The latest angry party is a newspaper whose headline the movie doctored: http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

quote:

Originally posted by thormachine:
explain

Ok, I will state this plainly. Michael Moore is a liar. I made a mistake, Michael Moore shouldn't have stayed in college to learn history because he does not yet know the present. Michael Moore is a propaganda machine.

Understand?

quote:

Originally posted by John Galt:
Ok, I will state this plainly. Michael Moore is a liar. I made a mistake, Michael Moore shouldn't have stayed in college to learn history because he does not yet know the present. Michael Moore is a propaganda machine.

Understand?

I understand
-Jesse

And you? Do you KNOW the present? Are you (some bookish fifteen year old who thinks that Abraham Lincoln was a terrible person) more qualified to have an opinion about the present state of the government? could you really say that a movie made by you would be any less (if not more) filled with half truths and inconsistencies?

thor,

We aren't making a movie, and even if we would, we wouldn't plagarize a title from any author.

[This message has been edited by airjesse123 (edited 08-06-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by thormachine:
And you? Do you KNOW the present? Are you (some bookish fifteen year old who thinks that Abraham Lincoln was a terrible person) more qualified to have an opinion about the present state of the government? could you really say that a movie made by you would be any less (if not more) filled with half truths and inconsistencies?

I am aware of the present and have examined it from all angles.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is not a matter of opinion. If it were then the movie would be very short. If it were opinion then he would have said, "Bush sucks...... The end." When you begin supporting your claims then it becomes a claim. If thought false, the one who thinks the person who made the claim is not telling the truth then he provides a counter-claim. This is called an argument. The process continues then neutral parties get to decide which side they believe.

Michael Moore made a false claim, therefore those who recognized his claim a false stood up and made some noise.

If I were to make a movie it would not be full of half truths and inconsistencies. I would make a fictional movie if I were to make a movie. But if I were to make a documentary I would show both sides of the argument and let the viewers decide which side is true.

thank you airjesse for the comment that wasnt asked for and says nothing you havent already said....

did you know that al franken was gonna call his radio show the O' Franken Factor? (making fun of Bill O' Reilly one of the most idiotic bags of steam in the world) But O' Reilly took him to court and was laughed out of the courtroom....

That was just a joke on Franken's part but the fact of the matter is you can't plagarize a part of a title....it simply isnt possible....there arent any laws against it for a good reason....NOBODY CARES...

the ONLY reason why Bradbury would care about him using his title would be for political reasons and he cant do anything about that....

If i wanted to make a book called "Much Ado About Something" there is no way i would be called on plagarism....

"NOBODY CARES..."

Clearly there are people who do though... btw, theft is a crime, but apparently theft of this kind dodges the eyes of the law.

quote:

Originally posted by thormachine:
If i wanted to make a book called "Much Ado About Something" there is no way i would be called on plagarism....

1)Shakespeare=dead as a doorknob
2)You better get your ass on the phone with the primary Shakespeare publisher of "Much Ado About Nothing" / The shakespeare estate Before slandering the title like that. Have some proffessional courtesy.

-j

quote:

Originally posted by thormachine:
thank you airjesse for the comment that wasnt asked for and says nothing you havent already said....

did you know that al franken was gonna call his radio show the O' Franken Factor? (making fun of Bill O' Reilly one of the most idiotic bags of steam in the world) But O' Reilly took him to court and was laughed out of the courtroom....

That was just a joke on Franken's part but the fact of the matter is you can't plagarize a part of a title....it simply isnt possible....there arent any laws against it for a good reason....NOBODY CARES...

the ONLY reason why Bradbury would care about him using his title would be for political reasons and he cant do anything about that....

If i wanted to make a book called "Much Ado About Something" there is no way i would be called on plagarism....

Thormachine,

Please give Airjess a break. After all, did ask for his comments, in your post of 08/06. And you don't say anything you haven't already said, either.

I, for one, get it: you think it's fine and dandy MM used Bradbury's title. I, and many others, don't. (D'oh! Should've just posted Mr. Dark's suggestion: "Asked and answered.")

Could we move on, please?

Best,

Pete

hey pterran!!
thats great!! did you JUST figure that out?? WOW!! if only i had known that...then i wouldnt have gone on all this time thinking that this was a forum where opposing ideas could be given to each other and mulled over!!

silly me.....

cmon, dude.....that is really stupid....

and btw i will never give airjesse a break....i dont give people breaks when they spew crap at me.

1) does that matter?
2) ILL GET ON THE PHONE RIGHT NOW!!! oh wait no i wont because that would be really stupid and no one there would care that i said that comment....and it isnt slander to incorporate previous works of art in your own works.....as Mr. Dark will tell you in his oh so contradictory way....it is perfectly normal for such things to happen!

[This message has been edited by thormachine (edited 08-07-2004).]

Thormachine: Are you getting a bit obssessed with me? I see my name cropping up in posts of yours where we've had no recent exchange. You seem to feel a need to invoke me when I'm not directly involved.

im just using your little slip up to show people in this forum that i am not just some rambling Moore fan....

Feel free to use my "slip-ups" in any way that meets your needs.

John Galt,
much better; Moore appears to have doctored the evidence a bit.
Thor, Moore is not a saint, and shouldn't be considered as one. He too has an agenda. He too may use half-truths. I have to stand by John this time, despite my dislike of just about everything he says.

John, Moore does lie sometimes. That was always known. But while his lies are made to save lives of Americans and the general world publick, Bush's lies are made to do the otherwise. So what if Moore doctored the page a bit? He didn;t end up re-writing the newspaper article, and he didn't end up writing it himslef. he took what was there and re-arranged it for greater effect. Did that kill anybody? No. Did it have an effect? Yes - people now like Bush less. As Bush is the murderer of the innocents, I personally don't mind a white lie or two to kick him out of office. I'll let the Chomsky's do the factual/intellectual battle, and the Moores do the propagandal (is that a word?) and demagogueral (how about this?) battle. This isn't to say, of course, that Moore isn't for the most part factual and correct - he is. And, once again, real footage does not lie. A baby with its guts blown off is a baby with its guts blown off, no matter how much editing is done. Sorry, dude.

Cheers, Translator