Couldn't agree more. These are all false issues that have been addressed ad infinitum here. This is, of course, the problem with Moore -- whatever your politics -- truth is often an inconvenience. Moore is not a documentatarion, he is a propagandist. This is not necessarily evil, but it's important to keep the distinction in mind. This characteristic of blindly moving forward in the face of evidence may be part of why so many of these posters are Moore fans.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-24-2004).]

Actually, Moore is a satirist, which combines elements of the documentarian and the propagandist alongside that of the comedian. The satirist's art consists of starting with a factual basis and then extrapolating situations out to the logical extreme of absurdism. But, to the larger issue at hand, if declaring this a 'false' issue is more palatable to you than admitting that Bradbury may be wrong, so be it.

I would actually like to see the '''Fahrenheit 9/11''' movie.

But I'm afraid I would be totally surrounded by screaming, jeering theater goers who went from the postings of the Bradbury site, to the seats at the theater I was at.

I'm going to go this weekend, I'll email you about it.

Well, Ray Bradbury was wrong about no one going to see the movie, and the person who said Michael Moore would make millions appropriating Ray's title was right: http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/24/news/midcaps/fahrenheit.reut/?cnn=yes

"Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" took in a whopping $21.8 million in its first three days, becoming the first documentary ever to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film."

Excerpted from Yahoo!news site this morning.

Congratulations to Moore, except I wouldn't call it a documentary, exactly. I would note that there were NO significant releases this week, which helped. But, I'll give credit where credit is due. He is an excellent self-promoter.

But don't you think that when you hear that the movie "White Chicks" was in second place, with only about $2 million less, that puts it in a whole different light?

Sweet bleeding Christ. As the droves of Bradbury supporters clash ideologically with the legions of Michael Moore supporters, there seems to be hardly any tolerance here for any outside perspective. For starters, there has been some talk about the difference between Bradbury lifting his titles directly and Moore using Bradbury's title as a basis for the title of his film. What Moore did is not illegal... far from it. Bradbury is not merely a hypocrite, but an insensate dunderwhelp. He seethes in mock disgust at Moore for having dared use the title of his most beloved work. I, for one, will be glad to burn my copy of Bradbury's book, however I think it should be noted that the author is likely suffering from dementia praecox, or else some nightmarish writer's disease. Let's leave the poor guy alone. And for the record, I don't really give a damn what arguments have been "disposed of," pterran. Frankly, you and your worthless ilk are not the authority. If Bradbury didn't contact the ghost of Shakespeare before publishing "Something Wicked This Way Comes," then he really has no authority. Also, calling Moore's film "propaganda" without having seen it is an abject and humiliating expression of unchecked hostility and greenhorn desperation. The film is a bona fide documentary, regardless of its political bias. If you disagree with that, soak your head. There are no works of history, and there never have been. There are works of some historical merit, even some penned by Bradbury, but that isn't the same thing. History is necessarily incomplete, and whether Michael Moore is a propagandist for saying that the Bush family has ties with the Saudis and the Taliban, or that George W. knew about 9/11 before it happened, or otherwise that our president is a terrible, evil, and (for a cheap shot) utterly inarticulate loser, well... let's leave that one for the history books to decide. Yours sincerely, Me.

Interfector,

Welcome and thanks for writing. I�d prepared a fuller response but realized you might construe a counter-argument as being intolerant of outside perspective. Instead, let�s allow your post stand and speak for itself. Trust me: it speaks volumes. Though possibly not in the way you intended.

Best,

Pete

Pterran,

Or should I call you Pterranitza? Your meritmongering and extravagantly inerudite, purposeless quiritations are by anyone's standards incontrovertible proof that any metagrobolized and infinitely bamblustercated wannabe-Internerd with low self-esteem and disgracefully finite semi-cognitive "ability" can, without resortion to pricelessly moronic non-sequiturs and vomitworthy obiter dictum, "compose" what most would doltishly "observe" as an admittedly ineloquent riposte to a publically embarrassing verbal indignity, ahem, such as we have prsently seen.
Shame that you know nothing, no? Do you follow me? Grow a hippocampus like a big crybaby, and further banish yourself, effortlessly, to blithering obscurity. Are you still with me? Hoorah for parviscient ol' you... the quiveringly mindless lickspigot.

Most sincerely yours,

The guy who picks his teeth with insignificant gobemouche like you for a living! Excelsior!

interfector...

...intercedes with slings and arrows from places where indigenous whelps and wasps write, where ''what's thats'' to the ''wishy washies'' and ''waste wallowers'' live, some less in wisdom than chance. There, too, wandering whistlers whistling where one never whistles.

Dare be motes of honor found in this formative body ?

Upsettings tailored by Moore produce but a wink in that mountain made by earthquakes and world shakings, lava and spitting flame, and tumbling avalanches of rock and spewings of thunder. Thus born the prose of long ago summers, and far away Mars, and dark dark circuses at night that undrape evil. Have you missed it all by words with temperatures? Look back. Look back, and see the work. It lines up like shining pillars as far as the eyes can see, and further still, where the heart now sees instead.

Mock one so grand who thrills the hearts of the yet to be born, who someday read and wonder and bring in grander futures? Why complain this fahrenheit distaste?
Forgotten his journey for you?

Whimpering simmering sons and friends and foes alike, not another pedestrian like this will pass so soon. When gone, why see how poor, how poor all truly are.
See, instead, how rich now you are indeed!



[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 06-29-2004).]

Interfector: Big words do not an argument make.

Again, the idea that if an argument has been disposed of doesn't matter to you is a typical Moore characteristic. You should read the other posts and understand the issues, then find out what Ray really said, THEN make a contribution.

If you don't see the difference between using a phrase or title from a classic that's been in the public domain for hundreds of years, and usurping a living writer's work to promote political propoganda, it is difficult to see a basis of discussion.

It's not a legal issue. It's about class. Something Moore has shown over and over again that he doesn't have.

Interfector,

Sigh.

I think I�m being insulted but I�m not really sure. Here�s something you might not know about people like me: simple and direct works best. Your profile says you�re a writer; I�d be willing to bet you�ve heard that advice from an editor before.

Okay, then. Rather than try to cut through the gobbldegook of your last post, let me visit your first post:

You�ve mistaken counter-arguments for intolerance of outside perspective. There are plenty of examples of outside perspective on this site, yours included.

Doesn�t sound like Moore illegally lifted Bradbury�s title. But then that was the accusation made by Moore�s supporters. When Bradbury says he wants his title and book back, he�s not accusing Moore of illegal action. It�s called a metaphor.

Yes, Bradbury has used lines and titles from other writers. Lines and titles of works in the public domain though I�m fairly confident if those writers were alive today, they�d be proud to have their work associated with Bradbury. I�m not sure the same could be said about Moore�s work. Not yet, at least. (You�re right about one thing: I�m not the authority. By implication, that must mean you know who is. Care to share this person�s name? It wouldn�t be you, would it? Naw. Didn�t think so.)

As you say, history will be the judge of Moore�s work. It�s already judged Bradbury�s work, which will be celebrating its 50th anniversary soon. You�d agree that F-451 is a major literary work, wouldn�t you? I mean, Moore certainly does. That�s why he tried to tie in to the title. I just wonder how Moore�s work will be viewed in 50 years.

To some extent, Moore�s work has already been judged by history: he�s already cultivated quite a reputation for being a manipulator of truth. You might not think so but perhaps Bradbury does and, thus, explains why Bradbury didn�t want to be associated with Moore.

You may assert F-9/11 is a �bona fide� documentary but that would differ from Moore�s own characterization. He said the work should be considered an Op-Ed piece.

Nope. Haven�t seen the movie and won�t. I�ve explained my reasons elsewhere but none of them include �unchecked hostility� and �greenhorn desperation,� whatever that is. A disadvantage, I know. You�ll notice, however, that I�ve limited my comments to what I�ve read about the movie and what others have said about it. I�ve never pretended that was a substitute for viewing the movie. It isn�t.

Now, wipe the foam from your lips, reach for your thesaurus, and dazzle us with a response. I, for one, look forward to it.

Best,

Pete

P.S.

Sorry. The Pterranitza reference flew right by me. If it makes you feel better to call me that, feel free. My screen name�s pterran but my real name�s Pete. Be comfortable, is all I insist.

Pete

Ah, such replies do not with frequency occur, as the sodden wailings of people with nothing better to do pick and meander, flail and, sadly for their authors, fade from memory like the flickering of fireflies into the faceless void. If there are any good writers here, I'd love to chat. Elseways, there is little in the way of lexical agility to speak of... is that so much to ask? I never said that "big words" (i.e., any word that you can't understand) make a good argument. I merely implemented their use as a way of insulting my dear friend, Pterraitza. And yes, I knew that your name must be Peter... you've scarcely let anyone forget it, what with your more than three thousand posts to this very forum. I do not care where you go. Would that it were away, for the very sight of your words onscreen is an embarrassment to humankind. Floccinaucinihilipilificated jackanapes!

Do you write to impress or communicate?