The Di Tzitung 'Apology'

The 'apology' that isn't for photoshopping Secretary of State Hillary Clinton out of the iconic photo of the White House situation room during the Bin Laden attack is published – in English, on page 67. But an attack on the "rotten heretic lowlife" who exposed the photoshopping is the lead story on page 1.

 

The attack on me, the "rotten heretic lowlife" is on page 1, and can be seen here.

Below is the 'apology' for photoshopping the Clinton picture that was printed on page 67:

Comments

[David]

Its ironic that the whole point of the photo was the killing of the world's most wanted terrorist who had religious fanatic views that would fully endorse the removal of women from photos - just like the Charedim do.

They just don't get it.

[steve]

Chairman Mao Zedong would be proud.

[ZIY]

At least Chabad is more "moderate" & "only" blurs out the faces & figures of women from their mags & websites (Kfar Chabad, Beis Moshiach, COL, Shturem, etc.). Better a blurry female than no female at all...

[ZIY]

http://theantitzemach.blogspot.com/2011/05/blog-post_11.html

Shmarya, here is Hirsh Tzig & his reaction to speaking to "Di Tzeitung" editor, Avrohom Friedman. Hirsh advices Friedman not to call you a "fardorbenem yung," especially since all eyes are on this issue & it does not reflect positively on their community. (Well, too late for that...)

So, Shmarya, did you initially get this story from "Circus Tent" or not??? Or from someone who got it from "Circus Tent"???

[Shmarya]

I got it from someone in Williamsburg who did NOT get it from Tzig.

Past that, Tzig is a liar and it is difficult to trust anything he says.

[ali]

The allegations by some, that Orthodox Judaism denigrates women or does not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel.

I just love how when they're cornered they drop words like slander, libel and (usually) anti-Semite around

I know there are scholars on this site. Will someone please please direct me to an English version of the laws of modesty? Not a paraphrased summary, the actual law. Is it in the Old Testament? Where, exactly, does this originate?

[HT]

you have no shame!

look at the marks on the page!!

I can't believe you did it again.

[ZIY]

Thanks for the clarification, Shmarya. Tzig is touting this as if it came from him... Though I think, timing-wise, he posted it up before you, no? (His initial post is dated May 4; yours is dated May 5.)

In a comment there on CT, someone points out that your scan of "Di Tzeitung" picture is identical to the one at "Circus Tent." I compared them too & they seem to be the same (they both have the exact precise curve of the margin on top & both are cut on the bottom & sides at the same place of text). So either one of you took it from the other, or you both got the same scan from the same source.

In the words of the comment there:

"
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b71f69e2015432348555970c-800wi - his pic [meaning FM]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MBXslLeEJq8/TcHWZCDO8-I/AAAAAAAAGic/hNCs7r9jmKY/s1600/IMAG0396.jpg -your pic [meaning CT]

They look the same to me. Did you actually photograph the copy of the paper? if so, he's toast - at best someone else sent him a copy of your pic and he gave no credit. If you both took it from somewhere, then who knows. "

Hmmm.... So who was first????

[skeptical]

You obviously stole the photo from Hirshel and he could easily prove this by looking at the file. Why do you need to be self aggrandizing at the expense of our friend HT who actually broke a very nice story? Strikes me as selfish and childish.

[HT]

ZIY

I'm surprised you doubt me.

He went and did it again.

[Shmarya]

I don't know. It was sent to me and I posted it.

I made no claims of exclusivity, and the apology itself was made public long before it was printed by Di Tzitung.

Perhaps Tzig should watermark images like this and then we'll all know if they're his.

I post documents and images all the time and have for 7 years. I've used a watermark perhaps 5 times in total. My images are routinely used without attribution by haredi websites and by others.

I don't whine and cry when others do this – and I don't make a big deal out of an image that contains absolutely no new information – except for the page was printed on.

[Shmarya]

Anyway, the closeup definitely is not Tzig's.

