observant, learned comment. There is nothing wrong or obnoxious about it whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how anyone can argue with the learned, extremely erudite comments made by the Anonomous poster in this post.
ReplyDeleteNaturally,[edited] may not appreciate fact-based criticsm, but the truth remains: the "rebbe" did wield absolutle power over his subjects, had not connection with the balance of the Charedi world, refused any and all criticsms from the charedi gedolim at large, and is responsible for some severe problems Chabad is facing today. IF you have a problem with that, that's fine--but why edit out the truth? That makes no sense.
Okay guys, look. At the bottom of this comment screen you have four options for leaving a name. One is called Name/URL. Click on that and you cna choose a screen name but you DON'T have to choose a URL which means your name is untraceable.
ReplyDeleteBut pick a name, guys! It's hard to keep track of so many anonymouses. Or is it one guy who's especially pleased with himself?
In the groups that I moderate I do not edit comments. Rather I return them along with suggestions for how the tone might be improved to make the comment acceptable. If they return an acceptable draft fine, if not the comments don't get published.
ReplyDeleteThis might slow down the speed of conversation somewhat, but regular poster will learn how to write acceptable comments pretty quickly.
But there is nothing factually objectionable about Anonomous's comments!!! In fact, its rather tame in comparison to the comments Chabad have made about far greater tzadikim. If they don't care about the Chazon Ish, Rav Shach or Rav Kotler, by which I mean, they do not object to clearly false, inflammatory motzi shem rah on gedolei hador, then how could they be so upset about fact based criticms of the Rebbe and his mistakes?
ReplyDeleteWhat is troubling to R. Oliver (and he expressed it many times) is that it is meaningless to use a blog to study new things properly. It takes at least a year of private study (not lekanter) before one gets familiar with the vocabulary. Also, a lot of the remarks become political rather than technical. Many people are uncomfortable with the unkown. Chabad has been around 250 years and will survive to the end. There is no question. Better would be if people studied a subject before discussing it. There is no other way. And, when one learns it, I am sure they will appreciate why and how they survived. Why only they were frum in Russia till mesiras nefesh. Also, what bothers a lot of people is their pushiness. They are to be admired and not mocked. And, there is much of that. it is unavoidable. Maybe, lessons in chasidus should be given by R. Oliver on this blog. It could be interesting. This might be better than fighting. Taamu uru.
ReplyDeleteB"H
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
Where was Ariel or Mr. Oliver when Chabad was slaughtering Rav Shach on this blog? Where was their demand for Gedolei yisroel then? The answer is, this is not about Kavod Hatorah--but Kavod for their Rebbe. And Kavod for their Rebbe does not obligate others to not say it like it is. After all, Mr. Olver himself heralded the rebbe as a man of truth who said what was "true," (!!!) even if it was not nice, about the Chazon Ish, of all people. Anonomous made an especially observant, learned comment. There is nothing wrong or obnoxious about it whatsoever.
August 29, 2008 3:29 AM
I don't know why my name is brought up along with R. Oliver regarding this issue.
I have never called for comment censorship on this blog.
It is up to the owner of the blog to decide what kind of enviroment he wants to create around himself and there are certain advantages to both options leaving all comments unmoderated or censoring some comments.
On my own blogs I chose to censor some comments when they are in bad taste however I can understand others who refuse to moderate any comments.
Since this blog is presented as a blog for honest and open discussion it would seem appropriate to only moderate clearly obscene comments that don't contribute anything to search for the truth however it is clearly up to Rabbi Eidensohn to make and enforce such rules and whoever doesn't like it is not forced to read the blog in the 1st place.
1. Unlike one of the poster's insinuations, neither I, nor other Lubavitchers that I know, have any problem with outsiders asking questions about various things they heard about that seem odd to them, but if there is no tone of respect, then don't expect a response.
ReplyDelete2. My emails were prompted by the fact that Rabbi Eidensohn had declared that his purpose in this blog is not wholesale bashing (as is of course the case with certain other blogs, and as he was accused) which increases sinas chinom, but to have meaningful, respectful dialogue in order to resolve issues.
3. I find it a double standard that only aggressively defensive posts by Lubavitchers have been singled out, and several times, by Rabbi Eidensohn for ridicule at their tone, with the conclusion that this reflects upon the whole group, but the same treatment has not been given to the attackers, whose manner is far more rude and whose attacks are far more frequent.
4. I am still unhappy with various posts that Rabbi Eidensohn has chosen to allow through.
5. Thank you for your excellent post, Levi. Perhaps Rabbi Eidensohn will see fit to post it separately.
Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver wrote:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your excellent post, Levi. Perhaps Rabbi Eidensohn will see fit to post it separately.
====================
If Levi wants to expand his excellent comments a bit more I would be glad to post it.