Oh, and thanks for the Definition Gae.
I was gonna use it myself, but I thought Pina might actually know.
(I didnt want to put him down by acting like he's stupid)
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
Pina, you really should look into a laxitive or something because you are completely full of shit. LOL!
Do you actually think I give a damn what the hell you say?
Your posts are just fodder for my amusement.
Get a grip, buy a clue, just stop trying to make yourself look so arrogant and self absorbed.
Moore lies, you support liars. You support those who support war.
Sounds to me like you are exactly what you despise.
I'd vote for Bush just to negate your vote. LOL!
Oh, and thanks for the Definition Gae.
I was gonna use it myself, but I thought Pina might actually know.
(I didnt want to put him down by acting like he's stupid)
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
I've been telling you people for years but no one believes me....
If you watch Pro Wrestling, you will understand how the world works. Inside the squared circle, there is a concept known as "heat." It's more or less a slang term for crowd interest in a particular wrestler. It doesn't matter if they cheer or boo you, so long as you have their attention. More often than not, it's the bad guys that make (or break) the show.
And it's not just wrestling, it's in all forms of entertainment. Why did people watch "Dallas"? Because of J.R. Why do people watch "American Idol"? Because of Simon. Every James Bond film has the same formula; what separates the good ones from the bad ones is not Bond, it's the Bond villain. THE BAD GUYS RULE!!!
I give Moore all the credit in the world. He knows the right group to piss off, and he knows what schtick to play up to get 'em pissed. Right now, he has tremendous "heat" and it shows no sign of slowing.
But in the end, it's important to remember he is but a character, and to that end, he can say what he wants.
Personally, I don't think conservatives should get so bent over him (that's exactly how he made his multi-millions). But at the same time, liberals shouldn't champion him as their savior, either.
It's all schtick, bay-bee.....
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, kinda like people who rant about how wrong it is without actually seeing it.Originally posted by cincygreg:
Arent documentaries supposed to be an unbiased presentation of factual information?
OOPS!
OOPS! indeed.
The Hezbollah now endorese Moores Movie.
Pina, one of the things that makes an interesting debate is the debaters ability to entertain the other's point of view.
In other words, you may not agree with Trav, or Greg, or even me. But to the extent you evangelize Moore's film and by default Moore himself, makes you seem as unwilling to entertain other points of view as you so readily criticize us for (sorry for the butchered sentence).
You're no better than the right Pina.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ July 09, 2004 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Jumper69 ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You hit the nail on the head. I, too, recognize Michael Moore for who he is. He is an entertainer...not a documentarian.Originally posted by Lew:
I've been telling you people for years but no one believes me....
If you watch Pro Wrestling, you will understand how the world works. Inside the squared circle, there is a concept known as "heat." It's more or less a slang term for crowd interest in a particular wrestler. It doesn't matter if they cheer or boo you, so long as you have their attention. More often than not, it's the bad guys that make (or break) the show.
And it's not just wrestling, it's in all forms of entertainment. Why did people watch "Dallas"? Because of J.R. Why do people watch "American Idol"? Because of Simon. Every James Bond film has the same formula; what separates the good ones from the bad ones is not Bond, it's the Bond villain. THE BAD GUYS RULE!!!
I give Moore all the credit in the world. He knows the right group to piss off, and he knows what schtick to play up to get 'em pissed. Right now, he has tremendous "heat" and it shows no sign of slowing.
But in the end, it's important to remember he is but a character, and to that end, he can say what he wants.
Personally, I don't think conservatives should get so bent over him (that's exactly how he made his multi-millions). But at the same time, liberals shouldn't champion him as their savior, either.
It's all schtick, bay-bee.....
Nothing wrong with that. He is who he is. I actually have a perverse admiration of the guy. He's found his niche, he plays it well, he makes his millions.
What I can't stomach are those who see his flicks and hang on every word as if it's gospel truth.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">JumperOriginally posted by Jumper69:
[QB]In other words, you may not agree with Trav, or Greg, or even me. But to the extent you evangelize Moore's film and by default Moore himself, makes you seem as unwilling to entertain other points of view as you so readily criticize us for (sorry for the butchered sentence).
QB]
I may be passionate and very willing to take on people head to head here but I have not "evangelized" moore's film. That is if you are using the term to indicate uncritical promotion of michael or his works.
I have argued for seeing it, I have taken those who are trying to find fault with it to task and demanded that they back up thier claims, and I have said that it is an important and historically significant work and that people should see if for no other reason than that it is so socially powerful.
