Comments on: NYC Tenants In Dispute Over ‘Shabbos’ Elevator

By: yehudayona

yehudayona — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:32:06 +0000

The word elderly was there.

By: Keeves

Keeves — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:21:53 +0000

Thank you, Moderator. If this article really is unchanged, then there’s nothing unclear about it, and I can’t remember why I got confused the first time I read it.

By: working

working — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:19:15 +0000

“Keeves”

The “original” article certainly said “elderly” as you suspected. I was confused when I read it initially. The article makes more sense now. If you look closely between the words “says” and “orthodox” there is an extra space which the editor neglected to delete when they deleted “elderly”.

Moderator, there is no shame in making a mistake; the shame is trying to cover it up and lying about it. We are human. We make mistakes.

Moderators Response: The mistake would be the AP (Associated Press). Once again, the word “elderly” was never added or removed.

By: Keeves

Keeves — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:40:23 +0000

I strongly suspect that YWN has modified this article. The word “elderly” does not appear in it at all anywhere. I am almost positive that it did appear when I first read it a few hours ago, but it is possible that it was never there, and it is actually the #1 post that is confusing us.

Moderators Response: Wrong suspicion.

By: rebari

rebari — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:50:26 +0000

The article here is very unclear but at another website it was much clearer that the “elderly tenants” were not Jewish and were against the Shabbos elevator. The court sided with them. Touro sued in favor of the Yidden that wanted the Shabbos mode.

By: cherrybim

cherrybim — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:22:33 +0000

Huh? I thought Touro College was on our side.

By: ZedekTirdof

ZedekTirdof — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:05:27 +0000

“But rent-stabilized tenants … say the loss of 83 seconds is not acceptable.” So much for unbiased journalism. It is their 83 seconds and they don’t want to give it up for other people. You present that as not nice. You may be right. But they may do their shopping on Saturdays and not want to wait with heavy items. Or use wheelchairs that are hard to navigate in a short time frame. Or whatever. Just be upfront about writing from a bias.

By: gabs911

gabs911 — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:34:34 +0000

am i the only one thats confused?

By: akuperma

akuperma — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:25:10 +0000

Unless there is a law or contract requlating thedetails of the elevator service, the owner is within its rights to do whatever it wants. A government agency telling it what to do would raise all sorts of constitutional issues, since the sovereign can neither support or interfere with the owner’s religious preferences.

By: yehudayona

yehudayona — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:23:49 +0000

There’s something wrong with this article. The state authority has sided with the elderly tenants. The only elderly tenants mentioned are in favor of the Shabbos elevator. Touro says that ruling violates Civil Rights laws and has sued the agency. Is Touro against the Shabbos elevator? I can see that NOT having a Shabbos elevator would violate Civil Rights laws, but how would HAVING one do so?