And the point of the post is not that it is a non-apology -- I've made that point several times previously.

The point is that it is buried on page 67 while the attack on me for being a "rotten heretic lowlife" is a Page 1 headline.

[ZIY]

Got it. Thanks Shmarya & HT for clarifying. So the way I understand it is that Shmayra found out about this independently of HT (or from a third party who saw it on CT), & then Shmayra used the image (the initial one) that HT posted, for his own story. if this is incorrect please let us know.

Yes, I understand that this thread is specifically about the apology & "fardorbener yung" comment -- but I just wanted to establish the time-line of how this broke story in general.

Thanks again both of you.

[ZIY]

IOW, though the initial photoshopped picture came from HT, a third party sent it to Shmarya (without Shmarya's knowledge that it came from HT?). So HT did break it first, though Shmarya did not get it (directly) from HT. Yes?

[Shmarya]

Assuming HT is telling the truth – which is hard for me to assume after the lies he wrote about me 2 years ago and still refuses to retract or fact check – it is possible that my source got it from someone who took it from Tzig.

All I know is that I got very upset at my source when I read Tzig's comments on an earlier post about this and my source told me that he took it from a third party and knew nothing about Tzig.

I told him that was not acceptable conduct, that whatever he sends me must be sourced and that he can't give me things and make it appear as if they originated with him when in fact he took them from a third party without permission.

If indeed this happened again with a different Williamsburg source for this image, my response to the source will be the same.

All this said, the photoshopped picture went viral from my post, as anyone can easily see because the Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Week blog both cited me as their source, and all of the publications and broadcast reports after that cited either the JW or the JP or me as their source – or they cited no source at all.

So the issue isn't how the photoshopped image went viral. It ma, however, be about who really had it first.

[Dave]

Shmarya, I am sorry and sympathize with you about these people behaving so despicably and calling you vile names. They are an abberration.

[ZIY]

Thanks.

As an aside, when the Lubavitcher Rebetzin passed away in 1988, they printed a picture of her in the papers & in a book. Rabbi Gavriel Tzinner wrote to the Rebbe, protesting this. one of the points the Rebbe made in his response was that if the picture is in black & white it is not prohibited (for the prohibition is to look at the colored clothing the woman is wearing).

I also remember when the Algemeiner Journal printed the Rebbetzin's picture during the week of shivah. When some chasidim in 770 on that Friday night protested to the editor, Gershon Ber Jacobson, that this is not "tzniyusdik," he replied:

"Well, Moshiach [i.e. the Rebbe] is at the verge of revealing himself at any moment, so we need the world to know what the Queen of Moshiach looks like!" (I was there & heard it from his mouth.)

When the Rebbe saw the images of his late wife in that week's Algemeiner, he was happy about it, siding with Gershon Ber, & put down the protests of the chasidim.

PS: The pictures of the rebbetzin printed then were less tzniusdik than the picture of Hilary....

[Shmarya]

As I'm sure you know, there are great pictures of the Rebbetzin with her hair uncovered, etc.

She was Orthoprax at best.

[ZIY]

Yes, though at least one of those pictures were taken on her wedding day BEFORE the wedding.

When I saw the Rebetzin in her later years, she was wearing a dark-blondish wig with a small covering over it. (Though not exactly the same type of pill-box hat that the Satmar women wear over their wigs.)

IIRC, the reason why certain Chabad mags & websites do not have clear images of women is because they want to attract a general chasidic-charedi readership outside of Chabad. So it is for those outsides that they do this, NOT particularly for Chabadniks themselves.

This began when the Kfar Chabad mag started out in the 1980s. Since they wanted to attract readers from, such as, Ger & other groups, they HAD to have a zero tolerance approach to pictures of women.

[copycat]

tzig posted 1 day before
it's obvious that Scotty copycat took it from Tzig
scotty ,i figured that"fardorbener yung" would be a compliment for you coming from these guys
if they were talkig about you they would not be allowed to publish such words

[fyge]

Shmarye you think Hitler would've spared you ? No!

[corn popper]

As I'm sure you know, there are great pictures of the Rebbetzin with her hair uncovered, etc.

She was Orthoprax at best.

Posted by: Shmarya | May 11, 2011 at 08:47 PM

As are most Chabad shluchim

[corn popper]

In summation, perhaps we can agree to the following:

1. RE: The altered photo
A. The Chasidic newspapers could have either not published it at all, or, altered it with a disclaimer.
B. After the fact, a genuine apology with no further mention of who outed them would have sufficed.

2. RE: Jewish attitude towards women
A. It would behoove the observant and certainly the ultra-orthodox community to publicly behave in a manner that reflects true appreciation and respect for women.
B. It would behoove the non-orthodox community to realize that the vast majority of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews indeed do have tremendous respect for the women in their lives.

3. RE: Self imposed standards
A. Every community has the right to impose standards of their choosing regarding tznius or any other issue. They should be well thought out with an eye towards future potential negative repercussions.
B. The ultra-orthodox newspapers and websites have imposed a standard of "no photos of women" in their publications with no exceptions.
The reason is as follows: Ultra orthodox males recognize that they, like all healthy males, have innate sexual desires. As is well known, seeing can lead to desire. Sexual desire for any women other than ones own wife is prohibited according the Shulchan Aruch. Thus, to help reduce the opportunities for their yetzer hora to seduce them into thinking about women (other than their wives) in a sexual manner, they have imposed this standard.

4. RE: Outsiders looking in
A. Non-members of a community that has imposed standards should understand that there was never any intention to impose those private standards upon the Jewish community at large.
B. Non-members should agree that although they may not agree with such standards; nevertheless, they will respect said community and not hold them up to ridicule and public humiliation.

5. RE: Attitudes in general to those of differing belief systems
A. There is an old adage that, "my belief system is perfect;anyone to the right of me is an embarrassing fanatic, anyone to the left of me is a heretic."
B. We may and should debate the issues vigorously and seriously, but avoid personal insults and attacks.

6. RE: Attitudes in general to bad behavior
A. If an issue can TRULY be rectified in private, then there is no need for publicity. Behind the scenes efforts are very often the best method of settling issues. If it can not be truly rectified in private, or in cases of emergency, then all forms of pressure must be brought to bear.
B. It is human to err, and a first time minor offender should not be subjected to a public humiliation.
C. Bad behavior exists across the spectrum.

just my thoughts...

[Barry]

The idea that a 'community' can exist within the general citizenship which can 'impose standards' on its 'membership' which 'non-members' may not criticize is ghettoism which Jews have fought to escape.

The USA grants rights to individuals not communities. If I am not allowed to challenge or educate another citizen then why should I respect his vote.

Anyone have every right to condemn (including through satire) the Ultra Orthodox for disrespecting and oppressing women and try to make them change their ways.

Anyone has the right to suggest that the Ultraorthodox are totalitarian and deceitful by editing photograph shows.

The apology is a farce. The reason they condemn Shmarya as corrupt is because they see him as too American in his attitude to truth and women. The Muncatz Rebbe described the USA as a gateway to hell. Die Zeitung did not have the courage of its conviction to state that this is their view and it is as constitutionally protected as burning the flag.

[Critical minyan]

I found the picture on faCebook, downloaded it and sent it to shmarya. Via email It was on my friends page. I'm not sure where that person got it from. I think she took the pic herself in a gas station.
If shmarya would have gotten it from somebody else he would have attributed it to them.

[seymour]

Shmarye you think Hitler would've spared you ? No!

Posted by: fyge | May 11, 2011 at 10:40 PM

get it out of you stupid head

they people because they where Jews frum had nothing to do with it

another myth they teach the kids in yeshiva

[WoolSilkCotton]

1A:
Agreed.