I cannot remember saying that the film is a paragon of objectivity. It aint. I don't think it should be and I don't think that I have suggested that it is.
What it is though is a documentary by an individual who honestly believes that what he has put on the screen is an accurate reflection of what is going on in the world. Disagree with it if you want to but be ready to back up that disagreement with fact, not fabrication as so many in the right wind propaganda machine are so desperately trying to do right now.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually he's both. Just because his work is passionate and entertaining does not mean that it is not also a documentary. It's geared to impact people at a gut level but the information that it presents is factual and documented. You may not like the choices that moore makes for inclusion not the connections that he makes but then it's not your view of the world that he is presenting.Originally posted by reason:
You hit the nail on the head. I, too, recognize Michael Moore for who he is. He is an entertainer...not a documentarian.
Gae, in another thread, presented the definition of "documentary" as an argument against the movie fitting into that category.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now she didn't include a citation so I can't tell what was there and what is her opinion but I can get the definition from www.dictionary.com which readsMain Entry: 1doc?u?men?ta?ry
Pronunciation: "d?-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now the only point that anyone could reasonably make to support the idea that moores film does not fit this definition would be that he most certainly does editorialize. I contend that all documentaries to one degree or the other do editorialize if in no other way than the choices of material to include or not include and the way those materials are presented.doc?u?men?ta?ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
n. pl. doc?u?men?ta?ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
In the real world there is no such thing as true objectivity. Any work is an expression of opinion with the main difference being the degree to which those opinions are apparent. Moore is very apparent but he also backs up those opinions with documentation.
Now you may not like moore's film and you may contend that facts that he has presented are untrue but they are documented and I believe that moore sees them as factually true. Just because he has chosen to present them powerfully does not in and of itself negate the documentary nature of his work. Nor does anyone's belief that he is wrong.
People are trying to tear the film down in any way possible. It's practically a right wing feeding frenzy. Now I contend that it is a documentary. I also agree with it's content, which critics are still attacking by nitpicking points that aren't even made in the movie. They love to play the almost the truth game and sneak little lies into the mix to base their arguments on.
I have said that people should see for the movie for themselves so that at the very least they can see where the right wing is fabricating arguments against the movie and moore. Relying on second hand information just doesn't cut it as the favorite tactic of the karl rove media machine is to overwhelm the opposition by drowning people in lies via coordinated media attacks, seeing what sticks and then denying that they lied in the first place. The end effect is that people hear the lies so much and so frequently that the begin to accept in uncritically. The old repeat it enough and it becomes true tactic which he is master of.
I only say that people should take a look and see how they are being misled about the movie instead of just saunteering up for thier daily allotment of slop. A couple of bucks to see what everyone is so worried about: priceless.
Pina my man-
you are incorrect in your statement that there is no objective truth. In the realm of Op-Ed, you are correct. But you're discounting the realm of science (or, should I say, the scientific method).
The witnesses who saw the Titanic sink said that the hull broke in two.
Of course, the review board simply discounted this because, let's face it, that can't happen, and those witnesses were delirious anyway, so that theory can't be chucked.
Of course, in 1985 they find the Titanic, in two pieces, far apart, indicating that, yep, she broke in two before she hit bottom. A victory for scientific investigation.
Yes, many of those who are dissecting Moore's film are biased, and will do/say anything to discredit the film. But, at the same time, to the extent that Moore makes factual allegations, those need to withstand scrutiny. And make no mistake- the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the claim, and not on the skeptics to disprove the claim.
I have heard this, but I don't know if it's true- supposedly, Moore interviewed Richard Berg (sp?)but said he left that scene out of the movie out of respect for his family. Problem is, I've also heard that the movie was cut and pressed before Berg was murdered (and oh yeah, he was murdered; spare me this "beheaded" crap).
Like I told you earlier, I still need to see the film, but bottom line is that scenario can be proven/disproven objectively. The first step would be to determine whether Moore did interview Berg. The next step would be to determine whether Moore said he was deleting the scene out of respect for the family. The third step would be to determine when the movie was pressed. If, in fact, the movie was pressed after Moore said he was being respectful to the Berg family, then in plain and simple terms Moore is lying. There's no subjectivity there, he's being an opportunistic liar.
In the alternative, maybe Moore didn't make the statement, or maybe it was made before the film was pressed. That, too, can be proven.
So yeah, there is a lot of subjectivity in all this, but it's wrong to just write everything off as op-ed.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks