DB is exceedingly dishonest, as I discovered some time ago, in the course of an exchange I had with him in his comments. Prior to that incident I tolerated his warped views; afterward I lost all respect for him, and resolved not to read his blog again. I think I'll make an exception, though, to read about this revealing scandal.

Kishke:

Ditto. As you can see with DB's exchange here on Seraphic Secret, his intellectual dishonesty was ferocious.

1. I wrote that Jews should be wary and look for liberals and the Democratic Party to minimize the danger of an Iranian nuke to Israel.

2. DB immediately pounced on this statement, challenged me to present just one liberal who held such a position.

3. I linked him to an article by Christopher Hitchens that said exactly that. Hitchen's notion being that the genial Iranians would refrain from nuking Israel for fear of also killing Arabs.

Uh-huh. This with a straight face, I assume.

(See: The Eschatology of the 12th Imam for an idea of just how many people, Christians, Jews, Arabs, Kurds, etc. the Iranians would be willing to slaughter in order to obliterate the Zionist State.)

4. DB immediately started looking for "wiggle room" in some of Hitchen's sentences--honestly, DB made no sense at all.

5. Finally, mercifully, DB withdrew from the discussion with the most honest words of the entire exchange: "What do I know?"

With me it was that I accused him of harboring hatred for charedi Jews (which, based on the viciousness of his attacks on them, I believe he does). He challenged to produce even one post in which he denigrates charedim. I immediately produced four, all within a couple of weeks or so, and all referenced from DB's archives, which appear on his sidebar. He refused to look at them (or so he claimed), b/c I had not hot-linked them, and he just didn't have the time to go digging into the archives. (It would have taken him about 30 seconds.) He then repeatedly claimed that I had not provided even a single example, when it was he who refused to address the examples I provided.

Kishke:

Our experiences with the blogger known as DB are structurally the same. I have to admit, when DB's plagiarism first came to my attention this morning I was not the least bit surprised. My only reaction was to blame myself for not spotting it earlier. But then again, I'm not a regular reader of his blog so It would be hard for me to make a strong assessment.

There are others in the Jewish blogosphere who I suspect of plagiarism, but really I don't have the time or inclination to follow up.

And then there are others who publish stories they claim are true, but my writer's gut reaction tells me that they are fiction.

Blogger and friend Joe Shick, The Zionist Conspiracy, and I had a long talk about this about a year ago when he was in LA for Shabbos and was with us for Friday night dinner. He brought up one blogger in particular who published a "true story" that I just knew was fiction.

How do I know?

There are structures to fiction that you come to recognize. Real life does not have these neat acts or closures. Real life is messier, filled with overlapping events. My gut instinct comes from years of writing movies and novels, a life time of watching movies ands reading novels. In short, I know a good (or bad) yarn when I see it.

Beyond the intellectual dishonesty in WHAT he says is the nasty, evil and contemptable WAY he says it. He glories in publicly hurting other people's feelings, even when those people have explicitly asked him to lighten up.

Robert, I didn't think you would get your keyboard dirty by addressing this issue. But I'm glad you did.

Yehupitz:

I spent a good deal of time pondering the issue of whether to write about the DB plagiarism or not. I don't think I would have written on the topic if Treppenwitz had not blogged about it first. In a sense, David, who is the most fair and generous of men (sometimes I believe, too generous) raised some of the same issues that were bothering me, specifically about DB's non-apology.

Obviously, I can be accused of coming down on DB so hard because we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But let me say this loud and clear: I'd come down even harder on a Conservative Republican who was guilty of intellectual theft. Why? Because I hold Conservatives to the highest standards.

It's been my experience that many Liberals are quite loose with the truth, subscribing to the notion that the ends justifies the means--the inevitable result of Marxist/Leninist ideology seeping into the spongy Liberal mind-set.

As for my dirty keyboard... how did you know!?

Emes: I've been meaning to dust for, um, let's see about three months now. Hence, the keyboard is now the lovely color of, er, cigarette ash.

I know, maybe I'll ask the cleaning lady to do it tomorrow. But wait, she doesn't speak English, and I don't speak Spanish, and besides, I'm kind of scared of her. She scowls. At me. A lot.

I would not even begin to suspect people of plagiarizing on blogs...and you say many bloggers' stories end up being fiction. I am utterly surprised -- and naive. But then again, I guess the freedom of speech allowed via blogging is just a means of allowing anything...even someone else's thoughts to appear as the blogger's!

1) i never read dov bear, but if you think he is radical left, you should see the archives of http://orthodoxanarchist.com/

2) i think there are more reasons to post under one's name rather than anonmously, but you bring up a good reason i never considered

3) i went back to read the exchange between you and db. as far whether the iranians would be willing to sacrifice the palestinians:

a) why doesn't he get that these people just don't value life

b) a lesson from the lebanon II war is that hezbollah did not even think twice about striking haifa and the areas of the galil where jews and arabs live in close proximity. any arab caualties were simply written off as martyrs for the cause.

Pearl:

With unfetterd freedom of speech comes the inevitable march of liars and villains. It's up to the rest of us, as David Bogner, Treppenwitz, so eloquently points out, to police our own.