1B:
The editor should NOT have apologized.

If it is their policy, the editor should have come up with a persuasive and compelling explanation and argument defending that policy.

If indeed the editor realized that his policy is wrong, he should have said "Our policy needs to be revised; it's long overdue. I thank everyone for pointing this out. Changes will be made in our policy effective immediately. No harm or disrespect was ever intended. "

You should have heard Shmuely on Fox News a couple of days ago; you would have learned the right way to handle this.

2A:
Agreed.

2B:
Replace the words 'the vast majority' with 'maybe a few'

3A:
Only applies in cults and isolated compounds run by dictators.

Although standards and values do vary regionally throughout America, those are cultural phenomena not imposed by any 'leaders'.
New rules in a community can only be imposed via democratic and free elections; the ultra-orthodox world does not tolerate democracy. Look at the 'elections' held in Crown Heights; they make people nostalgic for the USSR.

3B:

Mental illness, plain and simple. Find one board-certified psychiatrist who agrees with you.

4A:

They would if they could. How about setting a dumpster on fire, like the frumma in Israel do? I should respect that?

4B:

If you act illegally, immorally, unethically, weird, idiotic, or stupid, we are allowed- since America is a free society- to take you to task, criticize, report you to law enforcement authorities and/or the media, publicize your inappropriate behavior, and otherwise poke fun at you.
Comedy rules apply as to what types of humor are acceptable. Watch tapes of David Chappelle, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Chris Rock for further clarification of what this means.

5A and 5B:

These points have never worked in any frumma community. Read the comments on any VIN thread.
Tell me about 'tolerance' and mutual respect of different opinions and beliefs within any ultra-orthodox community.

6A, 6B, 6C:

These also do not work in the frumma community. The Bais Din is a joke. Ask any agunah or molestation victim.

By the time an issue makes it to FM, all such behind-the-scenes private and quiet efforts have failed.

Corn Popper, you ignored my 5 points from yesterday. Why?

[from Jerusalem]

Maybe the "rotten heretic lowlife" i san apt description of Shmarya Rosenberg -scion of a Jewish mobster!

[Barry]

1A

The altered photo showed that Chassidic paper a) lies b) is sexist and c) breaches copyright. The constitution allows anyone to print lies and be sexist but breaching copyright is unlawful. The furore however that has arisen over the publication relates to the lawful conduct (the lying and sexism) and is therefore political in nature.

1B

Again because the constitution allows for lying (as helpfully pointed out by the editor) one is free to lyingly apologise for a lie by dishonestly pretending to regret telling a lie and one can add a further lie in the apology.
One would have to be pretty naive to accept their apology. The Chassidim do not regret telling lies or being sexist. Neither do they respect the Fardorbener values of the USA (as is their constitutional right) but they lie that they do (as is their constitutional right). If they were honest they should have issued a statement telling their critics that they do not give a damn for their Fardorbener values as regards truth in journalism and womens rights and then pulled out an American flag and set it on fire!

2A
Hareidism is institutionally oppressive of women. They cannot give evidence or be judges and look at their reaction to the idea of 'Rabbas'. They cannot help but be disrespectful to women

2B
The non-orthodox cannot ignore 2A.

3A
Their are no communities in the USA each entitled to impose standards on their members. Their is one community in the USA called US Citizens and it decides what standards to impose on all Americans through Congress by democratic mandate. This equality before the law is the most important outcome of the Enlightenment. True democrats do not recognize any Kahal leadership over ghettoised Jews even though this is what Chassidim want. True democrats realize that the democratic state imposes standards it sees fit on all their citizens whether it comes to education or animal welfare and the Chassidim have no choice but to act in accordance with the states standards if they want to live in that jurisdiction. Chassidim therefore cannot impose anything on anyone but the state can impose anything it wants to on them.

3B Every American is free to ridicule the reason you give for tznius and regard this sexism as being primitive sexual jealousy which is socially harmful and to decide what lawful steps the state should take to end that harm.

4A Those ridiculing the Hareidi view of women are as entitled to be offended by the fact that these backwards views are being imposed on Hareidi children as if they were imposed on any American children. There is no communal right to impose standards as mentioned earlier and any attempt to do so must be fought

4B
Every American be his Jewish or not, is free to hold views contrary to the Shulchan Aruch (especially if they are based on reason) and in exercising his vote can require Jews to act in accordance with that view and does not need to give any excuse for doing so. So Americans can insist that Hareidi children are educated or that stunning is required for slaughtering cattle without having to excuse themselves for belittling halacha. A non Jew is as entitled to hold up halacha to ridicule and humiliation when it makes no sense as a Democrat is entitled to hold the Republican manifesto to ridicule and humiliation where it makes no sense.

5

To say the Hareidi view is primitive and arises from some seriously harmful sexual complexes is not a personal insult.

6
If by private you mean 'within the community' and public you mean 'outside the community' then you are wrong. So for example if I object to Kapparot, I do not need to first 'consult' with Chassidim to get them to change their ways. I am perfectly entitled to go directly to the government to seek a ban. Their is no 'community' for whom I need show any respect other than the general citizenship.

[AVRAHAM WIEDER]

you have to read the big newspaper DER YID ( about 80,000 readers) what they say about SHEMARYA

[Deremes]

"But an attack on the "rotten heretic lowlife" who exposed the photoshopping is the lead story on page 1."

Your sources in Williamsburg is hiding some stuff from you.

In Di Tzitung's editorial they don't mention your name or blog but called you a SHAIGETZ.
Now,don't be a cry baby that he calls you a derogatory name.

Also,they write that they got a phone call from someone who said that he feels bad about the whole brouhaha. He put the picture on his blog and from there someone took it.He didn't expect that something like this will get so viral.
I assume it was Tzig

You tried hard to paint frum Jews like the Taliban's,but besides a few laughs from comedians,its really nothing.
Next,you can take pictures from swimming pools in the Catskills how they build around a Mechitza so men shouldn't be able to look how women swim.It would be a good skit as well.

It just proofs again that you are not what you claim you are.
You claim that all you want is to expose "crime" in the frum community. This wasn't even close to a crime. All you wanted is to paint frum Jews like fools and it didn't work.

I think is was WSC who said that he wouldn't be surprised that someone from the white house called the newspaper.Anyone laughing?

[seymour]

It just proofs again that you are not what you claim you are.
You claim that all you want is to expose "crime" in the frum community. This wasn't even close to a crime. All you wanted is to paint frum Jews like fools and it didn't work.

I think is was WSC who said that he wouldn't be surprised that someone from the white house called the newspaper.Anyone laughing?

Posted by: Deremes | May 12, 2011 at 11:57 AM

of course it was a crime they distorted history

[Deremes]

Posted by: seymour | May 12, 2011 at 01:15 PM

Arrest them,give em a fine.

What do you care about history?
You are distorting Jewish history.

[C S FISHER GABA FOR RABBI A TB]

SHEMARYA is a shame for klall yisruel .we saw again and again his CHAZER FISEL

[chayim heller]

faild messiah has nothing with jewish history only with goyish history

[seymour]

Posted by: seymour | May 12, 2011 at 01:15 PM

Arrest them,give em a fine.

What do you care about history?
You are distorting Jewish history.

Posted by: Deremes | May 12, 2011 at 01:25 PM

I do care about history so mush so that I want it to be truthful and based of concrete evidence. Not on a book that was most likely edited just like this newspaper was. Imagine if FM would not have exposed this lie, kids who's parents get their news from this paper would think and belive only men where involved and repeat that to their children and that is how false history is repeated ultimately, it becomes dogma and cannot be challenged. That is how your view of history was created

My view of history is deducted from the evidence before me. New evidence is found i have to look if that supports my view and if it does not, I need to change my view of history
Your view of history is your belive and if facts do not jive with you view of history you just ignore it. Or better yet say see how smart god is, he is playing tricks, putting out misinformation to test your amunha.

I do not begrudge your belive just remember it is a belive that is why it is called amunha

[seymour]

SHEMARYA is a shame for klall yisruel .we saw again and again his CHAZER FISEL

Posted by: C S FISHER GABA FOR RABBI A TB | May 12, 2011 at 01:31 PM

maybe if the ultra orthodox would behave themselves FM would be out on business.

To bad you guys give him so much to write about. A scandal a day or more.

Just remember whether FM exposes it or not your belive system tells you god knows so activities and scams

[Deremes]

Posted by: seymour | May 12, 2011 at 02:00 PM

You are almost as the revisionist.We went through that before.
Am Yisroel has a very long history and you don't believe in that history.You don't believe in Toras Moshe,Talmud and in what all sages wrote.
So you are the last person to be concerned about history.

Now,how foolish to say that not including the two women in the picture is false history and the kids would think that only men were there,as this is part of the story who was or wasn't in the room.
You really missing something in life that something silly like this concerns you.
Shmarya posted this BIG story to make frum Jews like fools,not because the history part. And silly you really believes that its part of history.
Occupy yourself with something more productive then to be obsessed with the Jewish religion.

[Barry]

In fact some revisionist commentators have stated that just as the photos now produced by Jews of the Situation Room have been doctored, so have photos taken of the liberated concentration camps

[Deremes]

Your point,Barry?

[seymour]

Posted by: seymour | May 12, 2011 at 02:00 PM

You are almost as the revisionist.We went through that before.
Am Yisroel has a very long history and you don't believe in that history.You don't believe in Toras Moshe,Talmud and in what all sages wrote.
So you are the last person to be concerned about history.

Now,how foolish to say that not including the two women in the picture is false history and the kids would think that only men were there,as this is part of the story who was or wasn't in the room.
You really missing something in life that something silly like this concerns you.
Shmarya posted this BIG story to make frum Jews like fools,not because the history part. And silly you really believes that its part of history.
Occupy yourself with something more productive then to be obsessed with the Jewish religion.

Posted by: Deremes | May 12, 2011 at 02:20 PM

Talking to you is like talking to a birther. No matter what evidence comes along what facts come along it does not matter. Since you will not change your belive. Believe comes first and then your try to fit in facts and or evidence.

FM could not make the frummies look like fools their action alone made them look like fools he just exposed it. And confirmed what many people think, you are fools.

Just like exposing molesters and scammers did not make the scammer and molesters their action did that.

I know a very hard concept for some frummies

PS the correct you, you should have said

So you are the last person to be concerned about MY belive in history.

[corn popper]

Barry,
Seig Heil

[seymour]

Posted by: seymour | May 12, 2011 at 02:00 PM

You are almost as the revisionist.We went through that before.
Am Yisroel has a very long history and you don't believe in that history.You don't believe in Toras Moshe,Talmud and in what all sages wrote.

I belive they wrote, but so what they where human and erred that is all. people used to think the earth was flat.

The Talmud thought the sun goes around earth. Where they correct about that they must have been according to you

[seymour]

In fact some revisionist commentators have stated that just as the photos now produced by Jews of the Situation Room have been doctored, so have photos taken of the liberated concentration camps

Posted by: Barry | May 12, 2011 at 02:25 PM

Barry you are wasting your time they have a hard time connecting dots

[jicky]

dont know why you want to have anything to do with yiden? the goyim dont give you any attention ? to bad you are not charming enough

[WoolSilkCotton]

++Barry you are wasting your time they have a hard time connecting dots

Posted by: seymour | May 12, 2011 at 02:47 PM++

Seymour, perfect analysis of that idiotic comment by corn popper 2:42.

[seymour]

deremes

You tried hard to paint frum Jews like the Taliban's,but besides a few laughs from comedians,its really nothing.

are you nuts do a search on Google it was the #1 story in almost every country and news

[WoolSilkCotton]

How ironic that Di Tzeitung itself is founded upon the internal hatreds within Satmar.

The newspaper did not exist until the community was divided by the 2 pseudo-rebbe brothers who cannot get along with each other.

They each wanted their own newspaper to act as their own personal Pravda, and so Di Tzeitung was born.

And meanwhile, we get a lecture from corn popper about how Jews should get along.

BTW, you frumma, read your new legacy on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Situation_Room_(photograph)

[WoolSilkCotton]

Deremes,

At least a quarter of a BILLION people worldwide were laughing at the Satmar the other day.
I wouldn't exactly call that 'nothing'.

And you can be sure it will be kept in media information banks for future use.
We can now thank frumma for lots of new entries into our culture, like the hasidic crystal meth lab, the cruelty of kosher slaughter, Samet and his scams, the groper rabbi on the airplane, and now Satmar and Photoshop.

[seymour]

to Deremes
first a quote from you

You are almost as the revisionist.We went through that before.
Am Yisroel has a very long history and you don't believe in that history.You don't believe in Toras Moshe,Talmud and in what all sages wrote.

_____________________________________

neither do you.

The gemurah says mezhiza pea (sucking during a bris) is need do to medical reason since if one does not do that one can harm child.

This was based on the scientific and medical knowledge of that time. Therefore their advice was good policy.

If the Talmud would of have today knowledge it seems clear they would have prohibited that practice since it can lead to health problem and in extrema cases death.

Nowhere does it say that it is part of the ritual procedure or based of halacha simply it was medicals advice.

However today's rebbies are so dogmatic they will put the health of a baby in the back sit just because something was done like this in previous generation.

The talmudic scholars where not that dogmatic and did not just throw out science and facts just because that was how it is done.

If they would be alive now they would severely reprimand today's rebbies for endangering children and just being plain stupid.

Therefore, I claim your are not following the scholar you say you follow you are a revisionist

[jicky]

TO WoolSilkCotton

If all your info is as correct as the tzeitung was created after the satmar divided you should take first class staright to Belvue

[Deremes]

"How ironic that Di Tzeitung itself is founded upon the internal hatreds within Satmar.

The newspaper did not exist until the community was divided by the 2 pseudo-rebbe brothers who cannot get along with each other.

They each wanted their own newspaper to act as their own personal Pravda, and so Di Tzeitung was born.

And meanwhile, we get a lecture from corn popper about how Jews should get along.

BTW, you frumma, read your new legacy on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Situation_Room_(photograph)

Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | May 12, 2011 at 03:16 PMH"

For once i will take your approach and use some language that you as a college graduate,prefer.

You know shit about the frum community. Even so that you are in the medical field you have no clue how Hatzolah works. Which is not the issue here but just to show you that you now zero.

Di Tzeitung,was NOT founded upon the internal hatreds within Satmar. It was founded probably like 20 years ago.

There are two other newspapers within satmar. One is called Der Yid and other is Der Blatt.The latter was founded when satmar split.

You know one thing about the frum community,they steal,cheat,molest and act like monkeys

[seymour]

You know one thing about the frum community,they steal,cheat,molest and act like monkeys

Posted by: Deremes | May 12, 2011 at 04:34 PM

for once you are correct
that explains some of them

[Deremes]

"Deremes,

At least a quarter of a BILLION people worldwide were laughing at the Satmar the other day.
I wouldn't exactly call that 'nothing'.

And you can be sure it will be kept in media information banks for future use.
We can now thank frumma for lots of new entries into our culture, like the hasidic crystal meth lab, the cruelty of kosher slaughter, Samet and his scams, the groper rabbi on the airplane, and now Satmar and Photoshop.

Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | May 12, 2011 at 03:23 PM"

Listen, when Hitler yms came to power,the first he went after were the upper class Jews the ones who integrated with the German society.
The doctors,lawyers,poets,musicians,politician's. It is they who the goyim feel are their competition. Look as these Jews how they control everything.

They don't laugh at frum Jews at all.And even they do laugh,that kept Jews as Jews in Egypt. Vaukitzi Mipnei Bnai Yisroel the Egyptians couldn't stand the Jews so they didn't befriend them.

They do laugh however how a Jew in spite will try to paint his fellow Jews as Taliban's.
And they also laugh when they see a Jew describing his fellow Jews as monkeys

[Deremes]

seymour,

How would you describe yourself?

A Religious Jew?

A Jew who follows certain laws? If so please say which law?

An Apikoras?

An Atheist?

A Muslim?

A Christian?

Non of the above?

[seymour]

seymour,

How would you describe yourself?

A Religious Jew?

A Jew who follows certain laws? If so please say which law?

An Apikoras?

An Atheist?

A Muslim?

A Christian?

Non of the above?

Posted by: Deremes | May 12, 2011 at 04:55 PM

why don't you just answer a question

I really should not answer that according to the Talmud

since the Talmud say do not care who asks the question, look a t the question.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Big shit if the Satmar split created whichever propaganda newspaper, The Blatt, The Zeitung, The Drek.

The important thing is they were created based upon senseless hatred among so-called Torah Jews, and each newspaper is the propaganda arm for their favorite pseudo-rebbe.

They are all good only for emergency toilet paper.

Deremes, everything to an idiot like you is naziism. Nobody is allowed to disagree with you, or else they are a nazi. You have serious mental illness as well as ignorance. You never even read a book about the Holocaust. All you know is frumma drek you learned from other ignoramouses.

Look at the Hatzoloh website. What they describe is exactly what I said. Some of the responders are not EMTs and some are not paramedics, just schleppers who show up to help. But you cannot admit that you are wrong, because you have trouble with the English language. Go back to your yeshiva and demand a refund on the tuition.

Frumma do not act like monkeys. If they did, they could get jobs in the circus, or act as service animals for disabled people.

Frumma smell like monkeys. The smell provides nothing useful, just a bad stink.

[seymour]

Frumma do not act like monkeys. If they did, they could get jobs in the circus, or act as service animals for disabled people.

Frumma smell like monkeys. The smell provides nothing useful, just a bad stink.

Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | May 12, 2011 at 05:53 PM

for once I will stick up fro frummies.

It is not that they do not bath or have bad bathing habits. They are just like everybody else regarding bathing.

The problem I think is that no matter how many baths one takes if you wear heavy wool winter clothing a coat, and a vest, and wool tzizzies on a hot summer day. One will maybe smell no matter how many baths one takes

[jicky]

seymour

you talk like a first grader the frume stink, my father is a police an also a garbage truck driver,
your IQ is Below Zero

[seymour]

seymour

you talk like a first grader the frume stink, my father is a police an also a garbage truck driver,
your IQ is Below Zero

Posted by: jicky | May 12, 2011 at 06:13 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about

[WoolSilkCotton]

Seymour, my rabbi is Chabad, wears all the usual heavy clothes, but always has pleasant appearance and fresh, with clean clothes.

He is one of the best customers at our local dry cleaners.

He knows that he represents something special out here in the suburbs, and he makes it his business to present himself as a mensch in every way.

Too bad the frumma in question here have no sense that they should represent something special. Their bodies, their clothes, their minds, are all farshtunken and in the gutter. They represent nothing because they are nothing.
I used to think a Torah Jew stands for something special, and should act and appear accordingly. Not so for the frumma. They smell in spirit and in body. Shameful.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Jicky, in what yeshiva did you learn such nice English?

[jicky]

I learned in a Heilige yeshiva where they teach the opposite from you ,why are you saking you think I dont spell Belvue right ?

[WoolSilkCotton]

res ipsa loquitur