20 June 2004, 10:49 PM
cowboy_at_the_fallsget a grip - bill o-reilly was laughed out of court and you will be too
Mr. Bradbury you have proven yourself a great writer. Please don't make a joke out of yourself now by pursuing this nonsensical attack on Michael Moore. You can't win, and you shouldn't either - just ask Bill O'Reilly at Foxnews. He had the gall to sue Al Franken for spoofing his "fair and balanced" shtick. He was laughed out of court. You will be too. Please get a litary grip before you embarass yourself and us, your readers.
21 June 2004, 01:00 AM
Mr. DarkGet your facts right. You're responding to a non-issue. Bradbury has never said he's suing Moore. Nor has he called for the censoring of the movie.
There are two things that convince me many of these posts are coming from the same source:
(1) There has been a recent swarm of postings. This COULD be due to recent publicity about the issue, as Moore, months after Bradbury called him, finally returned Bradbury's call.
(2) The accusations from these postings are all wrong, and they are wrong in the same way. They accuse Bradbury of censoring the movie (he never did). They accuse him of claiming to have a copyright on the title (he never made that claim). They accuse him of arguing against its distribution (he never did).
When grading papers, you can often tell there is cheating when all the "wrong" answers are the same. This is how this swarm has been. They've all made the same accusations -- all of which are false in the same ways and in the same areas.
Again, it could be argued that the press reports are all wrong, and that's why people are wrong in the same way; but the combination of the nature of the swarm and the postings being wrong in the same way, argue for a single source driving these uninformed posts.
21 June 2004, 01:32 AM
tmarieI can understand the rightly venerated Mr. Bradbury's desire to be treated with respect by Michael Moore. Mr. Moore disrespected him by failing to return his call. Presumably, Mr. Moore thought a lot of Mr. Bradbury's work when he chose to use it to inspire his own.
I don't understand the goofy semantic quibbling of the post about cheaters. If the news reports are inaccurate, you can't blame people who write posts based on news reports. . . if the facts in the news are not accurate, it does not imply posters are cheaters, surely? It seems to me that the person who wrote the post about cheaters is a bit anal in his/her interpretations?
And, just for informational purposes, the title of written works is not copyrightable (is that a word?) in this country. Mr. Moore did not use the exact title "Fahrenheit 451" but he would have been free to do so because titles are not copyrightable. But Mr. Moore didn't even do that.
21 June 2004, 07:42 AM
cowboy_at_the_fallsquote:
Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Get your facts right. You're responding to a non-issue. Bradbury has never said he's suing Moore. Nor has he called for the censoring of the movie.
There are two things that convince me many of these posts are coming from the same source:
(1) There has been a recent swarm of postings. This COULD be due to recent publicity about the issue, as Moore, months after Bradbury called him, finally returned Bradbury's call.
(2) The accusations from these postings are all wrong, and they are wrong in the same way. They accuse Bradbury of censoring the movie (he never did). They accuse him of claiming to have a copyright on the title (he never made that claim). They accuse him of arguing against its distribution (he never did).
When grading papers, you can often tell there is cheating when all the "wrong" answers are the same. This is how this swarm has been. They've all made the same accusations -- all of which are false in the same ways and in the same areas.
Again, it could be argued that the press reports are all wrong, and that's why people are wrong in the same way; but the combination of the nature of the swarm and the postings being wrong in the same way, argue for a single source driving these uninformed posts.
21 June 2004, 07:49 AM
cowboy_at_the_fallsAccording to the associated press, Mr. Bradbury "hoped to avoid litigation." I'm no lawyer (applause) but that sounds like a threat to sue to me.
30 June 2004, 03:20 PM
RayBradbury isSenilePerhaps I've underestimated ray,
maybe Mr. Bradbury is starting a new career
as a
Stand Up Comedianhe-he more power to him
[This message has been edited by RayBradbury isSenile (edited 06-30-2004).]
23 July 2004, 11:12 PM
Mr. Darktmarie: you missed the point . . . and I thought it was pretty straightforward.
24 July 2004, 01:50 AM
Nard KordellThese 'suave posters' above (RBiS, cowboy___ and etc... etc) are so above intelligence, so far above it all, that everything is way beneath them.
But Beware! Once their clay feet begin to weigh them down from so high an ultra air, they surely must have prepared friends below to blunt their fall, or find themselves as broken to bits by all the gravity.
None of these deserve an opportunity to post on this board. Their knowledge of the years of respect generated towards Ray is nil. If they had something intelligent to present, I would be amazed!
[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 07-24-2004).]