My concern is justice -- and there is no justice without punishment.

The problem is that those dishonest and anonymous bloggers like DB are essentaily beyond any form of meaningful censure.

Ari:

1. Never heard of orthodoxanarchist. Read a few entries; he's just another marginal, narcissistic slacker. He gets attention, much like DB, by being contrary--the true sign of mediocrity.

2. I too understand why some bloggers need to be anonymous, nevertheless, as I point out, this anonymity presents real problems in accountability. The blogosphere, at some point, has to come to grips with it. The DB file would be a good place to start.

3. The exchange on my blog with DB demonstrates why I was confused by the superb quality of some of his posts, and the rank ignorance he displayed in real-time. I should have realized immediately he was a plagiarist. My bad.

Robert, thank you for weighing in. It was good to hear from a writers perspective how affected DBs apology was. I read him previously for the entertainment (Three Stooges caliber), and will therefore probably continue to read him.

Hmmm:

May I suggest that you cease reading DB. May I further suggest that by continuing to read this thief's work you are only rewarding him. Surely you can find other work as entertaining in the Jewish blogosphere. Take a look at othodoxanarchist. He's real hoot.

First of all, as an amateur hack, I am dazzled to be complimented by someone who does this writing thing for a living. Thank you Robert.

But on a much more serious note... I must take 'Hmmmm' to task for the dig at the three stooges. Their brand of entertainment may have seemed the most common form of physical humor; lowbrow slapstick, but their comic genius has stood the test of time. IMHO, none of the sophisticated stand-up, prop and situational comics out there peddling their wares today are worthy (IMHO) to own the box set of three stooges DVDs.

Trepp:

You are very welcome. Though I'm a professional, I look up to your blog and recognize all the hard work you put into writing original and high-quality posts day in and day out. It is I who am dazzled.

Regarding The Three Stooges: boy are you going to hate me for this, but I never much cared for them, never really got their brand of humor.

You know who loves them, considers them cinematic Gods? Our main man Mel Gibson.

I have film geek friends who swear by their work and consider me a complete moron for not getting their work, but what can I say, we all have aesthetic blind spots. Karen still doesn't care--heaves a big dramatic sigh here--for Kurosawa.

The Three Stooges are/were outstanding. Not as good as The Marx Brothers, but they were something special.

Jack:

Huge fan of the Marx Bros. Almost as good as Kurosawa.

Robert - I'm sorry I forgot to email you. I finished my post...

Ezzie:

Great post. I have linked to it in the body of my blog. Thanks so much.

I loved the irony; you quoted a source – which says “whoever attributes his sources brings redemption to the world”, but you neglected to attribute the source: Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbe Chanina.

regards
Ari

Ari:

Thanks so much for being so thorough in the attribution--and for making me look like a complete idiot.

My bad.

Sorry, I was just having fun - I assure you I wrote that with a smile :) Thousands of Rabbis are guilty of the same offense.

Thanks for the (unnecessary) link and compliments.

What I love about blogging is that you could actually go from "unrepentent thief" to "the three Stooges", all in one post.

Hey this Dov Weasel is good! Even though the plagiarism was blatant, he did some good detective work. Maybe he can do some work for me. Lots of DJ's and humor sites cite my daily jokes, but I have a bad feeling a lot don't bother.

Ari:

We got the fun, believe us, we're not that thin-skinned. If we were we would never survive in Hollywood.

BTW, we have looked at your blog and it is impressive. Look for it to appear on our Seraphic Friends blogroll very soon.

Robert –

I just read the Hitchen's column DB was commenting on. (That's the DB comment linked in this post.) I'm sure you don't mean it, but you're being quite unfair to both. Hitchens stood up for removing Sadaam and in doing so broke with almost every friend he ever had. The man stands up for what he believes. Period.

Now, what Hitchen's writes about Lebabnon and Iran is largely true. You know very well the US expected Israel to attack Syria, to topple Assad, to crush Hezbolla. And you know very well Israel screwed up. None of this is exactly a secret.

Further, you must know that the US was and is unprepared to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The Bush administration hoped Israel's proxy war in Lebanon (and, it hoped, Syria) would put Iran in its place and allow the US to deal with Iran's potential nukes through diplomacy.

Let's be honest. Israel failed. The Bush administration failed.

Hitchen's wrote: "To suffer all the consequences of being imperialistic, while acting with all the resolution and consistency and authority of, say, Belgium, is to have failed rather badly."

All DB did is point out what any objective reader familiar with Hitchens would say.

Will Iran risk destroying the Dome of the Rock? Current US and Israeli intelligence says it most likely will not. Hitchens agrees. But this does not mean Hitchens wants Iran to have nuclear capacity or would be comfortable leaving Iran with same. I would wager Hitchens would sooner opt for a military response in this case than allow a nuclear Iran.

Face it. The Bush administration screwed up Iraq. The American people voted and loudly and clearly and rejected the Republicans because of that. (And also because of, let's see, how many corruption scandals?) That screw-up carried over to Iran.

Give Hitchens his due. He stood up for what he belived to be correct and paid a high personal price for that. He still does. Objectively, he's hardly the example that proves your point.

I don't like plagiarism any more than you do. That being said, at least 2 examples in the weasel's email were not plagiarism at all. Another is plagiarism of a source who himself plagiarized from another. Another is almost entirely made up of long biblical and talmudic quotes.

So let's say weasel found 10 instances of plagiarism. That's 10 out of 3000 posts. Are there more? There may be. But don't just say you think so and then not look. Go find them. Either that or accept his apology at face value and be done with it.

Db and I have argued about many things. I agree with, I'd guess, about 20% of what he posts. But, unlike blogs you like, DB allows dissent, alows criticism, allows challenge. He also posts guest posts from people he strongly disagrees with. Do you? No on all counts.

A personal note. I was until very recently a Republican. I worked with Republican officials in Washington, DC during the Regan administration and was at one point asked to join the staff a US (Republican) Senator. But I am disgusted with the corruption in today's Republican party. This is not the party Ronald Regan headed. And pointing out its flaws does not make me a liberal any more than pointing out its flaws makes Christopher Hitchens a proper example to "prove" your point.

Excellent post!

Admittedly, I don't read DB, nor have any intentions of doing so now (controversy notwithstanding). Nevertheless, this incident brings up a number of interesting issues. I think I might play with the legal aspects of it later on.

>DB's writing has seemed to be, um, uneven.

"Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."

Attributed to Samuel Johnson

dovbear is a blog personality. for all you know "he" is a she or is multiple people. You take your mission and his a bit too seriously.

Do you care that the Torah itself falsely attributes its words to Yahweh, when it was really a bunch of ancient tribesmen?

Also, you critcize DB's site, which is your prerogative, but then you link to sites of such low levels of honesty, e.g. NRA and Aish.

I've been an NRA member because I'd like to carry in the city where I live, but they have so much nonsense in their fear-mongering "UN gun ban" crusades and the like.

And Aish has Prager speak at their fundraising banquets, then deletes most of Slifkin's materials from their site after the gedoldumb banned his works. Their dishonesty is palpable.

Were you roped into yiddishkeit by bible code proofs?

So much for "people who prefer to rabble-rouse rather than do the hard work of analysis."

You take the cake in that department, because you wear your silly agenda on your sleeve. We need lessons in analysis from a screenwriter? I hope not.

"a fierce conservative Republican"

You and 5% of the country, down from 75%. That makes you a person who thinks Iraq was about spreading "democracy" and that it was worth the $2Trillion cost. In fact, you are so delusional, you must think the Bush flaks didn't lie about WMD (always hinting that WMD meant nukes, when it could be pawned off as mustard gas later).

I'd say your self-righteous indignation is misplaced. How about looking at your president? You lost a son to disease, what do you think about people who trivialize the loss of others' sons in battle over what? There isn't a soldier there that can articulate what their mission is anymore, yet they have to go on the patrols, as fodder to pot-shot taking arab scum, when they could be home with their parents, or their own families.

Where is your moral outrage at that?

Oh dear, how is one to respond to this nutjob? He accuses Robert of wearing his agenda on his sleeve, yet his every comment leads back to his obsession with the supposed inauthenticity of the Torah. He claims compassion for soldiers, yet has no problem throwing Robert's personal tragedy in his face to make his nonsensical point. He equates an NRA ad campaign with plagiarism, as if there no difference between them. He can't stop foaming at the mouth at the supposed Big Lie of Orthodox Judaism, yet (in the NK comment string) takes Robert to task for not consulting a rav. How is one to respond to this mad bundle of inconsistencies? Well, seeing that there's nothing substantive to respond to; just a whacko flinging whatever stones he sees lying about, it's probably best not to respond at all. Why feed the troll?

I'm not really sure where all the mean-spirited defense of this DovBear comes from. Hey, I never heard of him until yesterday, but I bet I would agree with some of what he wrote/stole. But the guy is a plagiarist, I mean that's not cool. I could agree with 100% and it still wouldn't be cool. Bottom line, I have a huge problem with that and people who don't ID themselves on the Internet. It's one thing if it's a person or site advocating for abuse victims or a person blogging from a repressive country, but otherwise being anonymous is a pretty sure sign of something fishy. Hey, all I do on my blogs is write jokes and assess the fortunes of the Columbia football team, (usually those missions are one in the same), but I still put my name out there.

As far as Robert's moral outrage, all you have to do is look at this blog to see that he makes a case for this war and a lot of other stuff BTA rails against. I don't agree with a lot of it, but it's intellectually honest and I personally am grateful for articulate people who disagree with me. If you fear or loathe such people, there's probably something very wrong with you.

The following will probably be lost on you, BTA, but here goes: If you really believe in something, you will not be threatened or even really angered by those who argue fairly and articulately against you. Look at the worst people in the world today; the terrorists and their supporters and listen to the stuff they say... they deny history, deny facts, etc. etc. You don't even have to know what they do to know they're dangerous. So when someone plagiarizes stuff, I get nervous. Plagiarism is intellectual dishonesty, and if someone has a good point, why does he need to lie?

This is not to say people who argue honestly are always right... but in my book they're worth listening to. And if they challenge my own honest beliefs then so much the better.

Completely engrossing (whose spark won't die down for a while).

Ari, I've seen Orthodox Anarchist. I think he's also affiliated with another dancing-on-the-ruins-of-Western-civilization site, "Jewlicious." This is a little harsh (but I'm trying to be pre-emptive): they make me think of what would happen if a recent Yeshiva U. grad joined the writers' pool at Seinfeld.

I'll read DB closely before choosing whether to spar with him. Let it be said: I have no personal quarrel with him or anyone other blogger -- it's about ideas and values.

"He claims compassion for soldiers, yet has no problem throwing Robert's personal tragedy in his face to make his nonsensical point."

Read it in context. It only is nonsense to you due to your own mental shortcomings. I appealed to whatever sense of compassion he might have for the soldier by relating it to his very public blog topic. This is the same blog, isn't it?

This is the same guy who wants to make the lives miserable not just of netui karta guys, but their entire families, even those living in new york. I'm sorry, but that is the real inconsistency.

Do I care if he asked a Rav? Nope. The point is to show how wrong it is to jump up and down about the morality of plagiarism on an anonymous blog in the first place.

Especially a screenwriter, for whom plagiarism is high art. Their job is to rework cliches just enough to avoid a copyright lawsuit.

I'm not defending Dovbear's plagiarism, I just dislike grandstanding amoral guys who ape Anne coulter at the slightest opportunity.

"Bottom line, I have a huge problem with that and people who don't ID themselves on the Internet. It's one thing if it's a person or site advocating for abuse victims or a person blogging from a repressive country, but otherwise being anonymous is a pretty sure sign of something fishy".

Jake, I have to jump in here, because I blog anonymously, and there is nothing fishy about what I write. I just choose to maintain anonymity because I don't feel it's fair to drag my family into something I choose to do.
I also choose to remain anonymous because of the work I do. I just have fun writing stories about my life that I think others may or may not have fun reading as well. I'm not out to hurt anyone or steal writings from others, etc.

Just setting the record straight for those of us who are just having fun writing, and the only thing fishy about us is the occasional bagel with lox.

Cruisin:

Just by reading your blog, I can't see any nefarious purpose to your decision to remain anonymous. You're not exactly making political or personal attacks. Obviously there are exceptions to the fishy rule.

Shmarya:

The original point was that Hitchens minimized the danger of an Iranian nuke to Israel. That's all. He is, as are many, unaware that the eschatology of the 12th Imam movement is quite willing, anxious even, to nuke even the Temple Mount, seeing this as merely collateral damage in service of the greater mission: destroying Israel and all those wicked Jews. Out of this genocide will arise the living 12th Imam and the new Shia Caliphite. Six or seven million dead Jews and several million dead and glowing Arabs--whom the Iranians hate anyway--is a small price to pay for this Persian paradise.

This might seem irrational to many liberals, but there you go. Hence my discomfort with the Democrats who are so anxious to sit down and chat with these barbarians. The Dems don't have a clue who they are talking to. They think the Iranians are, you know, folks just like us because as that uber-Democrat Rosie teaches us: "They have mothers and fathers."

You seem eager to argue, well, the evils of all American foreign policy of the past 6 years. Alas, this thread is supposed to be about literary theft--or the whacky Three Stooges and the glorious Marx Bros--not Karl.

P.S. You really don't dislike plagiarism as much as I do. On the contrary, you are DB's apologist.

Irina:

You're going to play with the legal aspects?

Of internet plagiarism?

Oh boy, this is going to be good.

If I was DB I'd be scared. I'd be very scared.

Please give us more details.

Yoel:

Great Samuel Johnson quote. Shall I take it personally?

Cruisin Mom:

We hired a team of crack investigators, spent thousands of dollars to burrow into the true identity of the blogger known as: Cruisin' Mom.

We know where you live.
We know where you go for weapons training.
We know where you bake your Babke.
We know about the armed Androids in the basement.

Yes, we do.

Be afraid.
Be very afraid.

We know who you are.

Jake:

Squealing, with statue in hand: "You like me, you really, really like me!"

"Irina:
You're going to play with the legal aspects?
Of internet plagiarism?
Oh boy, this is going to be good.
If I was DB I'd be scared. I'd be very scared.
Please give us more details. "

HAHALOLLOLOLOHAHAHA. Every schoolchild knows there is no such crime as "plagairism" or "cheating" (not ot be confused with fraud and copyright infrigement). Irina is a giant idiot, pay no attention to her.

123:

If anyone is an idiot it is me. I know nothing of copyright law. I was making assumptions. In the future, please adjust your insulting language and boorish attitude. Irina is a friend. This blog is reserved for polite commenters.

http://sicat222.blogspot.com/2006/12/in-which-i-take-on-another-world.html

Here it is! : )

To the commenter "123": I'd suggest you read my entry before making snap judgments about my comments! : )

Robert --

I'm hardly DB's apologist. I pointed out elsewhere as well that evry citation the weasel broght was not plagiarism, and that is true. On DB's blog, the weasal has a guset post where he admits this.

Past that, the idea that this is somehow a liberal v. conservative issue escapes me.

As for Hitchens, I think most impartial observers rereading that post of yours and DB's comments would agree with my take on Hitchens.

What will Iran do? After Israel's abject failure in Lebanon, its refusal to confront Syria and its complete ineptness so clearly shown to all, perhaps Iran will be emboldened. And let's not forget the failure of the US in Iraq, largely because of Rumsfeld's blindness on troop strength and Bush's complete failure to take charge.

You want Iran struck? Who will do it? The disgraced Israeli military? The incompetant Bush administration?

Will the horrible liberals hold Bush back? Please. If they do, it is only because of how poorly he governed when he had control of both houses of congress.

Was DeLay not enough for you? Abramoff? Dozens of others? If Bush had show leadership then rather than cronyism he may have had enogh political capital to save the last elections. He failed because he protected his friends rather than govern.

I believe Iran's reactor must be destroyed. I don't believe Israel will do it and I certainly don't believe Bush and Rice will.

That said, your understanding of the 12th Imam, etc., may be spot on. It also may not be. Surprisingly, people like Hitchens are actually highly educated and well-read. I'm sure he knows all about the 12th imam. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a strain of thought that holds that Iran won't nuke Israel even though Iran holds by the 12th imam.

And perhaps Hitchens, after weighing the evidence, has come down on that side. Hardly a proof of your assertion.

Now, having more than a passing familiaruty with all three Jewish "brother" comedy teams, I would be remiss not to note the third, the Ritz Brothers, who get little attention.

I would also remind you of ALbert Brooks' appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson where he famously did impressions of famous people using food to acheive the effect. He did Curly of the Three Stooges by sniffing black pepper up his nose and then trying to hold a hot baked potato in his hands. Is a video of this in circulation? It's a wonderful bit.

I really don't care much for this topic in general. Dov Bear was very effective in marketing himself successfully when he launched his site in large part by bringing up topics that would generate heat. He was pretty savvy and the result is that he has many readers. This means that he has fans and opponents.

I don't know whether he believes what he writes because I've known him to be cynical at times. For example, Jewlicious (the site where I post anonymously) was mentioned in a NY Times article one day, and lo and behold, Dov Bear appeared that day and the next and prominently commented, although he had been paying us very occasional visits previously.

Having said that, I have three points that I'd like to raise. The first is that plagiarism is unfortunate but until somebody proves that he does it consistently, 10 out of 3000 posts points to fatigue or harried writing, not malice. I make no money writing for Jewlicious, but I gather that Dov Bear also makes no money for his writing. If he doesn't, as I suspect (or very little that covers the bandwidth) does that make these rare instances of plagiarism as serious as they would be for a paid writer?

After all, when the author of this blog has his writing plagiarized, somebody else might earn money that he would otherwise earn for a script or story. This is a very different consequence than somebody who receives no material benefit from plagiarism and is essentially an "amateur."

Let's add to this that as an anonymous person, Dov Bear is unable to reap any benefit from his posting in the real world. Yes, it's true that those who post with their real names can face consequences for doing so in real life, but they can also benefit greatly by doing so. Dov Bear seems to gain little in the real world. This raises the question of how important this all is.

Second, it seems to me after reading some of the discussions about this plagiarism that people tend to fall on the side that fits their politics. Those who agree with Dov Bear's ideas, tend to sympathize and forgive, while many who consider his ideas from a negative perspective appear to be going for the jugular. This diminishes from the arguments both sides are making. For example, in this post the suggestion is made that Dov Bear should take a break from writing for a long time. Why? 2990 posts of original content plus the oodles of comments that he's written in those posts count for nothing? His ideas have enough value to large numbers of people that even if he does copy some, the discussions he generates seem to have value, to elicit participation and to be part of what makes an effective blog. I say this as a very rare reader of his blog.

The final point is addressed primarily to Jeremiah who falsely (m)aligned us at Jewlicious with Orthodox Anarchist. While Mobius, who launched Jewschool and Orthodox Anarchist is an Orthodox, staunchly Left Wing, anti-Zionist (at least this was what he claimed a couple of months ago but may have changed his mind for all I know - I've stopped reading there) blogger who is personally known by most Jewlicious bloggers save for me, Jewlicious was founded by our ck and Laya because of their motivation to put out a different message about Israel than was coming out of Jewschool.

Their sense at the time was that many young Jewish readers have few compelling destinations on the Internet, and Jewschool's anti-Israel message (not necessarily its Leftist perspective as much as it far-Left anti-Zionism) needed to be addressed. Since then, and it's been a couple of years and almost 3000 posts and thousands of comments, a number of other writers, including myself, were asked to join. We now have writers ranging in age from 21 and into their early 40s. Some of us are Orthodox, some are Conservative and some don't feel aligned with any movement. We have men and women - single, attached and married. We each post what we like and do not confer with each other first, which is why you'll also see us debating quite often. Sometimes the place feels young and immature and sometimes I think we offer strong debates and strong content. Although some of our views can lean to the Left, we also have people with views on the Right and we certainly offer a very different range of voices than what comes out of Orthodox Anarchist or Jewschool. While we can be critical of Israel, I think that any of our readers or those who see us post on other sites will agree that our passion for Israel is clearly visible and our love for that country should be plain. In fact, as of a few months from now, only two of our bloggers will be living in North America, because all the others will have made aliyah or have chosen to live there for a while. By the way, we don't make money from this.

bta:

your reference to robert's son was way out of line. and his own blog no less! you have a lot of hutzpah and you should be ashamed of yourself. i guess that's why you hide behind a pseudonym.

tm:

"plagiarism is unfortunate but until somebody proves that he does it consistently, 10 out of 3000 posts points to fatigue or harried writing, not malice."

How do you know it was only 10 times? How do you know he won't do it again?

About ten years ago I was in shul on shabbat listening to a sermon about the raid on Entebbe. The story sounded very familiar. Yes, we all know about Entebee, but this sounded too familiar. I even found myself knowing the rabbi's next word. when I came home i pulled Joseph Telushkin's "Jewish LIteracy" off the shelf and sure enough, the rabbi repeated a chapter verbatim.

I was lucky that I read Telsuhkin, but I have not read every book out there. So after that I never again knew whether he was reading his own sermon or someone else's. How could I really know?

Also, at what point does it become intentional? You say ten times is not enought. Fine. At what point do we say enough is enough.

Finally, the fact that he posts anonymously greatly weakens his position. I may not like orthodox anarchist, but if he were ever caught plagirizing and then swears he won't do it again, I might take him at his word. He is a real peson and I can evaluate his word.

With Dov Bear all we have is the word of . . . wait, who is Dov Bear again?

If I may weigh in regarding anonymity there are many reasons why and they are not necessarily nefarious in nature.

Some of us are interested in an outlet that allows us to share thoughts/ideas that for various reasons may not be comfortable sharing under our real names.

There are risks that we choose not to take as CM said because we do not want to drag our families/friends/loved ones into this.

The net is a funny place. Even some of us anonymous folks have been outed and Dooced. It is a lovely experience, but that is a different post altogether.

In regard to DB, if you don't trust him, like his writing/politics than don't read him. A blog that doesn't receive any traffic/commenters is just a silent scream in cyberspace.

jack:

"Some of us are interested in an outlet that allows us to share thoughts/ideas that for various reasons may not be comfortable sharing under our real names."

there is a difference between posting anonymously in order to speak openly and posting anonymously in order to a) attack others b) be careless

Ari, when your rabbi copied a chapter, he was a paid leader (some would say servant) of the congregation doing his job. Did the job description require that he write his own sermons? Many rabbis use sermon books because they have others strengths. Was the message of the sermon less well received because it was copied?

No.

The sin was in lack of attribution to Telushkin, lack of compensation to Telushkin (a reference to the book, for example, might have elicited some sales), and the misrepresentation of someone else's words as his own.

However, Dov Bear is not on contract, not considered a leader of a community, receives no salary and makes no such claims. He is merely a person who seeks to express ideas and have them discussed. He may need an outlet, he may have a wife or girlfriend he's trying to impress, he may have emotional issues, he may just be an average person who enjoys affecting a large number of people. It is his blog, however, and his right to post what he likes. The court of public opinion seems to have blessed him with a receptive audience. If he has acquired that audience by pilfering the writings of others, chances are they will now leave because the ruse is up. However, if Dov Weasel's analysis was comprehensive and there are "only" 10 - 14 instances of plagiarism out of 3000 posts, clearly Dov Bear is attracting readers because of his abilities. He is an amateur writer putting up his ideas in a "room" on the Internet hoping that people will visit his room, consider the ideas he presents and engage in conversation. Most of the time he presents his own canvas and some rare times he takes out somebody else's canvas and shows it without attribution.

I fail to see the big deal made out of all of this. If he were a writer for the NY Times, I'd understand it, but this is a private person on the Internet. At which point do our obligations as bloggers go beyond our personal morals and take on larger obligations to the public? Isn't that line crossed when we receive material benefit from our work?

One final point about this. On at least one site, I've seen a clear attempt to "out" Dov Bear in real life. In my opinion, that is far more immoral than a small number of plagiarized posts. People need to chill out and put things in perspective.

Great post Robert. When I write something serious on my blog, I sweat every word. Literally. Most professional writers do this, because this is their craft. When someone rips off their work, and does not attribute it, they are stealing something very precious. You have expressed this idea very well, and it explains to others, who may not take their writing as seriously, why this touches a nerve.

When I find a new blog, I usually read for a day or two to check out its "tone". I leave the nasty ranters alone - I don't care how popular they are. I read people who have very different political ideas than my own, IF these ideas are presented intelligently and respectfully. I read DB for two days - and decided that he was in it just to be malicious, and never went back.

Robert-

I agree with the substance of your post, but have a question about one word you used. You called Dov Bear a voice of the "radical" left. Did you mean the religious left or the political left?

If you meant religious, then I may see your point. I don't read DB that often, but have a general idea of why an Orthodox person might call him religiously radical.

But politically, I'd call him a staunch left-winger, not a radical one. Meaning, he's firmly esconced in his left-wing views, and you, as someone with opposing views, can legitimately argue that he's therefore blind to the truth, strange, or whatever. However, being consistently and stubbornly leftist does not make one a RADICAL leftist. If you think he's radical, I have some people in Berkeley I could introduce you to . . .

Hey Robert,

In a desperate attempt I have been plagiarizing for the longest time just to get some notoriety, but no such luck… what does that tell you???

Seriously Dov Is a great Blogger and I would say the same about you. Can it be that you are biased because of his leftist opinions? Why can’t we all just get along? I remember when you didn’t have such nice things to say about me… Remember?

tm:

"Many rabbis use sermon books because they have others strengths."

rca manuals and other "sermon books" are there to inspire and provide ideas and suggestions. not to read from verbatim. i don't know of any rabbi who would admit this is ok, nor do i think this would be condoned in any rabbinical school homiletics class.

if you know a rabbi how does this, let me know because i can do the same job at half price

"Was the message of the sermon less well received because it was copied?"

by me it definately was less well received

"The sin was . . ."

the sin was also genevat da'at

"However, Dov Bear is not on contract, not considered a leader of a community, receives no salary and makes no such claims. He is merely a person who seeks to express ideas and have them discussed."

he can be whatevre he pleases, but his choice does not absolve him of the responsibility to be more responsible.

"The court of public opinion seems to have blessed him with a receptive audience."

all the more reason to hold him to a higher standard of responsibility

"I've seen a clear attempt to "out" Dov Bear in real life"

he can post anonymously if he wishes, but then there is NO reason to give him any benefit of doubt

"and there are "only" 10 - 14 instances of plagiarism out of 3000 posts"

even if i concded all your other points, you have not answered the question that in my mind is of greatest import: how we can know it is only 10-14 posts and that he will never do it again? or are you saying that this is irrelevant and you could not care if he plagirizes every single post?

even if i concded all your other points, you have not answered the question that in my mind is of greatest import: how we can know it is only 10-14 posts and that he will never do it again? or are you saying that this is irrelevant and you could not care if he plagirizes every single post?

What you are really arguing about here is intent. If you believe that he did this accidentally/unintentionally it is easy to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that it is likely that there are a very small number of instances of plagiarism.

If you think that it was intentional than it is hard to believe that these are the only examples.

TM:

"I fail to see the big deal made out of all of this."

Your moral compass is not just broken, but utterly shattered. You do not recognize the difference between right and wrong.

Robert - Based on the emotional exchanges here, it appears you have lanced a boil.

[permit me an impulsive digression - Wash Times editorial this week brilliantly traced Jimmy Carter's ties to the Arabs back to the illegal, unethical bailout of his peanut business by Saudi BCCI Bank with Bert Lance as bagman. For me, it brought to mind the mid seventies when William Safire started (heroically) was sniffing around this scandal and titled one of his reports "Boiling the Lance". People went nuts at his "tastelessness". But I digress...]

With Animal Farm type irony - the blogosphere was supposed to let a thousand new flowers bloom. It has, but at the same time has empowered dishonest scoundrels in a new way, similar to how it has turned "classic" sexual predators into cyber-predators.

Canonist.com (Weiss) has been very articulate on the point that even when the cybersphere brings down a bad apple, making the charges anonymously actually slows down the process of justice.

Even discounting the left-wing, anti-religious bias of some of these clowns, there is no excuse for their intellectual lazyness and intellectual dishonesty.

Many of your readers will be too young to remember, but in 1964 Barry Goldwater got crucified for the line at the GOP Convention: "Extremism in the defense of personal liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Now – I ask you – what is so "radical" about that line?

MAYBE (my theory) Goldwater was being cosmically punished for not saying "As Cicero once said, extremism in the defense of…"

Anyway, Robert - thank you for airing this issue in a manner that discusses it philosophically and not ad hominem. The personalities here are puny and irrelevant. The issues, as you state so well, are important.

Wow, is that how discussions close on this site? A big voice booms down from above and declares who is sinful and who isn't? At least there was a typo there to remind us that the voice is human.

What a silly remark, Robert, even if you disagree with me.

Dov Bear didn't murder anyone. Remember murder? That's bad. He also didn't commit adultery or dishonor his parents. He didn't embezzle and ruin others. He didn't bankrupt a public company or rape somebody. He didn't drive drunk and crash into a person or even, for that matter, endanger anybody.

He did steal, undeniably, and that is bad. I questioned whether there is any material benefit to him from these thefts. The answer, to my knowledge, is "no." Unlike a writer who might steal from you for material gain, Dov Bear's thefts of others' writings seem intended to promote discussion. If there is no material gain and no apparent loss on the part of the original writer, I fail to see how my moral compass is shattered or even broken to not consider this a big deal. I didn't say it's meaningless, I've simply said that it's being blown out of proportion.

I beg to differ about your last line, Judd.

"Your moral compass is not just broken, but utterly shattered. You do not recognize the difference between right and wong."

Before I permanently leave your site, as I plan to today, I want to hopefully disabuse you of your central fallacy- that you get your morals (and therefore your politics and positions on plagiarism or what have you) from your religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Since you no doubt won't buy Dawkin's book, the God Delusion, perhaps you'll take a few minutes to try to undertand yourself by watching Dawkins make clear that religious "values" don't come from religion but from what he terms, the changing moral zeitgeist.

It is a brief and incisive exposition and would finally shut up the Pragers and Medveds and Avrechs (that is, the "pick and choose" Jews)of the world who are wont to beat the bible and call everyone but their ilk "immoral."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZ9JMUFIVqE&mode=related&search=

It's interesting that the last post felt it necessary to slime in one breath Prager, Medved and Avrech - three of the most intellectually honest guys on the Pacific Coast, perhaps even the continental U.S.

The difference is that those three have the humility to contemplate their mortal limitations and share useful insights that help us grow - whereas with Dawkins, to share spiritually sincere insights, we're going to have to wait until (God forbid) he pulls his ripcord and the parachute doesn't open.

One difference I've repeatedly noticed between shall we say right wing and left wing blogs (in the Jewish sphere) is that when the going gets tough the lefties use filthy language. They fall into - or fall BACK into - a really disgusting mindset that undermines any shred of a point they try to make. Nothing says "hillul haShem" faster than scatological or sexual invective - and I hear it a lot.

Chussid:

I confessed in my post that I am biased against DB because of his leftist political opinions. I also said that I would come down even harder on a Conservative if he/she plagiarised.

Those who commit intellectual theft are, at best, untrustworthy creatures, those who make excuses for such behavior are no better.

At the core, both suffer broken moral compasses.

I also said that I would come down even harder on a Conservative if he/she plagiarised.

We await your post about Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.

FTR: Conservatives often diligently critique each other. E.g. David Horowitz's 3700 words on Ann Coulter.

As for plagiarism, it's as non-partisan an issue as you may ever find.

Mea Culpa. (attributed to ? anonymous latin writer ?) It is indeed my laziness that has brought me to read DovBear for cheap fun. I was confessing that I would probably continue to do so, although I should not.

Take 2:
I should never have compared DovBear to The Three Stooges. The Three Stooges wrote original material, and were actually funny. The Marx Brothers were as well. I will allow them both to post on my blog at their will.

The above apology was plagiarized from DovBear. If you do not see any similarity between the two, it is because I had to edit his slightly so as to actually resemble an apology.

I pledge to resist the temptation to read DovBear. I pledge to watch every episode of The Three Stooges that I have not yet seen. Bli Neder of course.

TM:

"Unlike a writer who might steal from you for material gain, Dov Bear's thefts of others' writings seem intended to promote discussion."

theft is theft. please don't justify it because db may (and that's a may with a big quetion mark) have had good intentions.

"If there is no material gain and no apparent loss on the part of the original writer . . ."

i don't know who you are or what your experience is with writing (or any creative/intellectual pursuits). but i'll bet no one has ever stolen your material. otherwise i doubt you would feel this way.

btw, many, many professionals take plagiarism seriously (as some casual googling turned up):

Writer fired earlier this year for plagiarizing from The West Wing:
http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/05/11/writer-at-nbc-sports-fired-for-west-wing-plagiarism/

Plagiarism in the world of television writing:
http://www.dunwich.org/tv/plagiatl.html

MIT’s recommended links on how to cite and use sources:
http://web.mit.edu/writing/Special/citing.html/citing.html

Discussion of plagiarism, with examples:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/ccj2020/apa.htm

From the Wikipedia entry on Lou Grant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Grant_(television_series)
The series also took serious examination of ethical questions in journalism, including plagiarism, checkbook journalism, entrapment of sources, staging news photos, and conflicts of interest that journalists encounter in their work.

If I am not for myself, who is for me? and when I am for myself, what am I? and if not now, when?

(I'm only human -- I'd like to claim credit for that one -- but just to be on the up and up ... it's from this guy.)

Folks, won't you join me in doing as I say and as I do?

Actually Ari, I have had materials I've written plagiarized and I believe it's cost me both financially and career-wise. I've also seen articles in Jewish publications that strongly resemble original material I've posted on Jewlicious. I also, in no way, condoned or condone what Dov Bear has done. I have been trying to argue that it is a relatively minor event.

In any case, I've come here and spoken respectfully. For some reason, I have now been insulted twice in a fairly ugly way by the site owner. I'm done here. Mr. Avrech, if you are an observant Jew, you may wish to consider carefully how you treat your guests, because you are violating our traditions. If you aren't an observant Jew, then forget traditions. Instead, you may wish to consider carefully the rudeness of calling strangers and guests names, not to mention the silliness of approaching others with a supercilious attitude that, well, undermines any sort of moral superiority you're trying to claim. I'll be at Jewlicious when you want to find me around Yom Kippur next year.

Door slam. Grand exit the drama queen. Sheesh, I feel like I'm back on set with another aggrieved actress.

Sarah:

I'll just retrench and settle on a more specific and probably more correct overall label for DB: narcissist.