As Jewcy regulars know, I have as much of a sense of humour as the next guy, but I don't find this news story the least bit funny. The janitor refusing to help paraplegics trapped in the elevator, or to call 911 when someone had a heart attack? What if that person had died? Really hilarious, huh?

Nor do I find it amusing that the city initially accused the family of not being Jewish. It's not only the janitor who should be fired, but whichever individual(s) made that horrible accusation.

Please understand, Elisa, that I'm not questioning the running of this story. But your choice of title, and your concluding quip about Richard Lewis were in poor taste.

but i think you were imagining this as more of an adrien brody/frank darabont fall-release-for-oscar-consideration production, whereas i was envisioning it fully in the vince vaughn/drew barrymore memorial-day-weekend mold.  

Mr. Nehora I think you need to lighten up a bit. As no one got 'hurt' - it was very funny and I can tell you that in my family, that kind of thing happening is like a gift - it can be used as for a shtick for years. You can get lots of mileage out of that one.

You're both right--I need to lighten up.  To that end, I'm pulling out my DVD of Schindler's List.  What a laugh riot!  Remember that part where Nazis kill Jews?  Hilarious!

I'm beginning to think maybe Jewcy's harsher critics are right.  There's too much flippancy here, too much dismissal, often in rude terms, of even the slightest critiques of articles, too much deliberate contrariness.

Later, folks.  Wonder what's going down at Zeek, Guilt and Pleasure, and other Jewish online projects that don't make fun of everything and everyone?

Michael:

Look at it this way: comedy is often defined as the tragedy of others. I found this story to be nothing short of hilarious based on that very premise. Sure, for the Neumanns it was awful, but for us, to have it reported by a real news agency, the article comes off as Onionesque. Part of the pleasure here for me is trying to imagine what would have happened at my particularly boring bar mitzvah if the janitor engaged in such shenanigans (my uncle Irving would have crushed his head).

As to your assessment that there's "too much flippancy here, too much dismissal, often in rude terms, of even the slightest critiques of articles, too much deliberate contrariness," it sounds like you've just described a Jewish online forum. Or the State of Israel.

And, I gotta say, comparing the Neumann Bar Mitzvah Disaster with the Holocaust is, um, kinda flippant.

Since you mentioned Guilt & Pleasure as a source for more serious fare, take a look at this article, www.guiltandpleasure.com/missjudea, which presents a tragic Jewish tale that is also humorous. Or at least I meant it to be. I don't mean to be self-serving here, but I apparently can't help myself.

"If it bends, it's funny; if it breaks, it's not funny."

(italics mine and alan alda's) 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097123/quotes 

Jeez, what a spaz, huh? It's not such a big deal, and it's clear he didnt get Elisa's Richard Lewis "the ____ from hell" hilarious reference, from Curb Your Enthusiasm.
That being said, I do agree that this site has a tendancy towards cheeky rudeness, not this blog in particular, but in general. I love it, and dont want any of the humor to go, but - regardless of what bloggers everywhere believer - the word "snarky" should not be complimentary.

that on jewcy, whenever i comment on something in a less than positive way, i often feel attacked by the writer. i mean i obviously everyone has a right to speak their mind, but you could be a little more open to the people that take the time to read your work and actually comment.

i understand why michael doesn't think this is funny - and i understand why people do. simple.

we've had several conversations at jewcy HQ about snark, about commentary, about anonymity, and about the difference between attacking and disagreeing.  conclusion: the former is lame and pointless, the latter can be important and healthy. every jewcy writer has his/her own method of dealing with both inappropriate attacks and vital disagreements.  i myself, after learning the hard way that the internet is a stupid place to fight, choose not to engage with ugliness (and ya'll certainly know what internet ugliness looks like).  but disagreement is another story.  

we've also debated whether the author of a post should, as a rule, abstain from dialogue about his/her post.  conclusion: why?  jewcy's a "conversation".  

michael nehora has a valid point.  i don't agree with it, but he's entitled to his opinion.  saying "i feel you, nehora" is part of an empathetic disagreement.  we're not in, like, an internet fight now, are we nehora?   i should hope not.  but if we are, fuck you.  no, i'm kidding.  seriously: kidding.  

but I lost it at the janitor selling the ice back to them.

I agree, though, we writers tend to be harsh with our commenters. Usually this is because said commenters are skulking anonymities with no accountability for their opinions, which they expect us to not only read but respond to. Sometimes, however, old and wearying antagonists haunt the comment threads and we, not being made of the cool mud of the Moldau, succumb to the perils of impatience and anger.

But just when you think the snark and rudeness have grown unbearable, remember: What other magazine lets you kibitz with the contributors like Jewcy lets you kibitz with contributors?

Name one, you fucking fucks.

michael, do you kiss your mother with that mouth

"anonymous" asked you a question, michael!

Makes a sailor sound Victorian.

I'm Vegan now, Elisa. xo